Sea Island

I read this and enjoyed it as well, its always amazing to find out that there is nothing new under the sun. A nice companion to that book is one titled, Our Mysterious Panics 1830-1930 by Collman which recounts the myraid of financial panics preceedding stock market crash of 1929

I have heard that the "smart" money is buying LightSquared debt which is publicly traded, anyone else have an idea about how to get long with Phil, perhaps in an asymetrical way? He seems like he is betting the ranch here which is always intriguing,

Today, January 9th, is the last day of a sale that Porter Airlines is running. The rates are reduced by 50% on the flight from Newark, NJ to Toronto Downtown airport. The Toronto downtown airport is significantly more convenient than the international airport.

Berkshire Hathaway currently has 260,000+/- employees at its subsidiaries, does anyone know how many of these are union employees?

Eric are you referring to residential real estate and assuming cash flow is rent that you would otherwise pay which you aren't?

Now, if we use the Depression as a yardstick to measure any "investment", then we might also use Weimar Germany too. Thus even the zero coupon bonds are a terrible investment. The question on the thread wasn't about whether or not a Depression was coming, it was about mild deflation or deflation. I was using the U.S. Depression of th 1930s as one example of why a person's home can be a poor investment for the home owner and for the bank. Obviously you could also look at the past 5 years any number of markets to see the destruction of wealth through residential real estate. Regarding Brian Bradstreet, I asked him what he would do as an individual investor to handle deflation; we know what Fairfax has done on an institutional level. His comments about gold where in the public meeting and I believe he was speaking on behalf of Fairfax so its quite possible that he goes home and swims Scrooge McDuck style in a pile of Krugerrands.

I aksed Brian Bradstreet this question at the AGM, he recommended 30 year zero coupon treasuries as a deflation hedge. He answered without hesitation. He did not say real estate. He also said when asked what is something that we Fairfarx would never own: a brick of gold. As far as the real estate question, during the Depression in the U.S., rents were simply uncollectable and judgements were useless. People do have to live somewhere but they dont have to live there alone. You can fit quite a few families in the average size U.S. house. You will know when its time to look at housing when the owners are tearing down houses/buildings to avoid having to pay real estate taxes. This is what happended to owners without mortgages in the 1930s; those with mortgages just left and lived on the street(gov. housing) or moved in with family. Because of the expenses(taxes, utilities, maintenance) primary residences are a horrible "investment".

What I said was that Trump was the Value exception that proves the value teetotaler rule, although now that I think about it he may have gotten his value religion. The last purchases he has made, golf courses and most recently a 900 acre vineyard in Virginia, have been serious distress sales where the transaction price has been considerably lower than the last asking price. He also flies a vintage boeing 727 which is a great value for space relative to a modern conventional business jet such as a Gulfstream or Bombardier Global Express. I don't know anything about Fragile X and apparently according to the Cundill book not many others do as well.

Now I am going to have to spend a bunch of time looking for a picture of Mittal eating a steak! Thanks,

Cundill contracted Fragil X, which is why he died "early". I believe that Donald J. Trump has stated several times that he does not drink or smoke. He may be the value exception that proves the value drinkers rule? I also read that Tom Ward, SandRidge CEO, likes to eat a steak six nights a week for dinner. Buffett eats lots of cheeseburgers, perhaps a carnivore index would be more instructive than an alchohol index? Show me the manager that has outperformed and is also a vegan,

20% Currently, but agressively adding especially since Mr. Buffett mentioned his elephant gun. This was obviously a thinly vieled reference to Prem Watsa and Fairfax, slightly colonialist/racist in my opinion but its obvious that he plans on buying Fairfax and having Prem and Ajit run berkshire.

Minds are like parachutes, they only function correctly when they are open--J.T. Not to pick a fight with the late, great John Templeton, if Harry is quoting accurately, but part of a parachute's functionality is that it can be packed in a confined package when desired. Its ability to be closed is integral to its functionality. Harry I am interested to know what your role as a fiduciary has to do with stating an exit price for your Netflix investment?

There they go again... Dems try to deflect voter anger toward Wall StreetBy CURT WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Curt Woodward, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 45 mins ago OLYMPIA, Wash. – Patty Murray was stuck. Down in the polls for months and facing a well-known Republican challenger, the three-term Democrat was finding a difficult market for her hard-working-senator sales pitch. Then she started bashing Wall Street and saying her opponent is in the pockets of bankers who want to repeal financial regulations. Now, less than a month before ballots are distributed in Washington's vote-by-mail election, Murray is apparently benefiting from some old-fashioned class warfare. She has gone from essentially being tied with challenger Dino Rossi to leading in the latest round of polls, proving that the 2010 Democratic campaign theme of linking the GOP to Wall Street greed can resonate with voters. Murray started running anti-Wall Street TV ads shortly before the August primary, criticizing Rossi's advocacy of repealing new Wall Street regulations. She began airing another anti-Wall Street commercial this month, followed 10 days later by an ad that pledged support for middle-class tax breaks over favors for big business. One of the ads declares that Rossi is "not on our side" for his stance on Wall Street regulations. Voters in several competitive Senate races are hearing similar arguments. Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak and Republican candidate Pat Toomey have sparred over allegiance to the financial sector — Sestak supported the federal bank bailouts, while Toomey once worked in investment banking. In Missouri, Democrat Robin Carnahan has criticized Republican Rep. Roy Blunt for helping to negotiate bank bailouts and then opposing Democrats' new Wall Street regulations. And in a debate earlier this month, California Sen. Barbara Boxer tore into the $21 million severance package that Republican challenger Carly Fiorina received after she was let go as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard Co. "I don't think we need those Wall Street values right now," Boxer said. There's good reason for Democrats to try a blame-Wall-Street message as they scramble to avoid thumping losses on the campaign trail — the financial sector might be more unpopular than they are. The latest AP-GfK poll, conducted in mid-September, showed that Americans lay heavy blame for the Great Recession on the financial industry and lax regulation of banks. Bankers and financiers also ranked last in August's AP-National Constitution Center poll that tested public confidence in national institutions. Tapping into the anger, Democrats from President Barack Obama on down have been trotting out the blame-the-banks banks mantra as they fight to maintain control of Congress and deflect voter irritation with party. Democrats need Murray to win to keep the Senate, especially if they surrender seats elsewhere as expected. With several weeks left in an already bruising campaign, it's unclear whether Murray's blame-Wall-Street strategy will provide lasting help. But Murray's campaign appears to have rebounded at least temporarily from a difficult summer of ratings below 50 percent — very dangerous territory for any incumbent, especially when insider credentials and Washington clout are no longer strong selling points. A series of polls in recent weeks has put her above 50 percent. Rossi's campaign has a large fundraising disadvantage, crimping its ability to counter Murray's multimillion-dollar ad buying power. But Rossi also took too long to respond, said Seattle-area Republican consultant Chris Vance. "Politics 101: When you're punched, you punch back. And they chose to run soft ads at first," said Vance, who is not working on the Senate race. Rossi has since replied more forcefully, with a TV ad citing Murray's Wall Street bailout vote as part of "an 18-year record of taxing, spending and growing government that's indefensible." Rossi's campaign also points out that Murray has collected plenty of campaign checks from Wall Street donors and other big-business supporters. "If Sen. Murray is as disgusted with Wall Street money as her ads imply, she should return the nearly $555,000 she has received from the securities and investment industry" over her career, Rossi spokeswoman Jennifer Morris said. Murray and Rossi have both taken Wall Street donations, albeit on very different scales. Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows Murray has raised nearly $200,000 from securities and investment employees, their spouses, and industry political action committees during this campaign cycle. That's about 1.7 percent of Murray's total campaign haul of nearly $11.8 million. The totals come from federal reports through late July. Rossi's campaign has raised only about $97,000 from financial-industry sources. That's about 4.8 percent of his total raised, nearly $2 million through late July's reports to the Federal Election Commission. ___

Myth, what happened to your last post, it disappeared?

Do you simple folk in Houston have blind squirrels?

There is nothing in the past 18 months to suggest that this administration is interestred in promoting capitalism here or abroad. If you don't want to take my word for it ask Jack Welch. Ah...don't ask Fred Smith http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/mar/19/fedexs-smith-praises-obama/

In March 2008 Forbes listed his networth at $2.8 billion, but SD was trading at $40 and CHK was at $45. Even if you take his current share position at that price it doesn't get him half way there so he must have some money else where

bronxburnboy: I would like to respond to your comments at length and I will do so at a later date. I just want to say that I have found the overwhelming majority of discourse on this board, political, social, investment etc. to be very thorough and well researched. To imply that this discussion is a "bashing" of Obama, that terms are being "bandied" about or that posters have only their own self interests in mind, is not constructive or factual. :D

2009 18,551,296 Total Comp for Aubrey McClendon(Chesapeake Energy) 2009 4,224,058 Total Comp for Steven Meuller(Southwestern) 2009 12,713,702 Total Comp for Mark Papa(EOG Resources) 2009 9,360,011 Total Comp for Charles Davidson (Noble Energy) 2009 27,168,317 Total Comp for R.W Tillerson(ExxonMobil) 2009 31,401,356 Total Comp for Ray Irani(Occidental Petroleum)

US Chamber of Commerce $651,035,680 American Medical Assn $236,012,500 General Electric $214,234,000 Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $185,063,920 AARP $183,922,064 Above are the top five lobbying spenders from 1998 to 2010. Only one of them is an actual "big business". 96% of US Chamber of Commerce members have fewer than 100 employees. Source of Funds Individual contributions $656,357,572 88% PAC contributions $1,830 0% Candidate self-financing $0 0% Federal Funds $0 0% Other $88,626,223 12% Above is the source of funds for President Obama's 2008 campaign. Obviously campaign finance laws being what they were at that time limited corporate contributions but and now by organization: University of California $1,591,395 Goldman Sachs $994,795 Harvard University $854,747 Microsoft Corp $833,617 Google Inc $803,436 To the extent that big governement exists to serve big business can be limited by the size of the governement. In the past 2 years the size of the US govt. has exlpoded well beyond what is sustainable or desirable and I would much rather be at the mercy of corporate titans than governement bureaucrat. Not to be over simplistic but most of us would rather interface with the worst customer service department of corporation than the best of a governement agency. As for socialism, does anybody remember Joe the Plumber? Remember Obama said he was going to "spread the wealth around". That is using redistributionary forces to achieve social and political justice, that is socialism. That is what the whole health care debate was about. Destroy a system, albeit imperfect, that is serving 280mm reasonably well, to cover 10mm "uninsured" without stopping to ask what right the US government has to compel citizens to purchase health care? Socialism makes everybody equally miserable, that is the objective and that is what is happening. What is 98 weeks of unemployment benefits? Corporatism? Captilism? Redistributive socialism.

Myth, I appreciate the time that you have taken to explain the genesis of Corporatism. A question that nags me though is that the majority of us don't work for large corporations. In the U.S. 51% of working Americans in the 2004 census worked for firms with under 500 employees. So when we talk about corporatism I feel that we aren't talking about nameless, faceless monopolistic entities but about our neighbors, friends and family who chose to strike out on their own start a business and hire some people. Based on the size of these entities, I don't think you can separate the individual from the corporate entity; a typical business owner of this type is as concerned with the well being of his family and community as his with manipulating the market place to deliver to political constituencies. Perhaps much more concerned with the former. I find a pervasive attitude in media is one that lumps all business and employers together when in fact it is the small businesses with under 500 employees that drive the U.S. economy. I also find that many of the economic "experts" in the media and in the current government are academics who have never sullied their hands with running a business. They exhibit a more than mild disdain for those of us that would get involved in business as opposed to government or academia. Why is it obvious to so many of us that Keynesian economic theories are ineffectual but so highly regarded by those in academia and current government?

For me, being active on this board is about learning and I try to keep a very open mind as it easy in the world of money management to become dogmatic and autocratic. Sometimes you have to believe more strongly than anyone else that you are right and be willing to impose that view on others(mgrs., clients, partners etc.). The term "corporatist" is not one that I was aware of until today and while I assume it means one that acts on the behalf of corporate entities I do not believe that it describes Obama. Obama's actions tell us that he believes it is the state above all else. Sometimes manifested in Keynesian economics, sometimes in New Deal Socialism and sometimes in straight government take over: GM et al. Obama doesn't believe in the power of the individual to overcome their own circumstance and by extension doesn't believe in corporations beyond what they can provide him funds to persue his objective of an all powerful state. Obama is a corporatist simply trying to appease a public that is feed up with bailouts

According to South East Asset mgt. they view the compensation as inline with the industry. Nobody can defend the purchase of the maps from Aubrey, that was just silly, it was too much. Ultimately, executive compensation is not a greater indicator of long term value creation.

far he has extended the direct transfer of wealth from State to private hands through TARP: TARP was signed into law by President Bush. health care legislation is a compulsory subsidy to the insurance industry and the other health care monopolies: The health care legislation is designed to have the government replace individual insurers with a "single payer" system. Liberal free enterprise capitalism requires the intervention of government to prevent the concentration of economic power in the hands of monopoly, and to ensure a level playing field for all. There is no such thing as a level playing field for all.

Statism (or etatism) is a term assigned to political movements and trends that are seen as supporting the use of the state to achieve goals, both economic and social. Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.[1][2] Marxism: The dialectical and materialist concept of history — Humankind's history fundamentally is a struggle between social classes. The critique of capitalism — Advocacy of proletarian revolution — I believe that, without assigning value(negative/positive) the above adequately describes Obama's political beliefs. To those of us engaged in capitalism this should be pretty obvious and I believe I understand it pretty well.