ERICOPOLY

That's not a bad suggestion, but they're not the only people in the economy getting subsidies. I only care about reducing fructose consumption. This isn't about free trade and tariffs on sugar from other nations... that's a different topic altogether than just health. Getting more sugar imported from overseas sources (relative to domestic sources) in my opinion does not drive down total sugar consumption, so it's not the problem that I'm immediately interested in.. Okay, I'm with you now on the corn subsidies. Our local grocery store just let my wife know that they won't be supplying pasture raised&finished meat any longer until they can find a new supplier. ThunderingHooves.com, their previous supplier, is going out of business. They just can't compete against the corn subsidy. The feedlots feed corn to the animals, loaded in fructose, and the animals create vLDL in their livers so their meat and dairy will clog your arteries. I don't want beef so delicious "it's to die for", I want beef that I can still enjoy when I'm 100. There's all the other things they get from grass too (like beta carotin, omega-3, etc...) I realized today that our increased rates of cancer can only be avoided on a low fructose diet avoiding sweet fruit -- drink unsweetened herbal tea for the antioxidants: The only place in the body where fructose is used (outside of the liver) is by cancer cells. Cancer cells use fructose to propagate. Without fructose, no cancer propagation. Is it any accident of evolution then that while fruits are poisoning us with cancer propagation, they are also simultaneously giving us the antidote? Yes, I mean antioxidants. The fruits evolved with a given balance -- the fruit wants us to eat it in order for us to spread it's seed far and wide, but the fruit doesn't want to kill us in doing so. The longer it keeps us alive, the more fruit we will eat and the more seeds we will spread. Thus, it gives us the antioxidant for selfish reasons. It's a symbiotic relationship. Our seed companies have been cultivating fruits to produce more fructose (because people prefer to purchase sweeter fruits), and this is throwing off the evolutionary balance between the fructose and the antioxidant. So we get more cancer. The only recourse is to either pick my fruit before it ripens (or buy the cheap produce from Safeway full of carcinogenic pesticides), or buy the organic fruit with the carcinogenic imbalance of fructose to antioxidants. I suppose I will eat avocados and get my antioxidant dose by drinking herbal teas without sugar.

So Berkshire Hathaway owns Dairy Queen and significant stakes in Coca Cola, Kraft Foods, Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Costco, and shares of other drug companies... They are making profits via getting you sick, and then selling you drugs for your symptoms. Is this what Ben Franklin meant by "doing well by doing good"? I doubt it. Then they openly discuss their desires to sell Coke into muslim countries that don't drink alcohol. That sounds like growth for their drug stocks to me! At what point does this become immoral? Unethical? He talked once about not wanting to invest in tobacco companies -- this is worse than tobacco. I imagine there is no way that Warren and Charlie realize what they've done.

I kept myself interested for several more hours today thinking about this. It's weird how something "natural" evolved in such a manner that suppresses our satiety, and I don't believe in coincidences when it comes to evolution. So I have a hypothesis: the fruit evolved to produce a sweetener that suppresses satiety so that we'd eat more of it (therefore spreading the seeds at a faster rate). Alternatively, perhaps we just eat more after sugar exposure because our bodies knew that fruits contained less concentrations of calories and thus our appetite evolved to eat a whole lot of them (rather than feeling full after a few bites). Then I read that meals high in protein INCREASE satiety: http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/articles/2009/05/satiety-stuffed-with-protein.aspx That makes sense too -- the appetite evolved to eat less of the foods rich in calories. So preloading the high-protein meal with sugar is a bait and switch game.

That's not a bad suggestion, but they're not the only people in the economy getting subsidies. I only care about reducing fructose consumption. This isn't about free trade and tariffs on sugar from other nations... that's a different topic altogether than just health. Getting more sugar imported from overseas sources (relative to domestic sources) in my opinion does not drive down total sugar consumption, so it's not the problem that I'm immediately interested in.. The Japanese diet is high in carbohydrates -- that didn't present a health problem (prior to WWII). The introduction of sugar presented the health problem. I was being exceeding careful and in doing so totally sidestepped the problem with high fat and high calorie food. That's why I selected a tax based on fructose/fiber ratio and taking into account volume.

Thanks for tips. I will certainly pick that one up given my own experiences with adding omega 3. Incidentally, have you hear of any studies done comparing a population like the Japanese who got the omega 3 through the diet, versus a New Zealander who tries to "cheat" by taking omega-3 supplements? I had a long drive to Sun Peaks today, and did a lot of thinking on that topic. Suppose you eat a big helping of french fries (high omega-6 yet low in omega-3) and then wait twenty minutes and chase it down with omega-3. Does that work? If your cells will take in the omega-6 in the absence of omega-3, will they hold out the "NO VACANCY" sign when the omega-3 comes floating by in the blood stream? Or conversely, suppose you waited longer before taking the supplement. Now all of your cells are holding out the "VACANCY" sign, but this time it's the omega-3 getting gobbled up. How do supplements really work in these systems where the body will accept one in lieu of the other? If you have too high a ratio in reverse (omega-3 to omega-6), what happens? Could you perhaps do even worse harm? I'd love to do research on this kind of thing.

In Washington State we have a guy named Tim Eyeman who fights just about every tax increase and gets voter initiatives started for repealing the tax. Anyways, everybody in the state knows his name. If you search seattletimes.com for the words "Tim Eyeman initiative" you'll get the picture. So anyways, my thinking is that a tax geared around the fiber:fructose ratio while also taking into account volume. Obviously the tax would be heaviest on candy, soft drinks, and juice because of the low fiber content. The reason why I think a fiber:fructose ratio tax would be more effective than Washington State's approach is that the problem isn't just in candy and drinks. There is also a broken incentive structure found in the fresh fruits that are sold. They intentionally cultivate sweeter apples with lower fiber for example. A Golden Delicious apple is to a crab apple as a french bulldog is to a wolf. The tax would encourage producers to cultivate less sweet varieties with more fiber. Watermelon is high in sugar yet low in fiber -- it's going to get more expensive on a relative basis! Want to make the fruit cheaper under the tax? Cultivate them for less sugar and more fiber -- undo a part of the problem. Make it healthy once again to eat a diet rich in fruits -- you shouldn't go to the grave early for eating fruit salad for goodness sakes!!! It also encourages frozen food producers to stop stripping out the fiber on purpose, because that's a big part of the problem once you move away from candy, soft drinks, and juice. Sorry, if it didn't freeze well or cook quickly -- live with it or actually prepare from fresh ingredients and cook (gasp) a meal for a change. The sweet varieties of fruit are sort of like vitamin fortified candy grown on trees. Until then, my favorite fruit has always been avocado anyhow. Now back to my reading -- I had an idea today in the car that exposing kids to sugar early on might make them enjoy alcoholic drinks more later on as adults (the hypglycemic thing). Clearly, somebody has already thought of that so I have found plenty to read about quite easily. The alcoholism runs in families -- but I wonder if it's related to the food on the table. After all, if alcoholics crave sugar it stands to reason that they'd put a ton of sugar on their breakfast cereal, drink lots of juice or soda with meals, coffee with heaps of sweetener, etc... Just a thought, and perhaps garbage... Another random thought: I remember strawberries tasting less sweet as a child because they'd pick them long before they'd produced their full complement of sugar. Today, we bought strawberries from the Costco in Kamloops, BC and they were among the sweetest and best I've ever tasted. It's the middle of fricken winter in Canada folks... I don't remember hunter gatherers flying fresh fruit in by jet during winter (the bullshit argument that fruits are nothing but healthy in large quantities because that's what hunter-gatherers ate).

I have to agree and many thanks to the person who posted the link to the Sugar: The Bitter Truth video. This is actually the most significant thing I've learned in years -- I never liked sugar much (too sweet for me), but never understood it as a poison, until now. I didn't know that consuming fructose would raise my vLDL level, didn't know it would cause gout and hypertension, and I didn't know that food makers strip out the fiber to make it freeze and cook faster. Dammit that's an evil combination! Look, this is all raising the profits of the food makers (High fructose corn syrup is cheap) while it's raising the costs of Medicare and Obamacare. The costs have been externalized. Shareholders of Kraft and Coca Cola are laughing probably because the government is going after the banks instead -- how many people are dead from this financial crisis? How many are sick? This is making me think more about socially responsible investing. Do you care about the money... what matters to you? We talked a bit about lending shares to shorts and some found that unethical, but this goes way beyond that. My suggesting: institute a tax on foods where a healthy balance of sugar to fiber is out of whack. Would this raise the cost of food at the store? Yes. Could people then buy as much house or as much stuff to fill their closet? No. But what's more important in life? What constitutes a standard of living... having more "stuff" or getting sick? I can hear it now... people would argue that such a tax would be "regressive", because it would "hurt" the poorest folks the most (you know, the ones that are dying the fastest from these very foods). Besides, this isn't a nanny state kind of thing. I grew up in a house where certain things were provided free (by my parents). If I "wanted" something, I was free to buy it... with my own money. Unfortunately, much of the external costs of processed foods high in sugar are being provided by our parents (or more precisely, our Uncle Sam). Why can't our Uncle refuse to pay for these costs and just say: "listen up kids, I provide a lot of basic services... but paying for the avoidable consequences of your high sugar and low fiber diet isn't one of them".

Sounds like you are trying to get past first base.

No I haven't. However, you bring up a good point: I have in effect been raising my Vitamin D intake over the past year as I've switched from deli meats to sardines on my daily lunch: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111509588

Here is a good link for the thinking man once you are finished with the horrors of what the sugar and refined carbohydrates did to you: http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/lipid-synthesis.html It's not just the hamburger bun and 32 oz Coke that is hurting your health. I hinted at that earlier in this thread when I pointed out that grass fed beef has a ratio of 2:1 omega-6 to omega-3, whereas grain fed beef (which is what you get at McDonalds) has a ratio of 14:1 -- oh, and it's not just the beef. Grass fed (pastured) dairy has the same advantages over feed lot dairy -- so it's also the cheese you eat at the fast food restaurant and the milk you drink from fast food restaurant that compound your health problems. If you wish to get interested in the evolutionary diet, which ratio do you think we evolved to thrive on? Did we hunt and milk feed-lot animals? By the way, it isn't the quantity you eat of omega-3, it's just the ratio that you intake of omega-6 to omega-3 -- the body will substitute one for the other if you are deficient... and that's when your body & mind start to malfunction. It's a bit unfortunate that the Good Calories Bad Calories book doesn't touch on this. He just talks about "fat", and suggests that fat intake isn't the problem. This might lead you to forget everything bad you've ever heard about fat (if you think weight gain is the only risk to heart disease). I think that would be a mistake Here is a link that you might find interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-6_fatty_acid It's one thing to get thin... I suppose he is tackling one problem at a time. Personally, I already had little problem with weight (I generally don't like sweet foods so I already drink my coffee black and skip dessert). But like I said earlier I was very prone to getting depressed after I moved up north from California to Seattle. This is the first season where the weather and light have gone unnoticed to me, and I don't feel the effects at all -- but then this is the first year that I've switched to a diet high in omega 3 rich meats and paying attention to reduction of foods that are high in omega 6 yet low in omega 3... trying to get the balance down to the evolutionary level where the range is likely 2:1 through 4:1 (it's somewhere in that ballpark). So here is the deal... you might think that eating salmon once or twice a week is going to boost your omega 3 in your diet and therefore take care of things... but if you go and eat french fries (vegetable oil is high in omega-6 and low in omega-3) and a hamburger patty you are rolling back the benefit of the salmon meal. Excerpt from the first link: It is important to denote that when discussing omega-3 fatty acids, their dietary origin is quite important. Omega-3 fats from plants, such as those in flax seed oil, are enriched in ALA. As indicated above, ALA must first be converted to EPA (requiring three independent reactions) and then to DHA (requiring and additional four reactions). Omega-3 fats from fish are enriched in EPA and DHA and thus do not need to undergo the complex conversion steps required of ALA. In addition, the conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA is inefficient in individuals consuming a typical Western diet rich in animal fats. When omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are consumed they are incorporated into cell membranes in all tissues of the body. Because of this fact, dietary changes in the composition of PUFAs can have profound effects on a cell's function because the membrane lipids serve as a source of precursors for the synthesis of important signaling molecules involved in cell growth and development as well as modulation of inflammation. Another important consequence of dietary alteration in fatty acid composition is the fact that omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs compete for incorporation into cell membranes. The most important omega-6 PUFA is arachidonic acid. When cells are stimulated by a variety of external stimuli, arachidonic acid is released from cell membranes through the action of phospholipase A2 (PLA2). The released arachidonate then serves as the precursor for the synthesis of the biologically active eicosanoids, the prostaglandins (PGs), thromboxanes (TXs), and leukotrienes. (LTs) The arachidonate-derived eicosanoids function in diverse biological phenomena such as platelet and leukocyte activation, signaling of pain, induction of bronchoconstriction, and regulation of gastric secretions. These activities are targets of numerous pharmacological agents such as the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), COX-2 inhibitors, and leukotriene antagonists. Dietary omega-3 PUFAs compete with the inflammatory, pyretic (fever), and pain promoting properties imparted by omega-6 PUFAs because they displace arachidonic acid from cell membranes. In addition, omega-3 PUFAs compete with the enzymes that convert arachidonic acid into the biological eicosnaoids (PGs, TXs, and LTs). The net effect of increasing dietary consumption of omega-3 PUFAs, relative to omega-6 PUFAs, is to decrease the potential for monocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils (i.e. leukocytes) to synthesize potent mediators of inflammation and to reduce the ability of platelets to release TXA2, a potent stimulator of the coagulation process. Probably the most important role of the omega-3 PUFAs, EPA and DHA, is that they serve as the precursors for potent anti-inflammatory lipids called resolvins (Rvs) and protectins (PDs). The Rvs exert their anti-inflammatory actions by promoting the resolution of the inflammatory cycle, hence the derivation of their names as resolvins. The resolvins are synthesized either from EPA or DHA. The D series resolvins are derived from DHA and the E series from EPA. An additional anti-inflammatory lipid derived from DHA is protectin D1 (PD1). The E series resolvins reduce inflammation, regulate PMN infiltration by blocking transendothelial migration, reduce dendritic cell function (dendritic cells are potent antigen presenting cells which prime T cell mediated inflammatory responses), regulate IL-12 production and lead to resolution of the inflammatory responses. More information on the synthesis and actions of the Rvs and PDs can be found in the Aspirin page. The omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA have also been shown to be important for normal brain development and function. Several studies have demonstrated that DHA is essential for proper development of the prenatal and postnatal central nervous system. The benefits of EPA appear to be in its effects on behavior and mood. In clinical studies with DHA and EPA there has been good data demonstrating benefit in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, dyspraxia (motor skills disorder), dyslexia, and aggression. In patients with affective disorders consumption of DHA and EPA has confirmed benefits in major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. In addition, some studies have demonstrated promising results in treatment of schizophrenia with some minor benefits in patients with borderline personality disorder. Of significance to these effects of EPA and DHA on cognition, mood and behavior is the fact that administration of omega-3 fatty acid containing phospholipids (such as those present in Krill oils) are significantly better than omega-3 containing triacylglycerides such as those that predominate in fish oils.

Is this similar to the fire that didn't kill the people at the theater, rather it was the crush of people clamoring for the exit? Why is it that I haven't yet been crushed while leaving a theater -- is it because I haven't yet been in one that is on fire? You're right, it makes no sense. He is perhaps expecting a lot of loan growth -- that's all one can come up with to defend Bruce.

1.5% would get you to Bruce's $1 -- Pandit has been saying 1.25% - 1.5% (he said it again today on the conference call). I think the optimism around higher than historical ROA is based on a return to a lower cost funding strategy (leaning more on deposits). They effectively (pre crisis) used high cost debt to buy high yield assets. The Citi Holdings split moves them away from that (liquidating non-core assets for reducing debt as it matures). In doing so the risk of the blowup that you speak of every 10 years is also reduced. Most of their pain came from that risky strategy. And they had concentrated US consumer exposure, which they will no longer have -- geographic diversification ought to help. Anyhow I got into the stock at $3.30 12 months ago, and it's not the same value proposition any longer (that's not all bad news for me though). Interestingly (I only recently realized this), if you had bought the stock at book value 10 years ago (which you couldn't have) you would have actually made a little bit of money even if you are still holding it (counting dividends). Of course, it was trading at 2x book in 2000 -- but today it isn't. I'm just saying that even if the next 10 years look just like the last 10, you won't lose any of your capital (but not making much money is quite painful isn't it?).

Berkowitz' estimate is $1 per share.

I think you can throw in foods with an unnaturally high omega 6 to omega 3 component. For example, grain-fed beef and farm-raised tilapia fish. Farm raised tilapia fish worse than bacon: http://www.wkyc.com/news/health/health_article.aspx?storyid=92741&catid=7 Regarding beef -- this is interesting: http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm You've got to scroll down that link to see the sub-section under the heading “Omega-6 is like a fat producing bomb...” Look at those mice! Meat and dairy products from animals fed a high-grain diet, which is the typical feedlot diet, have up to ten times more omega-6s than products from animals raised on their natural diet of pasture. This study suggests that if we switch to food with a healthy balance of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids, we will be leaner and healthier, and so will our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. Personally, I've noticed a huge difference in my emotional health since I've switched to a diet high in omega 3 -- it is fortunate that I enjoy eating sardines (my wife hates them). This is the first year that I'm not suffering from seasonal affective disorder since I moved to the Seattle area from California in 1997. From that link above: Tilapia has higher levels of potentially detrimental, long-chain, omega-6 fatty acids than 80-percent-lean hamburger, doughnuts and even pork bacon," write the Wake Forest researchers in an article published this month in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. In the United States, tilapia has shown the biggest gains in popularity among seafood, and this trend is expected to continue as consumption is projected to increase from 1.5 million tons in 2003 to 2.5 million tons by 2010, the researchers said.

BTW, I've lost 18lbs in the last two weeks --Eric You must be losing a lot of fluid? Are you bleeding? Fat has about 3,500 (working from memory) calories per pound. In 14 days, you haven't lost 18 lbs of fat.

Junk food is one of those markets where the sellers privatize the profits and socialize the costs.

I'm about to go back to Sydney for a month (leaving Feb 13th). The past few years I've been going to Sydney for a month, but the past two years especially that I've done this trip I have noticed that it's a vacation from the Depression -- you leave North America, then 14 hrs later you are walking off the plane and it's not only the middle of summer, but it's 2006 again! The mood of everyone around you absolutely makes an impact on how you feel. Economically, I am doing great but living in North America I feel like times are bad -- but that's because everybody else is uneasy and I get dragged down by it. But just hop on a jet and you're in Australia where times are booming and unemployment is low -- it's amazing how your own happiness depends on the success and happiness of everyone else.

If a company refuses to answer a question on those grounds it's fairly lame. Never heard of a FAQ?

Me too.

This isn't always true. The cost of being synthetically short versus being synthetically long is sometimes affected by the borrowing costs of a security (when it is heavily shorted). Take SHLD a year ago for example -- you could write a put at-the-money and with the proceeds you could buy two calls at-the-money. Totally out of whack. Write a put for 1x downside and buy a call for 2x upside. This exact scenario was brought to the attention of this board at the time. The world is full of surprises I suppose.

I had 25-30% in 2010. I can't work it out because I'm on the lamest internet speed ever devised in modern times (satellite). The "Disney Magic" ship charges you on time instead of volume downloaded -- for a reason! The Bahamas are nice. I think this is where Tempelton lived? Feels like summer. My 2011 gains (3 days worth) are 8.79% (I'm using SmartMoney.com to track my gains from now on so there is no error from withdrawals). It kind of feels like a blow off top in terms of the speed at which things are going up, but my gains are from C, BAC, and SSW -- none of them are expensive. So I will hold and ride out the ups and downs. Hopefully more ups.

I am happy with my holdings on the merits of their so called "owners earnings"(or my expectations for those earnings) relative to the current price. I don't need any economic growth to get those earnings, I don't need a rebound in retail spending, I don't need housing to go up. I don't even need the share prices to go up -- just the dividends (which are currently exceedingly depressed relative to historical payout ratios).

To get evidence of a bubble, I resort to these three facts: 1) People have been rewarded by leveraging up in property over the past 20 years because the property has gone up at a rapid clip. 2) This game has led to rental yields (before expenses) falling from 8% of property value to just 3.5% 3) So exciting has this game been, that now 12% of Australian households own a rental property, yet 70% of them claim a loss on their tax return. Okay, that's 8.4% of households that are losing money on their property before considering capital gain. How long will those 8.4% hold their properties off the market if prices stall? That's a lot of properties. And once prices slip, where will the support come from? In this country (the US), the experts in the newspapers (who people pay more attention to these days) claim that prices should resort to their long term trend line relative to rents. I think the income tax rate is something like 48% in Australia, so this has made property rental losses more bearable -- they call it "negative gearing"... however it still doesn't count as money in the door, now does it. Wow, imagine their surprise if prices go down 20% and people still tell them it's only half-way over. They are mostly amateurs almost by definition if they think this is even a half-way good idea -- so they'll be turning to the newspapers for information and all they'll get is people like Peter Schiff telling them to prepare for the even larger decline. And he might be right too! Is there more water in the well for Australian real estate? Well, I dunno... the banks now have 55% of their loan portfolios in real estate today vs just 35% twenty years ago. During that time frame, down payments have declined from 20% down to just 3% down. Is there anyone left who doesn't believe this price appreciation is debt fueled? I read that hedge funds (almost certainly only a few of them) in Australia have unloaded their long positions in banks and are starting to short the banks. Ask yourself... why do young people want to buy when they can rent for half the payment? My answer is that they are looking for capital gains. Okay, but what if they are worried about prices slipping? Once the psychology shifts, it shouldn't take too much convincing to get them to understand that this supposed undersupply of housing ought to also put pressure on rent in the same proportion (but it didn't). I tried explaining this to a cousin (who owns multiple rental properties with leverage) but it didn't sink in -- I think if there was a bit of fear it would.

That's true about California, but not all states. Here is an article on the topic: http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/03/real_estate/foreclosure_deficiency_judgement/ In the case of foreclosure, lenders can pursue deficiencies in more than 30 states, including Florida, New York and Texas, according to the U.S. Foreclosure Network, an organization of mortgage law firms. Note that Florida is one of the hardest hit states in the real estate collapse.

Instead of buying the shares, one can write cash-covered deep-in-the-money puts on certain stocks that you intend to own for at least the period of time as the contract. The options market will generally roll the expected dividends into the options premium -- so you are effectively converting the dividend payments of up to the first couple of years of ownership into capital gains (you get assigned the shares when they get put to you, but no tax is due until the shares are sold). There are potential limitations though (like the stock runs up too far and you don't get assigned but instead owe capital gains tax). Depends on how deep-in-the-money the contract is.