Castanza

When does personal responsibility come into play? I'm not disagreeing with your point, but I'm also not agreeing with it. My issue with much of the Democratic policies is they want to remove all personal responsibility, accountability and decision making from the process. We shouldn't have a nanny state, yet I agree there probably are some lending practices which are harmful (but shouldn't necessarily be illegal). On the radio the other day some workplace was offering to pay off student debt for signed employment contracts of a specific length of time. I'd imagine there are some shady practices in the fine print there. Is it not just as shady/predatory to make some "taxpayer" foot the bill for others poor decisions? Does that not also fall under predatory/shady lending practices? I didn't force you to take out a loan and I'm also not volunteering my money to pay for your loan. All you're left with is force which is simply predation on a faceless person aka the tax payer.

I think there are two separate issues that some on here are conflating. Global Trade and Free Trade (Free Market System) The first is important and it easily can be elaborated on with the short skit "I Pencil". The second is something that does not currently exist and is the current motivation behind the tariffs. At the end of the day we are fighting government intervention with more government intervention. It's been a long time coming and the chickens finally came home to roost.

I don't trust the US legal system in general. It works sometimes especially when you are middle class and can afford a decent lawyer. Where the legal system breaks down completely is when the defendant is either a police officer, politically connected, very rich, or very poor. The poor get screwed over. If you are poor and the legal system gets you in its sights you are going to jail whether or not you actually did anything. The other 3 groups can do whatever they want and rarely suffer consequences for their actions. And the politically connected are at the top of the food chain. Even if you are very rich, if you are in a position to do real harm to the politically connected your life expectancy is very short indeed. I agree with this. But on the other end of the spectrum we have ambulance chasing lawyers who take ridiculous cases like "I spilled my coffee on myself and it burned me." and sue the hell out of companies for things that should be dismissed as common sense. The exodus of common sense in society has lead to the degradation, corruption, abuse and ultimate failure of our judicial system. And it's happening at an exponential rate.

58k a year may not be quite equivalent to others such as engineers etc. But at the same time teachers are public servants. No public servant job should use salary as the primary "attractant." How about go compare teachers salaries to the average wages of everyone in the cities who pay taxes to support them. You'd find the majority make much less and have much worse benefits (healthcare, guaranteed pension, summers off, tenure, etc) and completely over looking all the social benefits as well. Looking up my old hometown (high paying SD) the average salary was 34k for average citizens while teachers avg salary is 57k and range from 45-71k. That's a big difference and I'd be willing to wager that is a similar ratio wherever you look. I'm sure areas of discrepancy do exist.

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be. Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans? That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate. A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large. Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak. I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce. I suspect tuition would go down, not up. Universities currently have incentives to continually raise tuition to fund internal salaries, various projects, etc. -- the typical bureaucratic incentives. They have been able to raise headline tuition more than inflation because of subsidies arising from federally issued or guaranteed loans. If that subsidy were taken away and the risk of loss were placed on universities, I believe they would find ways to cut tuition costs (and the attendant risk of loss on their guarantees) significantly. The public/private distinction is an issue, and public schools might continue to enjoy a taxpayer subsidy to some extent. But they are also the universities with the lower tuition costs to begin with, and legislators could make any university debt non-recourse to the state, preventing any taxpayer subsidy. I believe this is already the case for most public university systems in the U.S. -- although they are considered arms of the state for many purposes, their debt is not backed by the full faith and credit of the state that sponsors them. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/why-your-first-job-out-of-college-really-really-matters.html My concern would be that incentive's colleges to get jobs for graduates would create a more pay to play employment model. As the article above says 40% of college grads take jobs that don't require a degree. How would universities handle the inevitable lawsuits? Or is that not what you are saying in terms of accountability? I'm not sure what lawsuits you're referring to. Lawsuits on the guarantees? I may have completely misunderstood what you were saying. What I thought you were saying was that if students upon graduation could not find a job would be able to sue the college and put the loan back on them to be paid. What did you mean by accountability/guarantee?

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be. Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans? That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate. A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large. Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak. I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce. I suspect tuition would go down, not up. Universities currently have incentives to continually raise tuition to fund internal salaries, various projects, etc. -- the typical bureaucratic incentives. They have been able to raise headline tuition more than inflation because of subsidies arising from federally issued or guaranteed loans. If that subsidy were taken away and the risk of loss were placed on universities, I believe they would find ways to cut tuition costs (and the attendant risk of loss on their guarantees) significantly. The public/private distinction is an issue, and public schools might continue to enjoy a taxpayer subsidy to some extent. But they are also the universities with the lower tuition costs to begin with, and legislators could make any university debt non-recourse to the state, preventing any taxpayer subsidy. I believe this is already the case for most public university systems in the U.S. -- although they are considered arms of the state for many purposes, their debt is not backed by the full faith and credit of the state that sponsors them. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/why-your-first-job-out-of-college-really-really-matters.html My concern would be that incentive's colleges to get jobs for graduates would create a more pay to play employment model. As the article above says 40% of college grads take jobs that don't require a degree. How would universities handle the inevitable lawsuits? Or is that not what you are saying in terms of accountability?

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be. Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans? That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate. A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large. Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak. I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce.

I distinctly remember sitting in my dorm room wondering why the hell I was paying 20k a year for power points. That's exactly what the majority of courses are. Yeah you get some valuable lab work and get to talk with the professors but the majority of "learning" is done on your own. Youtube can teach you Calc, Chem (minus the lab), Biology, Physics and everything else just as well. The only thing different is it's free and there is no accountability or way to prove you "learned" it. It's easy to see the value of education looking back in history. But looking forward not as much. Seems to be more about making connections and having a piece of paper to market yourself and check off a box.

wow that's great. Must be a really nice cabin at $315 per night vs all the other cabins on Air BNB at less than half of that. Hey that's what my family member told me. I never verified it lol perhaps they embellished. Looking now it actually looks like peak season is more around $230 a night :P So not quite half, but certainly not as high as I mentioned before. My apologies.

A bailout is completely ridiculous and would have a negative effect on the future of education and generations. It's a band-aid solution at best. A bailout is also a huge slap in the face to people who were responsible like myself. I went to college for Petroleum Engineering (2yrs). End of my sophomore year I realized the industry was starting to show signs of slowing. I figured hey, I don't want to be 60k in debt and not have a potential job lined up. So I dropped out and took a year off. To the scoff of my college friends and others I took a job as a lowly UPS driver and busted my butt on 12 hours days. I made pretty good money (I was lucky). I decided to finish school in another program at an online university. I don't believe that the university you go to really matters unless it's an IVY. Well I continued to bust my butt getting up at 4:30 in the morning to study, head to work, get home around 8 and then study a few more hours in the evening. Practically had no weekend etc. But when all was said an done I graduated basically debt free, had a good savings account and a job to hold me over until I found a job. Ended up only taking 2 months to find one that paid the same with way better hours. I'm in better shape than all my friend who WILLINGLY chose to take out enormous loans. I would say financially I'm 4-7 years ahead of most people I graduated with. So a bailout? No, screw that. I payed my way and I'm not paying for anyone elses poor decisions. I'm paying out of pocket for masters right now. I agree with some others on here that one of the most harmful things this education system has done to young American students is tell them "you must go to college." This bailout will do nothing but devalue higher and lower education further. In my opinion this generation needs to learn from their mistakes (whether it was their fault of not). If a bailout is given do you think these parents are more or less likely to push their kids into college at any cost? S many of these "white collar" jobs could be done by smart high school graduates with some basic training. But as it stands now the Bachelors degree seems to be the new GED and the Masters is quickly becoming the new Bachelors. That trend needs to be reversed. __________________________________ Solution? First and foremost I don't believe the govt should be in the business of loans. But being that it exists the system clearly needs reformed. Put stipulations on loans. 1.) Loans should only be given out to HS graduates who have good GPA's. 2.) Bureau of Labor should do studies every so often to see the supply and demand of jobs. Loans should only be given out to students majoring in say top 10 needed careers (RN). 3.) This dependency on govt loans needs to be reduced. I say ween the total number of loans given over a 10 year period until you hit 0. (maybe a it extreme) 4.) State schools shouldn't offer "worthless degrees." If you want a basket weaving degree then you can pay your own way with a private loan at a liberal arts university. 5.) Reform High School and add apprenticeships. Say Katie is good at math and has in interest in engineering. Well maybe starting junior year let her work at a local engineering firm for a few hours. This gives experience and lets employers find possible future employment. Perhaps if this is done some companies would come up with contracts saying "we will pay for your college education if you commit 5 years of post grad employment to us." Not only that it would help create better trained HS students. It could potential reduce this ridiculous barrier (Bachelors Degree) for many of these jobs and bring back merit to a GED. (I understand this might not factor in employment laws etc.) You don't needs a college degree to make a good livings. As it stands now poverty is less than 1% across any ethnicity if you follow these simple rules. 1.) Graduate HS 2.) Don't have a child before graduating HS 3.) Upon graduating HS take any full-time job you can get (can be minimum wage).

A family member of mine bought land up in Sauble Beach Ontario about two years ago. Built a cottage on it. Mortgage is$1k a month (all expenses) and they rent it out Spring -> Fall for about $2200/week. They have had almost every week booked the past year. They live in the states and pay some local company $50ish a week to clean it. There are definitely some niche locations you can find as CorpRaider pointed out.

I'd like to see something like Waste Management. It certainly is expensive right now, but it would branch them out a bit more.

What would be a good instrument for placing such a bet as a retail investor? I remember around 2010 Soros or his proteges made a similar bet on interest rate increases using some derivative instruments, but I forgot what it was and I wouldn't be able to access such instruments anyways. Maybe not a perfect answer to your question but Eurodollar futures could be a decent play with the current ECB climate.

Added to: BERY WFC

Nice call on this!

Didn't Netflix just miss on user growth by a few million? You're absolutely right when you say it's all about content. This "r&d" cost will likely skyrocket as competition increases and the need to push out better content quicker to compete grows. However, I do think Netflix has some pricing leverage on the table that they aren't currently utilizing. How do you feel about FB Libra. The company in general seems to constantly put themselves in the crosshairs of big government. But who knows? I mean Nancy Pelosi does have a bunch of LEAPS. Also have been looking at MSFT. Took a small position when it was in the 90's earlier this year and will certainly add if another opportunity presents itself. Can't really say enough good about Google. They are the gold standard in so many sectors.

+ Berry Had this on my watch for a bit. Finally a good entry point.

Adding to $MO

I get that you think Einhorn is an idiot, a point that has been repeated ad infinitum on this board in recent years. Do you have any actual thoughts on the point he's trying to make here? I thought the Pets.com-Chewy parallel was an interesting one. Of course Einhorn leaves out alot, like that Pets.com was nearly pre-revenue when it IPO'd. Chewy is an actual business. Pets.com was never much more than an idea. More broadly, I think the profitability of selling dog food on the internet is still an open question. Zooplus in Europe looks like it operates around break even. Even more broadly, I agree with Einhorn that many US companies seem priced for something close to perfection. For what it's worth, when I was at UPS I remember whenever the Chewy's contract came up for bid UPS pursued it hard. Dog food deliveries were (for UPS) high margin. Dense heavy product packed in a box as small as possible that was pretty much a recurring monthly shipment. Pet food deliveries were always increasing yoy. Again, from Chewy's perspective can it be profitable? I don't know. All I can say is, the demand seems to be there for the product and delivery service. Customers had nothing but good things to say about it. Women loved not having to pick up 50lb bags at the grocery store. Cat litter is also another big one. That's really interesting, thanks. From Chewy's website FAQ: "Orders over $49 ship free! All other orders ship for a flat rate of $4.95." I wonder how much their average cost to ship a 50lb bag of dog food is? IDK but Amazon will ship a bag costing $26.74 for free. https://www.amazon.com/Purina-Chow-Complete-Food-Bonus/dp/B00PFXFH6O Well if you do a quick shipping quote on UPS website for a 40lb bag (retail $27) 26x16x6 Standard Ground service in state = $28 shipping cost. I used a local Amazon warehouse to my houses address. Things this doesn't address: - Manufacturer -> Amazon cost - 2 Day shipping - Labor fee for packaging, handling in warehouse I don't see how Amazon or any company can pay for the shipping costs on this. Dog food (according to the internet :P) is a low margin product from the manufacturer. - The original manufacturer certainly isn't taking a loss on this - UPS certainly isn't taking a loss (although they are only making pennies) - Amazon almost certainly IS taking a loss and subsidizing the costs.

Whats the reason for the switch? You see more upside with PayPal? Long term yes. Short term also capitulating to any bearish ideas. The original idea was to invest in some recession-resistant dividend paying companies with at least some pricing power. But growth has totally outperformed this idea. Mostly I think I need to move towards a more passive (indexing) option, at least for the near term (3-5 yrs I'd guess). Over the last year I haven't really had the time/energy/pleasure to actually do any investment research, and the results reflect it. Even worse, I haven't really cared... The reality is given my situation (age, net worth) my ROI is higher concentrating on my career than on my portfolio (ROI both in terms of amount and volatility of cash inflows). Something about whole-assing one thing vs. half-assing two things ;D ;D Thanks for the response, always love a good Ron Swanson reference.

Whats the reason for the switch? You see more upside with PayPal?

Kicking myself one month later...who would have thought this was going to keep running?!

With how ridiculous IPO's have been it's becoming tempting to try and make some short term plays with a little bit of cash. Buy a few shares, ride the wave up and dump. Find value where it's at right? :P. I know as soon as I try this I'll get burnt. Looks like more Brk.B it is!

Is it a first mover? We've been ordering cat food and cat litter from Amazon for ages... Amazon has some 1st-party availability issues, but for the things it carries the prices are a bit cheaper than Chewy and shipping is free with Prime (vs $49 spend to get free shipping with Chewy). Chewy has only seen 9% net sales per active customer growth. Not sure if that can be called a great number but it does show some margin of customer "loyalty". The competition basically offers the same deal 30% off for subscribing, exclusive deals and of course free shipping. I'd imagine margin on pet food if low. And it certainly can't be cheap for these companies to front the shipping costs. Does the average consumer even know the difference between Petco, PetSmart and Chewy? Who owns who etc? I doubt it. As far as allegiance goes I bet customers stick with whoever they buy from first. Buying pet supplies is more like a utility payment than anything else. Out of sight out of mind. I don't think it's necessarily first mover that's important. More so first to acquire. Why else would these companies all be offering ridiculous discounts where they are probably losing money? It's all about getting people to sign up.