The largest problem with the "free market" is that all people have ALL of the information they need to make good choices. And sure when people make deals or barter (Most of the time) they are doing it to enhance their end of the bargain. Most people don't care about win win, they care only about "do I win?" This means that if one party has more information than another about a particular bargain then free market capitalism breaks down. This is why we have insider trading laws. If anything government regulation should be stepped up to include those evil investment strategies where investors sell you one thing and then bet against that thing, hoping/knowing it will fail.

He is right that the free market is not like Darwinian evolution (I get irritated when people say that they are similar). In Darwinian evolution populations of organisms adapt to their environment and occupy a "niche space" the place in the environment they are adapted for. A corporation is like an individual consuming everything in its path. Corporations can also change the rules of the game. An organism in nature cannot change the laws of nature.

Lastly he clearly missunderstands the phrase a "dog eat dog" world. They idea behind that turn of phrase is that conditions are so tough in the world that dogs are eating other dogs.

Jebus this guy acts smart and hoity toity but sure seems ignore some obvious flaws in his arguments and touches on things that are neither here nor there.

Their stock has skyrocketed in the last year, and since this CR ranking it's gone through the roof.

Pay little attention to the current sticker price of these, in 10 years from now it will be much, much lower. Early investors are basically funding the development of this technology, and we can all now expect the big three and many manufacturers overseas to start outdoing eachother and kickstart a new revolution.

weirder part:
either her agents/controlling investors/PR managers are working overtime to get her crazy off the internets (blocked facebook access, blogs taken down, twitter hold [unconfirmed]) or there is actively someone out there trying to stop her. my guess is the PR and press trying to make her look less crazy.

(if you need a good laugh, check her facebook page, i kid you not. Gonzo)

Gold is not an investment. Its a hedge against inflation. Fortunately, "investors" recently dumped gold and it went down $200 /oz, making it possible for the stronger players to start buying at a low price which has been happening, making gold go up again. Anything that discourages the weaker players, "investors," from buying and encourages them to sell helps the others to buy low. But using "investment" more colloquially, yes I guess you could call gold an investment, just like money in a retirement account and such, and even sometimes, as in the $200 drop and following climb it can function as an investment, if you plan to sell.

This seems like a decent piece of scripted drama, but I don't understand how nobody even checked his dubious "clinically proven" claim. Do they really think that the other investor checked for proof before purchasing some for his indentured servants? I wonder if they're just salivating at the chance to get chummy with some of that oil money.

Although, even if it does actually work, I don't think it would sell all that well in first world countries where people would rather be sick than look stupid. China on the other hand, might need to order a billion, or more likely build their own factory and sell it for 30 cents.

And yet the price still rose for me today, damn these emotional investors

So, I met this film's producers about a year ago, as they were seeking some investors to help them finish the film.
Guess they found 'em.

No, not viral, but definitely a production video used for marketing. Maybe for new employees or investors.

@Edgeman2112 if you've watched him so much, you'd know he's bullish on gold, China and many foreign stocks. He can't possibly be bearish about everything and be a successful investor, what would he ever invest in? He's invited as a commentator on CNBC and such because they need a bear to balance out what others are so bullish about.

What's the mystery about "tuition being high because of subsidies by the government"? Students are less price-sensitive when their tuitions are subsidized, colleges naturally take advantage of that by increasing the price of tuitions. The "why" is basic economics.

Like I said above to VoodooV, "if you were a grocer selling apples, and your customers were being subsidized by free loans for apple consumption, wouldn't it make your life a lot easier to charge more for apples if no one ever complained about the price?"

>> ^renatojj:

@Edgeman2112 if his track record isn't spotless, just focus on the spots and don't bother ever mentioning his many correct predictions. Nevermind his arguments either, if you blow any mistakes he made out of proportion, it invalidates whatever he stands for.
Also, being a multimillionaire investor, you obviously understand more about global markets and money than he does, right?


I don't comment on this willy-nilly. I've always, always watched him when he's on CNBC or Yahoo and catch his articles. Never does he have anything bullish to say hence permabear. I wish he would dig deeper in his claims but he always stays highlevel.

He rants about tuition being high because of subsidies by the government, but never digs deep into why.

@Edgeman2112 if his track record isn't spotless, just focus on the spots and don't bother ever mentioning his many correct predictions. Nevermind his arguments either, if you blow any mistakes he made out of proportion, it invalidates whatever he stands for.

Also, being a multimillionaire investor, you obviously understand more about global markets and money than he does, right?

Holy..."serving other people"? To whom? The folks at GST Steel? Or the investors who ate them?

And "...one of the five smartest people he knows". Yay! A smart sociopath, that's what we need to lead this country!

It is like asking do you need Coke and Pepsi. If there is enough money and interest and both provide meaningful difference for those investors...then yes. There are many instances where a design parity is possible, where both science and commercial interest are being served. This isn't always the case, but the fact that they are working together means they can steal from each other when applicable. Here's hoping to a 2 planet species in our lifetime.

That abort system has to be the most interesting bit of rocketry engineering and execution I have seen, ever. Reminds me of how odd thrust vectoring looks in planes.

Well, that wouldn't make you a target for thieves that want to steal your luggage at an airport.

I'm sorry, but that is the stupidest invention I've ever seen to date. And they are looking for investors. Good luck with that.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I love how the Sift suddenly believes in small government as soon as the topic shifts to drugs.


Personally, I want a penal system that does what a penal system -should- do: rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, and isolate those who cannot from the rest of us. The war on drugs attempts and achieves neither. What I do -not- want from a penal system is one that provides a pool of slave labor for politically connected investors. The war on drugs is -really- good at that one.

It's a pure waste of money that could be better spent researching addiction, and how to treat it...something that has gotten little attention and less funding.