Liberty

Population growth is already slowing down rapidly in many countries. I think Iran is a good example; from memory, not so long ago they had over 8 children per woman on average and now they are barely at replacement rate, if not below. This seems to happen in all countries that get a minimum of wealth and education. Based on what I've read, I think world population should stabilize at around 9-10 billion, and over the longer term, progress in regenerative medecine should mean that people will live a lot longer (and I mean in a healthy state, not old frail people -- we'll eventually cure the diseases of aging) and have lower birth-rates (and have children later in life). Just my futurism 2 cents. As for economic growth, that's a totally different thing. That kind of growth is partly just monetary inflation, and it can partly become more from dematerialized goods (digital) and services, as well as a transition to cleaner sources of energy and much more efficient manufacturing, so that we don't put too much strain on the ecosystems that support all life on Earth.

Buffett would be the first person to tell us that it's not all about the money, and that while it can be very fun and rewarding to play the capital compounding game if you're good at it, it shouldn't turn you into a pompous hypocritical jerkwad...

What a bully. Buffett has more class in his pinky than that whole guy.

When things are going well, people think they'll go well forever, and when they are going badly, people think they'll go badly forever.

Anyone has been following Bill Berkley lately? I haven't in a while, but last year he was predicting a hardening of the market. I wonder what he has to say about the current situation..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/us-eurozone-idUSBRE8980UC20121009

You guys don't have to try to convince me, I've heard all these arguments and I'm not saying I disagree with them. I'm just trying to be meta about this and see if people might be overconfident in their extrapolations over too long a period ahead. It's fairly clear what the short-term will be, but over a certain amount of time, I think there's a real fog, and all kinds of unpredictable things could shock the system and change the trajectory, yet people seem to want to predict the next 5-10 years as if that had ever worked in the past.

I just want to throw this out there for discussion... I don't have a real answer, just a question... It seems like there are more and more people in the media who predict a slow growth or no growth future. Various big money managers saying that in interviews, economists are publishing papers, journalists writing pieces about it, etc.. Here's an example of what I mean, but I'm sure you can all think of other examples. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/05/and-now-peak-growth-theory/ At first it was only a few people here and there, but now this point of view is becoming more and more common and accepted. My contrarian side makes me wonder if maybe this could be one of these cases where the generals are ready to fight the last war and 'everybody agreeing on something' almost means that something else will happen (self-defeating prophesy? kind of like the opposite of a bubble...). I don't really know. Maybe all these people are right... But I feel like there's a real chance that things won't be nearly as bleak as some people forecast because people tend to extrapolate linearly, but history shows that things change in a non-linear fashion (ie. slow progress for a long time, then lots of progress in a short time, etc). Just curious to hear what others think about this new "no growth/slow growth" meme that is increasingly prevalent in the media.. edit: btw, here's what I'm not saying: I'm not saying that suddenly growth will pick up like a rocket or that everybody's wrong and everything's actually fine. Like everybody, I can see the big problems everywhere and slowing growth and need to deleveraging. I'm just saying that history has shown us that it's pretty much impossible to look very far ahead, and that often when everybody thinks something will happen and modifies behavior because of that belief, it doesn't. I'm making an effort to stay in the 'I don't know' camp and not position myself too much in either direction.

Thanks, it's definitely on my list :)

+1

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-06/elon-musk-s-solarcity-plans-ipo-supported-by-solar-slump.html

Blog post by Musk: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/update-elon-musk

Plug-in hybrids like the Volt are a transitory thing until batteries are a bit better/cheaper and until there are more/better fast charging stations around. That transition might take a while, but eventually there'll be no reason for them except in some niche uses. They do the job, but they aren't the destination. The problem with the plug-in hybrid concept is that you are lugging around a gas engine and all the mechanical parts that come with it, so it cuts down on your battery range. Going 100% battery is much more elegant, even if right now it is still kind of expensive (but Tesla's third platform should be around $30-40k, which isn't much more than the average vehicle if you count the saved fuel over time).

I started it a few months ago but put it on the backburner because I had some library books that were more time-sensitive. I'll probably be getting back to it when I'm on vacation later this month. I'm definitely an introvert.

There are lots of factors.. For example, you don't need as much energy as is contained in gasoline because ICEs are only 30-40% efficient in the best scenarios (top of that range for diesels, low for gasoline) while electric motors are much more efficient.. For everyday driving, you don't need as much total range in an EV because you always leave your driveway with a fully charged battery, while with liquid fuels you can't refuel at home and you don't want to go to the gas station everyday. Etc etc etc. Right now EVs are in the same phase that cell phones were in the 1990s. Kind of expensive and clunky and don't do everything you need yet, and some people think they'll always be like that, but a few more years of incremental improvement and it'll be another story.

As someone who has been following battery and EV technology closely for years, I disagree with everything you said. I'll leave it at that :)

You can actually buy SpaceX apparel now! 8) http://shop.spacex.com/

Amen. It's more important to keep the incentives and disincentives well aligned to promote a quality community than to hope to win some 14.99 book or whatever. As long as the board is readable by non-registered users, people should be able to lurk and realize that it is worth a lot more than $10, so that shouldn't keep out too many good people, and that's what's most important to me (allowing new blood in easily -- we know from experience that even very small barriers to entry can keep a lot of people out, even the best kind, just because going from 'zero' to 'something' can feel really significant to people, even if the actual amount is very small). It would be my preference that some other way was found to keep Parsad from wasting time on spammers, and that registration was still free, but if that can't be done right now, then this seems like a good choice. I would just advise to keep the option open to switch to some other method of dealing with spam down the line when/if one is found.

For those who want the short version: http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=32124 Hopefully everybody here has a growth mindset, otherwise I doubt one could be a good investor. No idea about life coaches. Guess it's entirely dependent on the quality of the person that you find and on how compatible you two are. Personally, I just read a truckload of stuff everyday, and work very hard at being good at 1) finding more interesting things to read and 2) avoiding wasting time on bad stuff by building a stable of trusted sources for recommendations/reviews. IMO that last part is too often overlooked; reading a lot is not enough, you have to be good at picking what to read to get the most out of it.

A good place for (colorful) commentary on this is www.greaterfool.ca

I did it too a while ago, and I think my result was pretty similar to yours.

Sometimes it's all about the way you think about things. That's what so great about Buffett and Munger, they have all these mental shorthands that help frame thinking..

I don't have much of an opinion on him one way or the other, but could you elaborate on what you mean here?

Here's a TV program that gives an overview of the Bre-X fraud for those - like me - who weren't around back then. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pNvixeqlKdQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0YNnjitbcaE#! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-2hTKWZZz74

Send it my way and I'll take care of that for you ;) What was that quote about being worried about the return *of* your capital vs *on*? ;-) :D I don't know, it seems like a good strategy! Efficient market theory says that higher risk = higher reward, so sending your money to a stranger on the internet should be extremely rewarding. In fact, you all should do exactly that! ;) ;) ;) ;)