captkerosene

I would say that innovation is very dead at BRK. WEB targets industries that don't change. GE makes locomotive engines ... not BNSF.

My absolute first choice would be Bruce Flatt for both CEO and COB. It would cost billions to get him but he'd make it back the first quarter. Think about it, he spends his time managing 80K people and allocating capital. Looks at hundreds of deals every year and has a record that just about equals WEB. Still in his early fifties and looks like he lives on lettuce sandwiches. Eight hour long CC today for BAM's annual investor day. Think about all they've done this year while WEB was snoozing.

I'd rather have Bezos than Gates as Chairman. (You don't know until you ask.) Prem is currently out of favor but I think he'd do a good job too.

I'm a believer that there can be only one person in charge. Buffett has never consulted the BOD regarding an acquisition as far as I know. The BRK BOD is mostly a ceremonial position. Gates is a great resource, but the CEO should be the COB.

Did anyone else notice that WEB doesn't seem to be interested in Gates's opinions on investing in individual companies. Did he even ask Gates about Apple? I don't think so. On CNBC recently someone was asking WEB about Apple and WEB looked over at CM for an opinion on something. Gates was sitting right there and being ignored. Leads me to believe WEB might think of BG as a one trick pony.

Had dinner with a friend last night who is acting as a surrogate mother. The adoptive parents chose an Indian engineer/Chinese mother donor combination for their child. They also can choose the sex of the child ahead of time. The fertility doc said that designer babies are on the way as more and more traits can be selected.

Charlie also said that the adopted babies were better than if the parents had had their own children. He wasn't talking about crack babies. He also wasn't just praising to gain favor with his audience. He brought up the gambling stereotype which was not intended to be complimentary. Charlie is at a point where he can say what he thinks ... as am I.

You raise controversial questions similar to what is discussed in "The Bell Curve". It really seems that Mr. Munger believes in "their innate quality". There's also the additional dimension of jumping from individual IQs to the "intelligence" of a nation as a whole. Hard to say what the future holds and Mr. Munger has mentioned that it does not hurt to try to learn from history. In the last years, during free time, I've spend time reading on the introduction of the Industrial Revolution and how it caught on (and did not) in various regions of the globe. Another controversial question. Any relevance to today's challenges? The Chinese edited the genes of an embryo last week (for the first time) to cure an inherited disease. Eventually, ALL children will be edited to improve intelligence, health and appearance. (We're just a software program.) How's that for an industrial revolution? The gold ring will go to those countries that win the technology race. Even last place will benefit tremendously though.

The original question I posed was: Should you include the intelligence of a nation as a whole in the variables you're looking at when making INVESTMENT decisions? Clearly, Munger and probably Buffett have. They have chosen China as an area to focus on because of their high regard for the Chinese intellect. Partially unleashed from communism they are moving towards world domination. (Still a long, long way to go.) In contrast, Prem has not. If Prem was Chinese I suspect he would be investing in China and if Li Lu was Indian I suspect he would be investing in India. Too many benefits of being familiar with a culture and its people to not focus on that market. If I was buying an index though, I'd choose China over India for the reasons Charley stated. (All else being equal.) With that said, I think Prem will do very well in India and I am a happy owner of FFH. Prem hasn't always been right, but, he could have been and Fairfax fits in very nicely with other more aggressive stocks I own. An interesting thing I learned recently was posed as a question: Would you rather get a few extra IQ points yourself or give them all to your countrymen? The surprising answer is that it's better to give them to your neighbors. Giving them to your neighbors improves your standard of living five times as much as if you're smarter yourself. If you want to learn about IQ, best to read The Bell Curve first. IQ has been studied and studied for decades.

By adopting poor Chinese girls "they got better babies." His comments start 18 minutes in and leave no doubt about the genetic origin of the differences.

Charley prefers to invest in China over other markets because of the natural intelligence of the Chinese. Isn't anybody going to bash him like you did me?

I consider my portfolio to be very anti-fragile. The four largest positions in my stock portfolio: BRK BAM Russian stock index XON (synthetic biology company.) I sleep very well at night. I would welcome a 50% correction in U.S. stock prices. Inflation, no big deal. Technological change, bring it on. Western economies crumble under expanding social programs, sad but I'll be Ok. No debt.

I wish them well trying to fill WB's and CM's shoes. I'd rather see BRK buy BAM, put Flatt in as new CEO and put their team to work investing our excess cash.

Is it just me or does WEB look a little Chinese on the can?

<i>I was about to go to sleep tonight, but decided to come downstairs and post this on the message board because I'm quite f**king pissed off!</i> There's two good reasons for the drop off: 1) Poor performance. Nothing to celebrate. 2) Voting rights. Left a bad taste in my mouth. I've always wanted to come but now I've moved most of my FFH investment into BAM.