Liberty

49 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LXzr-Q6HyQ

They sold Danaher and Costco, among other things. Interesting. Thanks for posting.

https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/latest https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/

It's quarks all the way down.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/in-the-wild-malware-preys-on-computers-dedicated-to-mining-cryptocurrency/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/18/bitcoin-fluctuations-ransomware-cybercrminals-malware-developers

Bill Nygren and Win Murray Q&A: https://www.gurufocus.com/news/607623/11-questions-with-oakmarks-bill-nygren-and-win-murray

Yes, because that's not how the stock market works. But as Buffett explained in his last CNBC interview, it does mean a more valuable economic interest in US businesses for shareholders. There's a second-level where you have to figure if that economic interest will be mostly kept by shareholders or competed away, though. In some very competitive industries where businesses have no pricing power, I suspect that most of the tax cut will go to customers and not owners.

This is worth listening to: http://www.investorfieldguide.com/preston/

This reminds me: PlanMaestro on Twitter changes the color of his avatar with his perception of market levels.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/16/bitconnect-which-has-been-accused-of-running-a-ponzi-scheme-shuts-down/amp/

Recent interview with Jim Chanos:

Video of MMM chatting with the YNAB guy, kind of goofing around, but fun (you can skip the beginning when they're getting set up):

Wouldn't be surprised if they tried to pick up some assets, but they don't do hostile and they usually don't offer the highest price if there's multiple bidders and/or auctions, so it might not happen.

New post by the same author (different topic, but didn't want to start a new thread): www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2018/01/future-u-s-equity-returns-a-best-case-upper-limit/

http://hackingdistributed.com/2018/01/15/decentralization-bitcoin-ethereum/ Is this correct ???

https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/15/researchers-finds-that-one-person-likely-drove-bitcoin-from-150-to-1000/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16152050

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-12/crypto-exchange-kraken-goes-dark-and-user-anxiety-surges

Hmmm https://www.facebook.com/liberalism/posts/10156160201258921

True, but I don't think those two things are quite comparable. There are hundreds of stocks that went huge over the years that Buffett didn't buy for whatever reason. Who catches them all? Impossible. But Buffett is usually very careful not to take a position on assets being in bubbles unless he feels pretty strongly about it. He does it very rarely. He did it famously at sun valley. And he kind of did it now. Doesn't mean he's right, but it's not the same kind of threshold as admitting to missing Amazon or Google or whatever.

Something a bit different (refreshing), an investing book for young people, written by one (the author is 15). https://www.amazon.com/Early-Bird-Power-Investing-Young/dp/1973235439/ I haven't read it yet, but I read a review here: http://www.rationalwalk.com/?p=16593 For those of you with kids who want to start teaching about investing (the younger you start the better), this might be a good tool.

Meanwhile... https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16869998/kodak-kodakcoin-blockchain-platform-ethereum-ledger-stock-price This is fine.

Not really, but if I invert, I don't think x% of sales sounds like a good incentive. In general, I more easily know what I don't like because it stands out, usually as too much or as not incentivizing the right things. I think the general idea should probably be that the board compensation should be competitive within the industry so that you can get the right kind of people on your board. Ideally they would be paid a token amount and have huge stock ownership, but that's rarely the case.