Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

prosperity

Regulars
  • Content count

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by prosperity


  1. I want to buy any (ultimately all) of these lectures. Please tell me the price you will sell them for. Preferably CD, but if tape is all ya got I'm open to that as well:

    Understanding Objectivism

    Objectivism Through Induction

    Principles of Grammar

    Philosophy of Education

    Objective Communication

    The History of Philosophy

    Introduction to Logic

    Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic


  2. I'm always a bit baffled by why people seem to freight this sort of decision with such tremendous weight. Objectivism is a specific system of philosophical principles. If you understand and agree with them, then you're an Objectivist. If you don't, you aren't. That's simple enough. Whether you are rational and honest or irrational and dishonest depends entirely on the basis of your disagreement. If, to the best of your own ability and knowledge, you think you have identified an error or contradiction in the principles of Objectivism, then you should go by your own judgment and you are entirely rational and honest in doing so. If you're wrong, you'll figure it out on your own in due course, and reality will make you pay for the error.

    It's worth pondering the distinctions between the following cases:

    1) Disagreement with the actual philosophical principles of Objectivism.

    2) Disagreement with the way these principles are applied to specific concretes by other self-proclaimed Objectivists.

    3) Disagreement with the way these principles are formulated and defended by other self-proclaimed Objectivists.

    4) Disagreement about the tactics and strategy used to advance these principles in the culture by other self-proclaimed Objectivists.

    I think that (1) is the only thing that makes a person a non-Objectivist. (2), (3) and (4) may influence whether a person publicly describes themselves as one, or associates with the various organizations founded by Objectivists to advance the philosophy in various parts of the culture, but whether you are one is purely a matter of what you believe and why.

    There's no shame in disagreement, as long as it's done honestly. I know some prominent Objectivists, like Paul Hsieh, who spent years chewing over various disagreements with Rand's philosophical principles before ultimately deciding they were true. I don't hold that against him -- quite the contrary. I greatly admire his intellectual integrity.

    I have been at this for a long time and it wasn't until recently that I decided to take a different approach to learning Objectivism because I am not satisfied with my level of understanding of it. I think that it's tough to say you fully agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy until you've learned it through induction. Likewise, it's easy to say you disagree with certain aspects of Objectivism while misinterpreting them or not fully understanding them.

    One could say, "I disagree with this aspect of Objectivism insofar as I understand it". Problem is, if it wasn't learned through induction, how strongly are you willing or able to defend your disagreement?

    Likewise, when you agree, are you able to show how you arrived at your conclusion? Or, have you merely memorized what you read out of the many books on the subject?

    In this example, do you really understand the nature of rights in the role and function of Government? That's not meant to be insulting. I think it actually happens frequently that Oists have some grasp, and may even have a very good grasp, of an Objectivist principle but perhaps have not "nailed it".

    David


  3. I know there is an emerging cluster of Objectivist intellectuals in the Raleigh-Durham area now. Greg Salmieri and Jason Rheins both hold Anthem fellowships at UNC Chapel Hill, and John Lewis holds one at Duke. (Also, is Gary Hull still at Duke? I haven't heard anything from him in some time.) Whether there is significant community or student activity I couldn't say, but the Objectivist academic quotient is off the charts (by Objectivist standards, at least).

    That's awesome! I'll take quality over quantity any day :)

    Hmmm, seems like with professors and intellectuals, you'd end up with students and other activism starting to form. It's exciting to hear the word "emerging" as opposed to "dying".


  4. Time is invested when one uses it as a means to creating a future value, as opposed to using it as an end to enjoying some value.

    Assuming investing is a subcategory of savings, which I think it is, how can you invest time? That is, investment requires that you invest out of savings. Or to say another way, investing requires something produced in excess of consumption that becomes available for future production. How do you create "savings" in regards to time? I realize people use phrases like "investing my time" or "free time" or "extra time", but in a literal sense it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense (at least as far as my understanding of the concept). If I am to assume that time is the measurement of motion, I guess another related question would be how do you produce and consume it? Does it apply to all forms of measurement? Can you consume and produce pounds? Or inches? If so, can you invest miles or kilograms?


  5. Thank you everyone for your input. I am more convinced that "investment" is a subcategory of "savings". That things like "time", for example, cannot be invested because "time" is a measure of motion. Investment implies that you have something to invest. To invest, you would need there to be "extra" or "excess" over what is being consumed. But time, in this example, is not really subject to "excess". It's not produced, it simply is. The same could be said for land, or gold, or any other metaphysically given fact of reality I suppose. But, this would create an interesting situation in that while land would not be "investable", a real estate business could be, simply because of the rents one collects. But the investment is the business of renting, not the real estate as such. Does this entire argument hold up?

    One question I have is what accounts for the value of art? Because, art is often seen as an "investment". Yet, I'm not sure if it actually has any real appreciation. Sure, the socially objective value of some pieces of artwork amounts to more than others. Some artists are also worth more than others in terms of skill and ability. But, what accounts for the price of the Mona Lisa vs the price of a local artist selling a portrait of a woman for $200?


  6. I've always been fond of Benjamin Graham's definition of investing:

    "An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative."

    Of course, this definition's purpose is just to differentiate between investing and speculation. I think 'investing' is the allocation of capital such that it aids the production of more capital. In this fashion, owner-occupied real estate is not an investment. Similarly, as Khaight suggested, government bonds are not 'investments.'

    Another epistemological investment question I've been grappling with is about the nature of what a 'stock' really is. A stock is commonly known as "fractional ownership of a business." But, the basis or fundamental quality of 'ownership' is 'ability to control.' Yet, owning a stock doesn't mean you can control a fraction of the equity. All you can do is vote. So can it really be called "fractional ownership?" This might seem unimportant, but fractional ownership is a fundamental axiom of value investing.

    ...well, stocks do not represent full fractional ownership. They represent partial ownership with limited liability. Always have. Remember that corporations themselves are set up with limited liability in regards to all of the owners, officers, etc. This translates over to stockholders, creating another layer of limited liability. It also creates restrictions on what partial owners can and cannot do. I think they're still investments.

    This is why you can't go down to the business's office and just start walking out the door with a chair or a ream of paper. Likewise, if the business goes bankrupt, the creditors can't come after your personal assets. Limited liability is a key feature for stocks. If that element didn't exist, then I don't know as if anyone would invest in stocks.

    As to the definition, I'm not sure that that Graham captures the essentials-his abilities as a stock analyst notwithstanding (and I do thing he is probably the best there is when it comes to stock analysis). I think I would tend to agree with what I know about the concept of investing based on what Ayn Rand had to say about it. She seems to have a good explanation for it.

    ********

    @ khaight, thank you for bringing this up. The opposing argument to mine focused on, and I am paraphrasing, putting up any amount of capital, for any purpose, in the expectation of any profit. To me, putting up any amount of capital, for any purpose, in the expectation of any profit doesn't really capture the essentials either.

    I don't want to focus on, or even mention the individual that brought up the other side of the argument, because I don't think it's important. I do want to address only the substance of the argument though, because it is a common argument that is made, I think. Here is the exact, word for word, argument in opposition to my definition:

    "Investing" means the laying out of capital (any present value, such as time and effort, money, one's good reputation, or bricks) to any purpose (such as building a car or a car rental company or going fishing for toothfish) in the expectation of any kind of profit (value in excess of the outlay in capital), in kind or otherwise (such as getting more value in milk from raising goats than the capital put into raising the goats).

    Investing is as old as hunting, agriculture, and building mud huts. Even animals do it.

    However, it sounds like you are saying that the essential or defining characteristic of "investment" is the financing of future production. Or is it financing of the needs of production? (is there a difference?). Do I understand you correctly?


  7. But I wouldn't describe something as an emotion if one is only referring the chemical reactions occurring within the body. When one experiences emotions, one does not experience the chemical reactions. As far as describing pleasure and pain, there is no need to understand the chemical reactions in order to be able to distinguish the experiences. Pleasure and pain are the two basic psychological experiences that are used to incorporate other emotional experiences and descriptions.

    It might be helpful to read some of the work done by Objectivist psychologists, like Dr Hurd, or Dr. Kenner. They seem to have a good explanation as to why emotions represent automatized thoughts. Not thoughts directly, but thoughts that have been automatized (in their verbiage).


  8. It may help to read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" (RDPD) by Robert Kiyoaski. The book cultivates the mind-set that applies to investing.

    In his terms, you can buy investments ("assets") or doodads. An asset is anything that makes money for you. You have more money at the end of the month (or year) because you own that thing. For instance, stocks that pay dividends are an asset. Doodads are everything else; a home, a car, etc.

    Your personal residence is not really an asset because you spend money on it every month. It may happen to appreciate, but that is not its primary purpose. Its primary purpose is to give you a place to live. Whether you realize actual gain is complicated by tax benefits and interest; I suspect most people don't realize a real gain on their property. At best it becomes a kind of deferred savings account that you happen to be able to live in.

    Caveats:

    RDPD is not good for specific practical advice. RDPD gets you motivated. It's also a hook to get your buying more books. For concrete advice, go to places like The Motely Fool.

    Most people also need a car to live and get to work. I'm not saying you shouldn't have one! However, the money spent in a car is not considered an "investment"; it's more a "necessary expense".

    Yes, I am familiar with RDPD and motley fool and a lot of other financial-related books and sites. What I'd like to explore is the formation of the concept "investment" (perhaps this should have gone into the "epistemology" section of the forum????), what are the essentials, an objective definition, etc.. I think if I said "stocks are an investment", no one would disagree. Some might argue over whether they were good or bad investments, but everyone would agree that they constitute an investment.

    What I am looking to "chew" over is the concept "investment" and then how it relates to "residential real estate" or "owner-occupied real estate" or however you wish to phrase it.


  9. Quick point on Real Estate - it isn't just about appreciation.

    Being a landlord, despite it's inherent PITA issues, can be extremely profitable, and developing land for new uses creates wealth. In fact, developing land into an apartment building creates the wealth in the form of ongoing rent payments.

    Yes, exactly! This is why I wanted to make a distinction between owner occupied and commercial or "business" oriented real estate. So, on being a landlord and running a business, I could be swayed to think of that as "investment".


  10. A recent debate I've been having brought up the question in my mind of what actually constitutes an investment. This is something that I assumed that I knew having learned what I know from various textbooks, taped lectures, etc. etc. that I needed for my career. However, I'd like to "chew" on this concept with other forum members who are much better with epistemology, specifically definitions, than I am. My own understanding of investing is some asset or some thing which you can contribute money, time, etc. to, and you have an expectation of reasonably predictable appreciation and income in the future from that thing you are investing in. I'm not sure if that captures the essentials though.

    It's been a while since I've listened to it, but I also think I am generally in agreement with the definition presented by Yaron Brook in a taped lecture I listened to a few years ago on investing. A quick search online brought up Ayn Rand's understanding of the concept "investment":

    If a man does not consume his goods at once, but saves them for the future, whether he wants to enlarge his production or to live on his savings (which he holds in the form of money)—in either case, he is counting on the fact that he will be able to exchange his money for the things he needs, when and as he needs them. This means that he is relying on a continuous process of production—which requires an uninterrupted flow of goods saved to fuel further and further production. This flow is “investment capital,” the stock seed of industry. When a rich man lends money to others, what he lends to them is the goods which he has not consumed.

    This is the meaning of the concept “investment.” If you have wondered how one can start producing, when nature requires time paid in advance, this is the beneficent process that enables men to do it: a successful man lends his goods to a promising beginner (or to any reputable producer)—in exchange for the payment of interest. The payment is for the risk he is taking: nature does not guarantee man’s success, neither on a farm nor in a factory. If the venture fails, it means that the goods have been consumed without a productive return, so the investor loses his money; if the venture succeeds, the producer pays the interest out of the new goods, the profits, which the investment enabled him to make.

    Observe, and bear in mind above all else, that this process applies only to financing the needs of production, not of consumption—and that its success rests on the investor’s judgment of men’s productive ability, not on his compassion for their feelings, hopes or dreams.

    The last paragraph is of special significance to me because over the past 5 or so years, it has led me to some interesting ideas (at least to me). One of them being that real estate, when purchased as an owner-occupied residence, is not actually an investment because it doesn't generate income and as I understand it, it doesn't appreciate in real terms or wouldn't if there was no government intervention into the market. Though, the common perception of all real estate purchases is that real estate is an investment. Note that I'm not talking about whether owner-occupied real estate is a good or bad investment, but whether it constitutes an investment at all. I also want to express that I think commercial real estate seems to be an investment, or a quasi-investment, simply due to the rents being generated...though it may not always be a great or even a good investment.

    As far as I understand real estate, it seems to preserve wealth more than creating it as such. It also seems like, to the extent that real estate does appreciate, it is due to government intervention in the housing market through entities like the FHA creating artificial demand, low interest rates, etc. etc.. I've often wondered if, left on a free market, real estate in any given area would increase in value until leasing became cheaper/more economical in that area and then real estate prices would even out and remain relatively stable, neither appreciating nor depreciating very much. Or, maybe they would gently swing back and forth depending on whether it was a buyers or renter's market.

    In any case, what I'm wondering is if anyone wants to help me work through capturing the essentials of the concept "investing" and WHY those essentials are the essentials? In particular, the only issues I seem to be having is where to place "real estate", though at this point and for quite some time, I've never thought of owner-occupied as a true investment. It's interesting that even financial planning textbooks, and books on investing, often have somewhat open ended definitions for these terms and opt to define them ostensively.


  11. This is not correct. Emotions are not thoughts. They are physiological and psychological experiences, actions of consciousness, that involve evaluations of reality within the context of values.

    I said emotions are automatized thoughts. You are not really providing any clarity to the definition, though what you are saying is still true. Finish your sentence...evaluations of reality based on what? ....on thoughts. Or, if you prefer, on ideas. If they weren't automatized thoughts, then one could not introspect and one could not solve emotional problems because one would have nothing to introspect about.


  12. I actually think this is probably a legitimate way to alter subconscious thinking, even psycho-epistemology. To an extent, I think I caused this in myself. Since art in the proper sense of the term is a concretization of an abstraction of an artist's metaphysical value judgments - amongst other things - it is possible to consciously focus on more at once, avoiding problem I'd suspect of your automatized thought processes integrating too much without conscious control. The more wide abstractions and you can consciously focus on conceptually, the more success I think anyone would have in overcoming problems of the subconscious. It almost sounds a little bizarre to say art can change a person, as though it is some sort of homeopathic therapy, but since psycho-epistemology involves integration, changing an improper psycho-epistemology would require some way of minimizing its use while still being able to integrate new knowledge.

    I am surprised that no one is saying introspection. It's a tough skill, but if you practice it, it's incredibly powerful.


  13. I think where Grames is correct is in saying that if you were to say "this is what I mean by anger", it would be difficult because you have to be able to "point" to it saying "here, this is anger".

    I was hoping my example of what I meant by "definition" would have cleared up any confusion, but it did not. And, they can be defined in the way I did, otherwise introspection would be impossible. So, let me rephrase, because apparently I did not communicate my idea clearly enough. Emotions are automatized thoughts. I'm looking for the ideas underlying a wide range of emotions. I have some, but want to know if anyone can help me out with more complex emotions not listed.

    Any help would be very much appreciated. Thank you. Thanks Hairnet. I think though that what I'm finding there is the same issue I'm having with the dictionary.


  14. Question: does anyone know of or could anyone point me in the direction of a fairly comprehensive list and definition of human emotions in the context of cognitive psychology?

    I have a partial list, but I am finding it surprisingly difficult to find good definitions for a wide range of human emotions. The dictionary is proving to be somewhat worthless at times as it defines emotions as a set of other emotions (i.e. "anger" is defined as - a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence aroused by a wrong; wrath; ire." instead of "an evaluation or belief that an injustice has taken place, that somebody has done something wrong or unfair when it was under his power to do otherwise"). Perhaps I am looking subtle differences between, for example, "irritation" and "anger" and "hatred".

    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    I already have good ones for:

    Anger

    Disappointment

    Frustration

    Panic

    Inadequacy

    Confidence

    Guilt

    Pride

    Lonely

    Bored

    Jealousy

    Envy

    Anxiety

    Happy

    Sad

    Confusion

    Cynical

    Pessimistic

    Optimistic

    Thank you for any help :lol:


  15. This is a question that involves a relatively practical application of Objectivism...although I consider myself more or less well read and able to problem solve on an abstract level, I cannot help but get caught in a rut in certain social, day-to-day situations. When I'm emotionally invested sometimes it's difficult to become impartial and think about whether certain emotions are justified.

    I have been seeing someone for nearly a year (also an objectivist) and I've been confused as to how I should feel about his neglect to (once in a while) take me out on a date. When I say "date" I mean he has never, EVER actually bought me a drink or paid whenever we have gone out to eat together. Or ever bought me anything just because he wanted to do something nice. Whenever we go out, we try and split everything equally between the two of us.

    Is it okay to expect that the man you're spending time with once and a while pay for you (especially on the first few dates) and to feel disappointed when this does not happen? Typical social conventions dictate that if a man pays for you he's probably interested in a relationship that extends beyond simple friendship. However, when I went on the first few "dates" with my current boyfriend I had no way of knowing whether he was interested in me because he did not pay. In no way was he in a financial situation that prevented him from investing even the smallest of efforts (buying me coffee, for instance). This causes me to believe that perhaps this social practice isn't arbitrary, that there's a purpose behind it.

    I don't expect him to spend every cent he has on me at all. I just feel disappointed because his lack of doing this once in a while causes me to feel as if I'm not his girlfriend, just a friend he happens to spend time with. I want to do nice and thoughtful things for him in the same way, but I also feel as if he's the one who should initiate the thought...otherwise, why should I feel motivated to reciprocate? Because of this I sometimes feel uncomfortable in my own relationship...as if the worry of splitting the bill equally is ruining the natural flow of our desire to do nice things for one another and express our value for one another in meaningful ways.

    Some thoughts on this matter from other Objectivists would be helpful

    To say that this is yet another misunderstanding and misapplication of the virtue of selfishness on his part might be a little premature. I've heard of this kind of thing before though.

    It is absolutely OK for a man to take his sweetheart out to dinner, IF he finds her a value in his life and he likes that kind of thing. It seems that you do. How important is it to you? Does he like that kind of thing? Keep in mind that if he doesn't, it's not right to ask him that he make it important to him.

    I also noticed that you said that you are confused as to how you SHOULD feel. Forget about that. Honestly. Forget about how you ought to feel and only pay attention to how you actually do feel. It makes introspection a lot easier. The underlying ideas will tell you whether the basis of your feelings are rational or not.

    I think everyone who suggested that you ask him is on the right track. I also think framing it properly is important so that you come off as sincere. If this really bothers you, and it sounds like it does, I think the most tactful and direct way is to just state it plainly:

    "(whatever his name is), I know that you're not trying to upset me, but I feel (however it is that you feel) about you never taking me out for a drink, taking me out on a date, carrying me across the threshold, making pina coladas for me on Friday night before the football game, whatever...and it's something that's important to me."

    It's important that he understands that you are sincere in your concern and not just nagging him or complaining. And then you proceed to have an adult conversation about it, keeping in mind that you're not adversaries and there's no need to actually fight over anything. If he's mature, he'll discuss it rationally with you.

    I can speak from experience, however, that if a woman does not express her wants to a man, the man is not going to be able to read her mind (nope, we're not mind readers) and the relationship could, depending on how serious the wants are, go down in flames just like the Hindenburg.


  16. There are other legitimate reasons not to eat factory-farmed meat. Because of the conditions the animals are kept in, they must be pumped full of antibiotics. They are also frequently fed massive amounts of growth hormones so that they mature much faster than they are meant to. It is possible that consuming these chemicals in the meat you eat is not terribly good for you. If you were to eat instead, say, grass-fed beef and free-range chickens, they may not have quite as much fat content or portion size but they would be better for you and, I venture, taste better as well. I once ate pork from pigs that I could see being raised, mostly on discarded produce as well as anything they could root up themselves. Boy, was that good sausage.

    Unfortunately this kind of meat is more expensive, more difficult to find, or both. Because of the regulations on slaughterhouses, all farmers are basically forced to send their animals to the same few slaughterhouses to be processed, and so you may not actually know whose animals you are eating, because it is difficult to keep them all sorted. This is no fault of the farmer - he has no choice about how his animals get processed. It's regulated. So even if you think you are buying one thing, you may be buying another.

    I generally eat whatever meat is on special at the supermarket, usually chicken, pork, or ground beef. If it were cheaper and more easily available (which it probably would be in a free market), I would choose to eat non-factory-farmed meat.

    YMMV. You have to make choices for yourself in the context of your values.

    This is an excellent reason to meet your farmer and spend some time talking with them to:

    1) get to know how they raise their animals and;

    2) find out how the animals are slaughtered

    The farm I recently visited seems to have things pretty much under control and if they don't do the slaughtering themselves, they know who does it. The whole process from birth to my dinner plate is actually pretty fascinating.


  17. My take on it comes back to "of value to whom, and for what?"

    Forget "admirable traits in society". People who work out to look good for other people are really second-handing it with their self-esteem in that respect. If you are doing it for yourself, then that's an excellent start. But then the question is "why?". Apparently, the OP has no use for big muscles, and he doesn't find them aesthetically pleasing, and that's perfectly fine.

    My own personal view is that-in some respects-form follows function in the muscles department. If you end up getting bulky as a result of your training because you are training to be a power-lifter, then so be it. If you get super-cut because you are trying to train for the Olympics, so be it. If you are getting toned and defined in your home gym because you are building functional strength to help you as part of your self-defense training, then so be it. You are accomplishing a goal, and the muscles and definition are the result.

    I also think there is an aspect of muscle definition that is aesthetically pleasing. Just as intellectual strength is an attractive quality, I think physical strength is an attractive quality (even in women, to a point).


  18. 2. Because god is defined as a higher order of being that cannot be perceived by man, you can't prove that he exists and you can't prove that he doesn't exist.

    First, the person must be open to learning and to questioning his own ideas. But, aside from that, I think this is actually an excellent point to make, and it DOES NOT leave you in a "gray" area. I think most of the discussions I've had about God with other people have very quickly deteriorated into a logical fallacy. The easiest way for me to shut down the argument is to say "well, there is no proof that god exists". And you know what? I can't remember the last time someone DIDN'T fall into the "trap" as it were of arguing "well, there is no proof that God doesn't exist either". Then, if they are open to it, you can start talking about logic...as in the fallacy that follows this form:

    "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

    ...now you have something of substance to work with. If they are open to reason, you can continue the discussion. If they are not convinced of that fallacy, ask them to prove to you that they do NOT owe you $20. If they are reasonable, they will at least stop to think. You may not fully convince them, but they'll stop and think. Maybe they'll think about how , if they lived their whole life using that method of argumentation, they would be paralyzed and paranoid about gremlins, invisible purple elephants, aliens, and ghosts, and boogiemen in their closets.


  19. As you can see in my profile, I created my account on February 2, 2003. Here is my first post which announced the new site.

    Thanks to Ash, Steve, softwareNerd, and everyone else who helped me make the forum a success. :-)

    (For the record:)

    post-1-1265051485_thumb.png

    Yes, thank you very much. I've learned a lot from this forum, and visit it fairly often as I'm sure a lot of folks do. I've also met some wonderful people here.


  20. Coming from Hollywood, even Libertarianism sounds a lot better than whatever else is available on screen lately (Avatar....).

    I find I really enjoy all Robert Downey Jr.'s characters lately. Ironman is a self-made hero, Holmes fights mysticism with reason. What more can you want?

    Having seen Avatar, not realizing what it was really about until I was watching it...I have to say that even the preview for Iron Man looks better. Watching Avatar was like watching some [demented] ecologist's wet dream come to life on the big screen. I can't remember the last time I felt disgusted at the end of a movie. Even bad movies I have seen in the past I've been able to shrug off and say "oh, that was just silly"...but this was a bit of a different reaction for me. I have to say, however, the visual effects were absolutely stunning in 3D.


  21. If this was actually possible, I could have retired by now. It takes a Wall Street analyst to make those kinds of predictions - and even they rarely outperform the market.

    Well, it's hard. But another factor at play is the sheer size and amount of capital they have to invest. Institutional investors may not invest in smaller companies simply because they have too much capital. I remember Warren Buffet talking about this also...the gist was that, and I am paraphrasing what he said: "it's easy to take $100 or even $1,000,000 and double it, but it's incredibly hard to double up on $1 billion or $100 billion"...in stocks, I think it's more common to see a $2 stock double to $4 than it is to see a $50 stock double to $100. Of course, it's not impossible by any means for the latter to happen...but I'm sure you can imagine the sheer amount of value creation that would have to be done to make Berkshire Hathaway's stock double in value in 12 months versus, say, some small start-up company.


  22. (Good thing a friend of mine sent me this link. Can't find it on Youtube. :( )

    http://marvel.com/news/moviestories.10674....ailer_now~excl~

    The trailer starts with Stark defending his property against the government taking it. The villian is presented with an anti-industrialist mentality as well (Whiplash).

    I think everyone here can get behind this. :(

    I'm psyched!

    Cool that they are making another one....

    ...is it just me or does Tony Stark have the flair and personality of Francisco d'Anconia? haha I love it.

×