Liberty

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-11/buffett-backed-heinz-expects-160-million-cost-on-job-cuts-1-.html

Wasn't that more of a liquidity thing than a "failing because your assets are worthless and you have no long-term earning potential anymore" situation, though? I think the government made money on most of the bailout and got out of most things it injected capital into. That's different from nationalizing institutions that have no real profitable business and leaving the taxpayer money into them to be destroyed over time... That's my understanding, anyway. Saying "they were failing" hides that fact that there are many ways to fail, some less recoverable than others (f.ex. The difference between John Malone getting a margin call because he was over-stretched - bad but if he can get through he still owns good productive assets - and someone else running a business into the ground because the fundamentals are terrible and that can't easily be fixed, so that even if you save them, it's just temporary and they'll keep destroying value).

Not day to day, but he had the original idea, is chairman, the largest shareholder, is helping with strategy, and those who run it are his cousins. So he's pretty involved, as much as he's gracious about giving credit to others.

Wait, what? What do you mean solar cycles?

True, but it can make sense to reinvest the extra margin into growing the business (other countries next?) and having a bigger margin of safety so that if there's a bump in the road they are more financially resilient (both Tesla and SpaceX came a hair from bakruptcy in 2008-2009, I don't think he wants to go through that with Solarcity too) IMO. And maybe if they are more financially successful they'll attract more competitors to their model (like how Tesla is making everybody else invest more into EVs and up their game) and that'll do more for solar than if they are alone eeking out razor thin margins, walking along the edge of the precipice. Musk if very long-term oriented and wants his companies to catalyze whole industries, not do everything by themselves.

IMO they charge the way they do because the average person doesn't think about it the way you do (and not just about this), they think about how much perceived utility they get. So when Apple charges $100 to double the flash storage in a device, if you know component prices that seems like a lot. But if you don't, you might think "hey, twice as much storage is a lot of extra utility, it's worth a hundred bucks". Most Solarcity customers probably think that a solar system twice as powerful costing twice as much makes perfect sense. That's why they can price like that. Same with car manufacturers charging thousands for fancy wheels and sunroofs and spoilers, etc.. People who buy these things see the car being X thousand bucks cooler in their minds, not the hundreds the components cost and the negligible extra labor required.

Thanks Sanjeev! :)

Nice way of putting it!

Since everybody's reading about Walmart these days, here's an interesting piece: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/why-walmart-will-never-pay-like-costco.html

I saw that documentary a few weeks ago. Enjoyed it. Total dedication to a craft.

Thank you! :)

I'm sure they wil pass more of the savings to customers as soon as they'll have more competition forcing them to. Have you looked at what other companies are offering?

Watch out for confirmation bias Care to elaborate on what you mean? I am not comfortable reaffirming things that are know to be true. Especially when it the teaching of Buffett and Munger. i don't know if you have learn their full teachings. but i been having a hard time find a idea that can do 15% over time that passes the four fillers. They are easy to read harder to understand fully and apply in reality. Each time i read their stuff i have been getting new things. Which help me generate a new metal model of the world. In fact some of the new ideas i have come across my self have been said in their past talks that i have looked at a few times before. I have become diligent when reading or listening to their texts since things that seems oblivious and simple are not so. mostly in fear of missing great simple insight. having confirmation bias on top of that is like having free handicaps. Sure, I just don't understand why you wrote that warning to me after I just thanked the poster for sharing.

Everything in every industry is getting more automated, I know. I'm not saying it's a new thing, just that it's impressive and cool to learn about :)

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/bed4b2b5a70a Interesting discussion of the tech aspects here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6269148

i've read most of his stuff and second that statement!

Thanks, Gio. you've sold me on Kay, another bunch of books to add to my growing pile :P I was just saying in another thread that I don't read much fiction anymore... Well, maybe this is what I needed to get back on the horse! :)

Thanks for posting, Sanjeev!

Thank you Packer, I'm ordering it.

Watch out for confirmation bias Care to elaborate on what you mean?

Hey Jeff (Mori's for Morin, right? :) ), I started out reading 95%+ fiction (except for school textbooks and such), and now I'm probably 95%+ non-fiction. I've kept a list of all the books I've read since I was maybe 16, and it starts out with authors like Douglas Adam, Frank Hebert, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Joe Haldeman, Franz Kafka, Gore Vidal, Vladimir Nabokov, Arthur Miller, Iain M. Banks, Christopher Priest, John Fowles, James Branch Cabell, Steven Pressfield, Alexandre Jardin, Spider Robinson, Mikhail Bulgakov, George Bernard Shaw, Haruki Murakami, Hector Berlioz (his memoirs are great), Charles Bukowski, etc, etc.. And then progressively it turns into Richard Dawkins, Stephen Johnson, Tim Flannery, William McDonough, Daniel Gilbert, Christopher Alexander, Michael Pollan, Yvon Chouinard, William Manchester, Bill Bryson, Dan and Chip Heath, Walter Isaacson, E.B. Sledge, Bruce Schneier, Richard P. Feynman, Thomas C. Schelling, Edmund Morris, Josh Waitzkin, Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker, Stephen Ambrose, K. Eric Drexler, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Benjamin Graham, Andy Hertzfeld, some textbooks (molecular biology of the cell, MIT encyclopedia of neuroscience, etc), etc, etc. So there's been kind of a phase change at some point. I still think that good fiction can be a lot more than entertainment; a way to learn about human nature and the human condition and to live things that we'll never live, often in worlds that don't exist. But in practice, I almost don't read any these days. I kind of wish I did, but I can't force it... Maybe I'll get back into it at some point. You have any good fiction to recommend? :D

Thanks for posting. Nothing new, but always fun to read Buffett. :)

That sounds good to me. I'd love to better understand how the exchange works/worked and what it's like to be there. I know I'll never work there, but I still find that culture interesting (in the same way that I'd love to read about what it's like to work on an aircraft carrier or whatever). Lately I've been reading The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt (great so far!), Sam Walton: Made in America, and re-reading There's Always Something to do (Cundill). Next on the list are Pour Your Heart Into It and The Art of Profitability. After that I'll probably get King of the Club..

Sounds interesting, thanks. Adding it to the list. :)

I think now is a good time to remind the many readers of this amazing forum about this page: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/paypal/ :)