Liberty

The part about the size of the shareholder was mine, not Cook's. As for the rest, some things are so obvious.. I don't think Cook should have to explain how being a good place that cares for its employees and having an admired brand for doing good things is an advantage for the company anymore than he should have to explain why his bathrooms aren't segregated by skin color or whatever. Sure, he could have handled it more smoothly, but we're all humans and some people get under our skin. It's not like Munger never criticizes.. Here's more detail on what happened: So he explained his view, he didn't just reject the question. There are certain things the company does first because they are right, and then because they can help profitability (ie. making devices accessible for the blind -- might not pass a straight ROI test compared to using same engineers on another project, but still the right thing to do). Telling him to sell the stock might not have been diplomatic, but it was straight-talking; if we're not going to change to be the way you want us to be, your best option is probably not to own the stock. If I buy Philip Morris shares and go ask them to stop making cigarettes because I think they're a bad thing, I expect the reply I get to basically mean "if you don't like the way we do things in an area where we're obviously not going to change, you probably shouldn't own the stock".

Wasn't it a microscopic shareholder who wanted to pass a resolution that would prevent Apple from doing anything that isn't directly profit-oriented (ie. don't work on discrimination, worker conditions, the environment, etc)? No wonder it made Cook angry, as I'm sure it would make Buffett or Munger the same. How many other companies would tie their hands that way? Now of course everybody tried to spin it into a big thing that it wasn't...

Sorry to hear the bad new, Gio. That always sucks.. But just never stop investing in yourself - and I don't mean financially - and I'm sure things will turn out well.

Here is the official answer to the question: Is Bitcoin a safe store of value? [glow=red,2,300]NO[/glow] The people who stole those bitcoins from Mt. Gox probably think they're pretty valuable ;) I see it a bit more as back in the day when someone stole your money from the bank, or the manager of the bank disappeared in the night with sacks of gold coins, and there was no insurance to protect depositors. Doesn't mean whatever currency was in the bank isn't a store of value, but it's definitely more of a Far West, you're on your own kind of world. Glad I don't own any and don't have to deal with these headaches, but it's fun to watch from the sidelines.

Thanks, good one.

Anything specific makes you think that or just a gut feeling?

I'm excited. This is so much better than xmas! :D

I think he just enjoys it now, as long as they come to him and it's people who he already knows (he wouldn't fly out to some studio in NYC to talk to some random talking head). He used to be so shy, but I think Kay Graham taught him that these social things could be fun once in a while.

Thanks Makisig, that's very interesting. One thing I would add, though, is that to me this is a bit like talking about general market valuation. It's useful if you're going to invest in an index, but if you're going to invest in a single company, it probably doesn't tell the whole story. I think Valeant is very interesting. If all they did differently from others was make more acquisitions, then I'd be worried. But what interests me is a combination of how management thinks and operates and the business model as a whole, of which acquisitions are only a part (an important one, though). In other words, I think they have a good chance of success because they do many things differently (and better) from most of their peers. I could be wrong, though. I have been in the past :)

A crypto-currency for residents of Iceland, 50% premined to be distributed: http://www.auroracoin.org/ Interesting what bringing currencies in the digital world can lead to.. They need to create one for Canadians, just in case it ever is worth anything.

"Biglari buys Maxim" For personal use? :-*

More about biotech, but interesting: http://compoundingmyinterests.com/compounding-the-blog/2014/2/21/biotech-popping-the-allegations-of-a-bubble.html

I don't spend too much time on macro, but I thought this was an interesting read: http://compoundingmyinterests.com/compounding-the-blog/2014/2/27/the-markets-betting-line-a-look-at-implied-growth-1.html

Thanks for the additional details, Makisig. I appreciate it.

Good luck with that: http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/712/has-a-200-mpg-carburetor-been-suppressed-by-the-oil-industry

That's true, but everything else is different. Blackberry was a failing company and one of the only things left with value was BBM, so trying to grow BBM even at the expense of the devices might have been smart. But why would Apple grow iMessage at the expense of its devices where they make money? Apple would gain nothing by giving iMessage to android users. It wouldn't sell more iPhone, in fact it might mean fewer sales. The iPhone already has all of Android's messaging apps (none of import are android only), but android doesn't have iMessage. It's one more reason to get an iPhone. It's not like Apple will ever monetize iMessage directly with ads. Its value is in selling hardware, just like iOS (unless you think Apple should also license iOS to other companies - another thing they'll never do).

I don't think they'll ever do that. No reason for them. People can install any other messaging app on their device if they want to, so it's not like the iPhone is a walled garden, but iMessage must stay something that adds value for the iOS/OSX ecosystem, and that stops being the case if it's multi-platform.

It's one clear indication that I'm not as smart as some posters here who always stay far away from threads like these, regardless of how ridiculous some of the things posted are. I'm working on self-control, but sometimes I just can't resist. I'm trying, and will try harder in the future :)

Telegram had a massive spike in popularity that seemed to coincide with the WhatsApp acquisition and then the outage that they had. Good for them to capitalize on it. I've been wanting to try LINE, which is very popular in Japan and part of Asia. They seem to have an interesting model. I'll have to check out Telegram too.

I never downplayed the benefits, I'm not for stopping the use of all fossil fuels overnight, and I realize that there was probably no other way for the civilization to reach this point than by harnessing buried hydrocarbons. But now that we know more and have other techs, I want to accelerate the transition to cleaner energy. This is different from a lot of cost-benefit analyses because the harm accumulates and can become more or less irreversible. It's not like "well, cars kill some people in accidents, but overall the benefits of the extra mobility is greater than the harm caused so it's worth it". Each of those deaths and maimings are independent, they don't compound each other. What we're facing is more like living on Easter Island a long time ago and cutting all the trees one by one. You can say: "Well, we make fire with the trees and cook stuff, that's more useful than having a tree still standing", but over time you run out of trees and the island can't support your civilization anymore but by then you can't really do much about it anymore because it's too late... Maybe it takes a really long time to get there and people don't really notice as it happens, but the end result is still very real.

1) That's not a scientific argument. The climate doesn't care about our politics, and what we're doing has an impact regardless of whether it's politically convenient or inconvenient for some. 2) There are many ways to attack this problems, some I probably dislike just as much as you do. It's just lazy thinking and strawman-building to act like everybody who agrees with the science on earth's climate must agree on everything that anyone has ever put forward about it. I mean, Buffett's a democrat, right? Is he exactly the same as all other democrats? Are all republicans like Munger? Labels dangerously distort reality. Personally, I'd be happy if all taxes on incomes, payrolls and consumption went away and were replaced by various taxes on toxins and pollutants that ratcheted up as our production of those went down. There are problems with this, but there are problems with the current system too. A carbon tax could be entirely revenue-neutral with exactly the same amount cut in taxes elsewhere as is raised there. Right now fossil fuels are getting a hidden subsidy (on top of the non-hidden ones) because they don't have to pay for the damage that they do, but we'll all have to pay for it over time. If they did pay, prices would be higher and the switch to and development of cleaner sources of energy would be much faster than it is now. Believe me, I wish burning all this fossil fuel didn't have negative impacts. Things would be much simpler. But we don't get to pick our reality.

What you need to understand is that it just keeps going. We're pumping more carbon in the atmosphere, and most of it doesn't go away for decades if not centuries. It accumulates. And the rate at which we're adding is also accelerating. It's not about "oh well, who knows, maybe hotter is better?", it's about creating an out-of-control feedback loop. Even if we get to temps that are better than what we have now, we won't stay there, we'll keep warming unless we make a big change. There's so much inertia in the system that by the time it's obvious to all that we're in deep trouble, it'll be way too late to change course. And almost all species on earth have evolved within a certain range and can't just run the A/C or wear different clothes like us (and for those who think "they'll just adapt", realize that most climate changes happen over millennia if not millions of years, we're doing it in the range of 100s of years)... Climate is hard for the same reason investing is hard; it requires long-term thinking, and humans aren't wired that way. I'm all for market mechanisms where there's a market, but there isn't with our planet's climate (you get concentrated benefits today, and diffuse harm way down the line). It's like hoping market forces are enough to make sure we avoid nuclear war. What if it happened during the cold war. Would you sue those who caused it to make it right? Would you just let the magic market make sure bombs are in safe hands? Well, there's even less price mechanism for having a planet that stays within temperature ranges that are hospitable to current life. At least with war, you get immediate feedback that tells you it's bad and people can understand that.. Most of the opponents of climate science seem to work from their conclusion backwards: I don't want socialism, I don't want my liberties to be curtailed, so I believe that there's no warming, or if there is, it'll all be all right anyway. Let me google search for someone with a PHD who thinks the same way. Well, I don't want socialism either (I've read Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Rockwell, Mises, etc), and I like being free thank you very much. But I'm rational enough to realize that a screwed up planet leads to a worse future than a more stable and hospitable planet, and that to make a dent on that problem requires large scale changes that won't happen on their own because there isn't a market mechanism here. There's way more than enough coal and oil in the ground to screw the future many times over. We can't wait to run out of it, we must make cleaner technologies more cost competitive so there isn't the need to burn it all (and ideally we'd develop ways to suck carbon out of the air). That's why I'm for removing fossil fuel subsidies and putting a price on carbon that ratchets up over time (to internalize the real costs that are currently not priced in burning the stuff -- you can even make it revenue-neutral and cut income and corporate taxes by the same amount), which should encourage a fairly rapid switch to things like solar, uranium, thorium, wind, hydro, EGS, as well as big investments in energy efficiency (we waste so much), the electrification of transportation, reforestation and other carbon sinks, etc.

Sorry, that wasn't clear in your post. But Hubbard's views on psychiatry are about as supported as Crichton's views on climate. Someone who knew just enough about a topic to be dangerous... Sure: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_arg.htm He's apparently one of the guys paid by big oil too: "Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."" (you can follow reference links for each thing, and they then link to more references if you want to dig deeper) That guy certainly has more credentials than most, but that's not what matters, what matters is the validity of his arguments. I don't see much that is convincing, and apparently the experts don't either. Nobody disagrees that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, or that models aren't perfect. That's weak. What matters is what's different about this cycle (much faster without obvious natural causes like supervolcanoe eruption or whatever, with a fast rising of carbon PPM in the atmosphere because we put lots of gigatonnes of it there since the industrial revolution), etc. It just boggles my mind that anyone would think that we could put billions and billions of tons of a gas that is known to trap infrared heat in the atmosphere, and that nothing would happen. It's like if a company's earnings rise year after year after year... Maybe the daily fluctuations and random factors would cause a lot of noise, but all else being equal the long-term overall trend would be up and up.

Another way to say that he had no qualifications or experience in climate science whatsoever. The only reason anybody ever listened to him on this is because he became famous writing fiction -- it's the shoe button complex that Munger warned about. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/ I'm sorry, I know I said I'd stay out of it, but rolling out Michael Crichton was more than I could handle. I don't know what it is about climate science that makes everybody think they can improvise themselves an expert. People wouldn't do that with marine biology or aerospatial engineering or particle physics. Yet any schmuck who thinks about the weather thinks they can know more than experts who have spent decades studying the data. It's like citing Ron Hubbard as a neuroscience authority against someone who refers MITECS...

http://www.news.com.au/world/tin-cans-filled-with-10-million-in-gold-coins-found-buried-in-california/story-fndir2ev-1226837801851 Better to be lucky than good, I suppose ???