jtzhou's comments

Problem with Ackman is he thinks he's doing God's work by shorting Herbalife, but in reality if he wanted to "do good" himself he would have gone to law school and taken up the cases themselves (pro bono likely), or pay lawyers to take it on. Maybe the exploited customers would have even won a larger class action. Even though he showed a human side, Ackman failed at doing what he's supposed to do which is invest other people's money.

Ah understood. You were looking at the national level with countries like China and Russia "party[ing] hearty" by not significantly curbing C02 emissions. Those individuals who benefit directly from oil and coal (as they do in the US) will extract gains and use it to pad offshore bank accounts. Meanwhile the rest of us should take a prudent life and be prepared for shocks ahead (like land and cost of living soaring in climate-friendly cities). On a more personal level, ideally savers find ways to extract more late-life enjoyment out of their deferred-enjoyment lifestyles.

And providing education for and/or adopting other children so that they learn how to live responsibly.

Or live wisely so you have the financial means and health to move you and your family elsewhere when need arrives, probably in our lifetimes for 80% of the world.

I think there are just a lot of intangibles so it's hard to compare mega projects, like the existing state of the subway where it is integrating into (like extensions), how many stations are being added, cost of labor, etc. I think comparing dozens of similar projects like the cost of replacing one street light, overpass or kilometer of highway from a non-US project, or even better within a single city in the same country, would be more informative.

Exactly. The comparison to non-US based projects is inadequate. California and other US states need to "earn the right" to spend this much money on one single monstrous project by proving it can handle smaller projects with 100% cost accuracy. BART extensions, LA Metro Rail and projects in the smaller cities should have near 1-to-1 precision in planning cost to implementation, before going after the big kahuna. Jerry Brown wanted to galvanize the population but instead it has bred cynicism state and nation-wide. Oh, and it will cost over $100 billion in taxpayer dollars before it's completed.

Ditto, was in Berlin recently and was very impressed by the taxi service. The taxi driver slowed down and asked us if we needed a ride, was patient when we got out our address on our phones for the AirBnB, and even suggested a faster route. He gave us a detailed explanation of the cultural sites in the area. €11.80 to take two people with 4 luggage bags about 5 kilometers.

The GBT is 94 miles, right? I think the Swiss achieve these costs through economies of scale. There are tunnels throughout the country so they can achieve greater efficiencies at 5-10x of those in specific metro areas in the US. I remember when they were debating a tunnel under Tysons Corner in Virginia, the largest office park in the Washington-Baltimore area, the estimate came in at $800 miles for 4 miles and was considered cost-prohibitive. It'd be great to bundle a number of these projects together to achieve the efficiencies of scale.

And the person who bought the home in Palo Alto in 1981 is only paying 1/5 of the property taxes as the person in a comparable home who bought recently. California is really the epitome of having a tax code favoring land owners and the older generation over those relatively new to the job market.

True, but there is definitely a lot of staying power in those currently of retirement age, kicking the can down the road, with a growing proportion of the population over age 65 (20% in 2020 versus 9% in 1970) receiving the benefits of Social Security and Medicare which are largely unfunded.

There will have to be a number of cut-backs in retirement benefits for future retirees, including means-testing, removing the maximum wage for Social Security contributions, and higher Medicare premiums.

> The gigantic tech companies are always complaining they can't find 'good people'.

The "can't find good people" argument can usually be solved either 1) raising the pay, or 2) increasing the labor pool (i.e. H1B, etc). Raising the pay is what is done in finance because it's harder to make the argument that the required "skills" are lacking in the labor pool. To enter investment banking, and then private equity, it often only requires a B.A. in French literature and willingness to work 90 hours.

It is interesting how a country with a lot of seemingly positive aspects -- abundant natural resources and fresh water, temperate climate, stabile economy and low unemployment, and great infrastructure -- cannot convince its citizens to procreate, whereas a country like Yemen with little in development is exploding in population (doubling every 20 years).

When given the choice, it seems humans have children more out of necessity than desirability.

Unbelievable that the IRS would have this "Get Transcript" feature readily available via the web without any password, or better two-factor authentication. It's already been taken offline, but was up for a long time.

Will there be punitive lawsuits against the IRS as there were for Target and likely will be for Anthem?

Yes. Chinese Americans earn on average 30% more than other U.S. adults. http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/asian-americans-lead...

While regrettable, the loss of some technology does not compensate for all of the advantages to the States of highly skilled immigrants from China. The top ranked comments on NYTimes are ignorant and do not describe the full picture.

Yep. If you slip up -- a series of B's, a summer wasted at a dead-end job, or a break-up with a significant other you sunk tons of time into, and end in a lower-tier area, you'll be effectively "banished" from the community. Your "friends" will look down at you at the 10-year reunion you likely won't attend, and you'll never be able to afford to live in the area you grew up.

Banishment, or the threat of it, is one of the most psychologically difficult ordeals. Cut off from friends, community and our surroundings we have become accustomed to.

Making a middle-class lifestyle in the Bay Area affordable, with better transit, will go a long way.

> Why, so you can avoid having to spend more time doing what you specialized in?

Yes. Part of enjoying life -- at least for most people -- is taking part in challenges and endeavors in a wide range of activities. If you can work for 4 hours a week and maintain a high income, this would fit the bill but probably not realistic for most people (do you have suggestions besides managing a portfolio of capital, or free-lancing?). MMM is not saying we should do everything ourselves, but to be smart about what we do save have more time for other activities. This is how humans have been biologically desired over millions of years -- to be adaptable and have a wide range of skills. Legs for running, hands for climbing and building and fixing physical objects, noses for smelling. Skills that are unnecessary for simply writing code but useful to use. The flywheel sounds a bit too mechanical and less in tune with our biological needs.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." — Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

> AH almost certainly beats 10% annually.

AH was started in July 2009, at the start of a bull market. Since that period, the S&P 500 has had an annualized return, with dividends reinvested, of 17.2%. http://dqydj.net/sp-500-return-calculator/ This is significantly better than AH which has much greater single-sector risk (early stage/small cap, Bay Area, technology companies with little to no earnings). And AH at least by many sources is a "best-of-the-best" VC, so woe to the less successful VC's.

Whether they are good at intangibles, such as training future CEO's, providing jobs to highly-networked individuals, and encouragement to founders, is less relevant from an investor's standpoint.

There is definitely a lack of transparency in venture funding, and studies show overall how VC's have been barely breaking even. Most of the big name investors were successful entrepreneurs (e.g. Andreessen and Netscape, e.g. Khosla and Sun, etc) who are assumed to be good investors. In reality, if most of these founders put their money in standard index funds, they would have better returns adjusted for risk, but without all of the publicity that they crave.

Also, the quote attributed to Andreeseen at the end was originally from Warren Buffet's 2001 letter to shareholders. "After all, you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

> In May 2011, Citrix Systems Inc. offered to acquire Box for about $600 million, nearly triple the online storage company’s value in February.

> Draper Fisher Jurvetson, of Menlo Park, Calif., pressured Messrs. Levie and Smith to think long and hard about selling. The venture-capital firm stood to get $9 for every Box share it bought for 29 cents.

One reason one should hesitate about taking big-name VC funding is that you can get stuck in the "home run" mentality.

Yes, the message is a bit ironic, coming from a country promulgating persistent class hierarchy. Just keep giving us a cut of an endowment and 16th century trust, and let the peasants get back to tilling the fields.

The "commoners" of today want to learn engineering and practical things so they can improve their standard of living, which is unfortunate for the overall percentage of educators in social sciences.