Browsing Tag: Analysis

    Top 15 Most Scary Subway Train Videos
    Articles, Blog

    Top 15 Most Scary Subway Train Videos

    September 9, 2019


    15. Mind the Gap In April of 2017, a man, a woman, and two
    children stroll along a Sidney platform to a stationary train. As the NZ Herald reports, the man and woman
    were the children’s grandparents. But when they turn to board the train, the
    grandma boards with the girl, and as the grandpa and boy step over the threshold, the little
    boy slips from view. He’s fallen through the gap – a mere sliver
    – between the platform and the train. Both grandparents are then seen trying to
    flag the train guard down, so that the train doesn’t take off with the boy below. But with no help and the train’s departure
    fast approaching, the man drops to his knees and reaches between the gap to try and pull
    the boy back out. Luckily, he was successful. He managed to pull the boy back onto the platform,
    where he then hugs him close. A Sydney Trains worker hurries over to make
    sure the boy is okay. The boy was alright, although in a state of
    surprise. According to the Transport Minister, this
    boy isn’t the only one to have fallen through the cracks. 223 children were reported to have fallen
    underneath trains at Sydney stations in 2016, alone. 14. The Exorcism
    This footage shows a woman shouting “devil” among a group of frightened commuters. A man dressed in a suit then proceeds to perform
    an exorcism on the subway, and attempting to free the woman of her possession. But the demon seems to be strong-willed as,
    instead, the woman starts to attack with her umbrella. The man tells her that he forgives her, but
    she remains confused and repeats the word, “devil,” regularly. She then backs away from him toward a corner
    of the car. The video was titled “When you find yourself
    in the middle of an exorcism on the metro” and has been viewed over a million times. Local media claimed that this scene is a regular
    occurrence on the Mexico City subway. Perhaps, it’s real. But then again, maybe the woman was just emotionally
    distressed. Either way, it’s pretty alarming. 13. On the Tracks
    When a man in a wheelchair fell onto the tracks in a Washington, D.C. subway station, many
    rushed to help him. Working as a team, two men were able to lift
    the 54-year-old onto the platform to safety, risking their lives in the process. Others were there to receive him, while the
    men then lifted his wheelchair out of harm’s way. While it’s unclear why he fell off the platform
    in the first place, luckily, the man was alright. 12. Rat! It’s often said that there are more rats
    than people in New York City. But that’s putting it mildly. Approximately 8.54 million people live in
    NYC and, by some estimates, they’re outnumbered by rats around four to one. So it’s no surprise then when folks who
    take the subway find themselves riding alongside passengers of the rodent variety. This video shows a rat scurrying through a
    subway car, dodging between and over passenger’s legs as they, themselves, try to avoid him. Then, seeing an escape, the rodent races up
    what turns out to be the leg of a sleeping commuter. The man wakes up startled, as the rodent bounds
    right up to the guy’s face. What a horrible sight to wake up to. That man certainly had nightmares for weeks. And he likely learned an important lesson:
    never, ever fall asleep on the New York City subway. 11. St. Petersburg Subway
    This disturbing footage shows the aftermath of a horrible subway event in St. Petersburg,
    Russia that occurred on April 3rd, 2017. While most in the footage are calmly exiting
    their train cars, which remain fully in tact, the footage then pans to the wagons that were
    destroyed by the blast, darkened, the windows blown out. Passengers in these wagons throw their bags
    through the broken glass and climb out onto the platform. The event seems to have been a coordinated,
    as another device was found at a different station and was safely defused. This isn’t the first attack on Russia’s
    transport system. There have been at least four since 2009,
    the most scary of which occurred in 2010 in Moscow, when 38 lives were lost in one incident. Another scary thing to worry about. 10. The Outburst
    The woman on this subway has some harsh words for a fellow commuter. While the person taking the video didn’t
    capture the moments leading up to her angry outburst, the footage begins with her pointing
    into the face of a man and having some harsh words for him. She then takes it a step further, calling
    the man a batterer, while screaming in his face. Her display scared passengers so much that
    many cleared out of the car. It’s only when she touches him that he comes
    after her to defend himself, until she backs away. By the end of the video, the entire place
    is cleared out, with only the woman in the red coat standing alone in the car. I guess that’s one way to score private
    transportation. 9. Quake in Subway
    A YouTuber published this raw footage of the 7.1 quake in Mexico in 2017 that devastated
    Mexico City and the surrounding areas. The
    footage shows that commuters remained calm, despite the subway and platform and everyone
    swaying around them. Some chose to get on the train, probably in
    order to sit down and stop feeling sea sick from the swaying. The powerful quake hit Mexico City where at
    least 361 people were reported passed away in the city and the surrounding areas. Nerve-wracking as this subway platform may
    be, I’d rather be there than in the chaos of collapsing buildings above. 8. Subway Fall
    A 52-year-old woman standing on a platform in Madrid patiently awaits her train when,
    suddenly, she faints. She quite literally topples onto the tracks. Fellow commuters gather around the edge of
    the platform, while an off-duty officer springs into action. With the train due to arrive at the station
    any minute, the commuters on the platform attempt to flag the oncoming conductor, while
    the officer manages to drag the woman across the opposite track and, with help from bystanders,
    lift her up to the platform. You can see the oncoming train pull slowly
    into the station just as the officer lifts the woman from the tracks. The train operator is able to stall the train
    enough before entering the station that it didn’t come in full speed ahead. After the woman is lifted onto the opposite
    platform, a doctor who was also waiting on the platform, gives the woman first aid. If you ever need a pick-me-up, just remember
    there are still some everyday heroes in the world. This is but one example. 7. Guy on CTA Train
    Published by Ruben Perez in May of 2015, this man on a subway in Chicago, who appears mentally
    unwell, starts muttering quietly – but audibly – to himself. Then gripping one wrist, he starts shaking,
    shaking his head, shaking all over, muttering more and more aggressively, until he goes
    still and wide eyed. Still muttering, he sits a bit more calmly
    for a while, continuing his monologue. Then he starts shaking alarmingly again. That halts, and he sits calmly, seemingly
    having a heady conversation with the person sitting beside him. Only, there’s nobody there. Passengers don’t interact but simply pass
    him by as they exit the train. He continues having a conversation with the
    invisible person beside him, gesturing and speaking with conviction. While this man’s episode is quite scary
    to watch, the man filming the footage is laughing. Most in the comments find that to be off-putting
    and insensitive. There’s no doubt that man needed help. Let’s hope he got it from someone besides
    the cameraman. 6. “Conductor, We Have A Problem”
    Once you watch this video, there’s one line you won’t be able to get out of your head. “Conductor, we have a problem.” The video footage is filmed by a passenger
    who is pushing the emergency button on repeat to report a “problem” to the conductor. While there seems to be no problem on this
    subway car, other than the man in question repeating this and pushing the emergency button
    like mad, the train never slows and no one comes to his aid. As he repeats his claim while pressing the
    button, one man steps in to stop him, but the man doesn’t cease in his exclamation,
    and then starts hurrying down the center of the train, while dodging some commuters who
    try to intercept him. Once he gets to the other end, the reason
    for his journey is clear: there’s another button at the other end of the car. He starts pushing that one too, repeating
    his claim, “Conductor, we have a problem.” This is when many on the car intervene, sick
    of this guy’s antics. As the train pulls into a station, many try
    to convince him to disembark, saying he’s the one with the problem. But he remains unconvinced and continues to
    press the emergency button to report his “problem” to authorities. Through all the commotion, he doesn’t exit
    the train and his camera is pushed down. It goes dark, leaving us to wonder how this
    confrontation was resolved. 5. Random Encounter
    This footage shows an older woman who doesn’t seem as though she’s all that mentally there. She curses at another passenger, who looks
    like she was just sitting there, minding her own business. Then out of nowhere things get more severe. Thankfully, the people around the young woman
    protest and tell the attacker to leave the woman alone. The older woman calls one of these men a scumbag. Then she squares up with him. When he stands up, she gets up on the seat
    and people around them swarm the situation in an attempt to calm her down. She then gets off the seat and waits by the
    door, continuing to mutter about what a scumbag that nice guy is. When the subway stops, she makes her grand
    exit. Those who currently ride the NYC subway say
    they do feel unsafe and paranoid that they might be next. Unfortunately, many must travel by subway
    to get to work, so there’s not really a safer alternative. 4. Rush Hour in Beijing
    BeijingCream published this bird’s eye shot of a train station on Line 13 in 2013, during
    morning rush hour. Commuters are standing heel-to-toe on the
    platform as a train pulls in. When it slows, they press to the doors in
    an unorderly fashion, not wanting to wait for the next train. Instead of making space for commuters aboard
    the train to get out, which would be more logical and less time consuming, those disembarking
    have to pierce their way through the crowd on the platform as the platform people press
    their way in the minute the doors open. You can almost hear the frustrated screaming
    going on inside commuters’ heads. It’s a crazy phenomenon to watch, and it
    makes you a bit creeped out to think that a stampede could occur at any moment and anyone
    could be trampled and lose their live. Such events, though rare, are not unheard
    of on Chinese subways. Incidents of commuters fleeing fire alarms
    and even emptying a car when a man fainted have been reported in Beijing. In Shenzhen in 2017, fifteen people were hurt
    in a stampede on a subway train, while twelve were hurt in the same city in 2015. 3. “I Don’t Like You”
    The NYC subway is flush with characters, and this crazy lady on the 7 train is one of them. Marcusthegladiator published footage of this
    fellow commuter to YouTube in November of 2012
    In it, the woman, who sits alone, appears to be telling off nearby passengers – or perhaps
    imaginary ones. She insists that she doesn’t like any of
    them, and they don’t like her either. So no one should look at each other. A
    while later, she is seen flinging her arm seemingly unconsciously and making rude gestures,
    then raising her arm while contorting her face. When passengers get on at a stop and sit down
    next to her, she suddenly turns to her right and asks a man if the girl between them is
    his girlfriend, and why he’s looking at her. Moments later, they move, and the lady pats
    the now empty seats next to her, saying she’d be so happy with her own apartment or her
    own house. While this woman’s reality is more sad than
    scary, the unpredictability of her actions is certainly frightening. 2. Electrical Issue
    Smoke wafted through the Yellow Line train on January 12th, 2015. While it filled the train, commuters waited
    over 35 minutes for help to escape. The cause is believed to have been an electrical
    issue in the tunnel. When the issue occurred, it forced commuters
    on the platform to evacuate. That’s when train 302 pulled towards the
    platform and took off again. But it was so thick, the train operator was
    blinded. He pulled to a stop in the tunnel. The train’s fans were pulling smoke inside. And firefighters were only dispatched when
    they received a 911 call about seven minutes later. Meanwhile, the passengers on the train could
    barely breathe and many got down on the floor. In the raw video of the train, you can see
    just how bad it is inside the wagon, and you can hear people cough, while most lie or squat
    on the floor. Over the intercom, they are told to remain
    calm and not to open the doors. Some called 911 to describe where the train
    was located so that rescuers could be sent down. Out of the 380 people who were evacuated from
    the train, 86 were treated, 9 were treated outside the station, and one passed away. Before we get to number 1, my name is Chills
    and I hope you’re enjoying my narration. If you’re curious about what I look like
    in real life, then go to my instagram, @dylan_is_chillin_yt and tap that follow button to find out. It’s a proven fact that generosity makes you
    a happier person, so if you’re generous enough to hit that subscribe button and the bell
    beside it then thank you. This way you’ll be notified of the new video
    we upload every Tuesday. 1.Blade Encounter
    This video, published by skilduff1122 in April 2013, illustrates that something bad can happen
    anywhere at anytime. Nowhere is safe. The footage shows a man in a black shirt and
    jeans standing on the platform, before he reaches into his pocket and brandishes a large
    blade. He walks determinedly down the platform toward
    another commuter, who starts shouting. A
    couple others put themselves between this man and the man he’s after, seemingly trying
    to block the encounter. It’s unclear if they’re involved in the
    dispute or just fellow commuters trying to prevent something bad from happening. Then the wielding man picks a plastic bag
    up off the ground – that of the man he was chasing. A woman steps in, trying to prevent the man
    from taking the bag, while the other man hurries over to grab his belongings. The wielder is successfully blocked from taking
    the bag, but he won’t be held back. He follows the guy around again but, the guy
    manages to escape and is seen rushing down the platform, looking over his shoulder the
    whole way. A couple moments later, the wielding man is
    following again, but that’s where the footage ends. What did he want from the other guy? How did this harrowing incident conclude? With no further footage or story, this one
    ends with too many loose threads.

    🔴 What’s Wrong with Capitalism – Part Two | Real Vision Classics
    Articles, Blog

    🔴 What’s Wrong with Capitalism – Part Two | Real Vision Classics

    August 30, 2019


    When you talk about the sort of the changes that could come through You actually say that regulation is actually a barrier. So it’s not achieve regulation It’s it’s other means to try and break these down But first if we just go into regulation and antitrust and all these things in the same way that too much Competition leads to a single winner potentially which is seen to be bad too much regulation can go the other way I think in the 1960s it went to the extreme where small companies couldn’t merge How did you find that optimal level where you get sufficient? Let’s call it regulation antitrust legislation That just kept the wing so you don’t have too much competition because in very what happens we go too far that way We go too far that way we’re just caught in this never-ending Swing so one of the things that I talk about in the book is the analogy of chemotherapy there was a regulation is chemotherapy and If you think of chemotherapy People generally think that it just attacks cancer. Whereas in that it’s a selectively toxic. I Spoke to a friend of mine who is a one of the world cancer Specialists and the MD Anderson clinic one of the best clinics in the world and I asked him to sort of you know walk me through chemotherapy and you know, he pointed out that it’s actually much more interesting than Chemotherapy exclusively attacking cancers Basically, what happens is you and I have stopped growing so our cells all the energy that we have is dedicated to cell repair Cancers cancerous cells essentially are have been genetically programmed in a way to only grow that’s what they do They’re sort of like startups right like they’re in growth mode and they don’t really use their energy to repair themselves They just use it to grow. And so what chemotherapy does is it essentially attacks healthy and unhealthy cells but the healthy cells can repair themselves and the unhealthy cells when they start to replicate and divide they do so with damaged DNA and Then they they die And so if you think of regulation what it does is it’s essentially attacking large companies and small companies in terms of imposing compliance burdens Accounting and tax burdens the big companies those they stopped growing They’ve got loads of energy to spend and money to spend on compliance tax and so on Startup stone and so there’s quite a lot of studies that I cite in the book showing the the more highly regulated Sector generally the more concentrated it is and that’s one reason why the US healthcare system for example is highly concentrated in many areas Because it’s much more highly regulated the alcohol sector for example is very regulated, you know Due to sort of prohibition and post prohibition the idea that you want to make sure people aren’t getting drunk and killing themselves Driving or is the restaurant sector it’s not so you have two companies with ninety percent market share and alcohol But you it’s inconceivable that McDonald’s or Burger King could ever get to 90 percent of the restaurant market, right? And so regulation often does lead to more concentration and and it’s because it wrecks Regulatory barriers and if you think of banking for 70 years you had the glass-steagall Act. It was 35 pages Very simple, very clear principles and that worked very well Once dodd-frank came in it was 2,200 pages with a thousand pages more Delegated to rule writing committees and there have been almost no new banks that have been created since dodd-frank was passed. And so Extensive regulation essentially is tends to favor incumbents. And so I think that Increasing competition is not just about antitrust. It’s actually about having principles-based regulation more sensible regulation That favors competition and has clear principles based rules rather than extensive rule. So That I think is one of the things that I’m sure like the the left will love the argument of you know break up the big companies in the book and and the Right way some people on the right will hate that and then I think people on the Left will hate my deregulation arguments you know and No one’s gonna be happy reading the book But but I hope though that it makes people think of the problem in a more nuanced way with the the companies themselves there’s always a sort of talk and you’ve seen it in the tech sector where the tech giant’s they buy up the competition and Half the time they buy them up and then they just let them die within their own behemoth cells and so this is sort of but there’s this thought that if you get the regulation It’s going to be really bad for the tech companies But but it’s standard all that when you actually split it up the sum of the parts. The individuals was much more valuable so as it Rockefeller became richer yes not poorer effectively when so if people along all these monopolies They should just stay long because when they get broken up and they get the individual bits, but they actually be better off Where do you think there’s gonna be a big downward pressure on the market? So Ansel comes in so there’s quite a lot of research that’s been done on And generally they tend to outperform the parents I think when Greenblatt wrote that book, unfortunately, then it’s not the trend came to an end, but people started spinning off What are known as like garbage barges, you know? So you take your terrible division and spin it off? but generally spin offs have done better historically and part of that is that they can develop and so for example I was in San Francisco speaking to a friend of mine who works at Google and he was saying look unless product reaches a billion people Google has no interest and so because of that often you have companies that have like you know need massive addressable markets or they You know Google does search ads if you’re not in the ad business like forget about it right and What you find out is many of these smaller companies essentially or innovative activities within larger companies are not pursued or followed or developed because they don’t fit that central mission of the company and so Standard Oil similar 18t when it’s broken up the world and many of the parts ended up becoming worth far more And and you ended up with innovation in telecommunications so I think breaking up some of the large monopolies today would in fact be very good and would Improve competition significantly and you would probably see a lot more startups and Google itself There’s a website you can find Called Google cemetery and it has an extensive list of all the companies that Google is essentially either shut down or ended some of them Were internally generated others were bought in But that’s what tends to happen with large companies often that buy smaller companies I was seeing this death of competition in a way or reduced competition because of this as you mentioned earlier we’ve had a significant reduction in the number of listed shares since some ways would you argue and it seems that the growth of Passive investing in this of dying off of active investing is partly explained by this and actually passive investing in some way There’s a logical response to this reduction in available shares But then passive investing itself perpetuates the benefits for these large corporates because all capsule is going to them Directly indirectly. So is that is that fair to say that passive investing is the core most illogical result of this process? So the asset management industry itself has also become a highly-concentrated So if you’re looking at you know, whether it’s Blackrock State Street, what you’ve seen is some of its passive, you know They’re not taking an active role but you’ve ended up with very few people having all the assets this is pretty bad because in the old, you know, if they were let’s say for Probably there more than four airlines But eight airlines you would own an airline and you would want your airline to do well and to gain market share you didn’t want A competitor to get a dollar, right? Because that was not your dollar you wanted to capture that dollar in the market The problem happens is when you get Essentially what’s known as horizontal shareholdings where you know in the old days JP Morgan would own five railroads They might have different names, but they were all ultimately JP Morgan’s railroads, right? And so he didn’t care you know, he didn’t want a competition because you know he wanted to make sure that you know each dollar that the sure that the railroads had was ultimately his and what happens with the Current horizontal shareholdings is essentially it reduces the impetus for competition So buff it rather than buy one airline when they all merged bought them all right, and the clear message was he did not want all the airlines competing against each other right and and therefore We know when he owns one. The dollar of earnings for the other airline is also very good And he doesn’t want to any way compete for that dollar He’s happy to let them have their local hub and that’s the problem that we see right now, which is that if you look at the you know, Major banks and you look at many sectors the top ten shareholders are the same across all competitors, right? It’s not like you have boards that are actually pushing for companies to expand or take market share or invest So in the old days this is called Organizing where you’d have one main guy or own lots of companies now essentially you could argue that Blackrock State Street and others in Berkshire Hathaway have essentially Morgan Eyes de merica and within that as well when you see this, it may be a An oligopoly maybe four or five companies Although they don’t ring each other up and fix prices. There is a sort of sense almost by osmosis There will be a price leader. So prices are fixed, even though they’re not physically discussing it So once you get to a certain level is it that that the pricing power is there? even if there’s not the illegal actual physical verbal agreements Yes, so in chapter 2 in the book I go into quite a lot of detail that there’s there been Hundreds of cases of prosecution for collusion. This is you know where I would call you up and we would secretly agree You know what, you know, the price of widgets should be next year but what actually happens much more often essentially that there’s tacit collusion meaning that the the industry has Relatively few players and that’s the key. So the Oligopoly a problem. Is that once you get very few players? you end up in these repeated games where it makes sense not to compete with your competitor and And then what generally happens you have one firm? That might be the biggest they then become the price leader and no one tries to take market share, right? So you they hike prices and it’s not like the rest of them keep price is the same and try to capture some market share everyone immediately hikes prices in lockstep And if you look at for example the the market for insulin, you know It’s uncanny over the last decade basically have two companies moving prices in lockstep You know down to the day Over a long period of time but this happens in many different industries and so the the move to oligopoly the oligopoly problem itself creates essentially tacit collusion where Airline CEOs can go on the conference calls and say you know what? We don’t plan on expanding more than one percent this year, right and what they’re really doing is telling their competitors Look, we’re not going to go after you will market share. This is what we’re doing just to let you know And it really goes back to I point out the minimax theory that john von neumann Articulated which essentially is people. Don’t try to maximize their maximum gain. They try to minimize their maximum loss right and the analogy is of a mother with two kids gives them one piece of cake and says you know to one child you cut the cake and the other one chooses it right like You’re not cutting it to get the biggest piece. You’re trying to make sure that you don’t end up with the smallest one and you mentioned that regulation is an issue lobbying is an issue a share buybacks part of this problem of a Part of a problem creating the problem of another symptom so many people think that share buybacks are the problem itself. I Argue that in the book my career and I re that the share buybacks essentially are a symptom. They’re not the disease The question is why do what a company has have so much cash, why are corporate profit margins so high? And in the book I go through many of the studies why you end up with higher profits and more concentrated industries But the whether you paid out dividends or share buybacks, you know It’s just a financial engineering question. The buybacks essentially are the symptoms not the cause and if you did have More competition you would have more mean reverting profit margins. You’d have lower profit margins in many industries. You wouldn’t have these sort of abnormal Monopoly profits and therefore you wouldn’t end up with the extreme share buybacks and obviously if you have little competition you also end up with less investment and you know It’s sort of covered in other parts of the book But you know when you when you’re not investing and you sit on that cash you have to do something with it Neither you’ll dividend it or do share buybacks. So it’s the symptom not the disease And when you look at the sort of the histories Let’s see going back to the 1800 the robber barons and then the Sherman Act 1890 and so on you had this little bit decline into this what you might call the golden period of antitrust, and then that died in 1982 in that golden period Walking at you point in that period that says look he was better then Because again if I’m an investor and I’m concentrated investor I pori be a bit worried about going back to that period I’m the first antitrust laws really only focused on trade unions So there’s he’s sort of this period where you know, was it good. Was it better? Can we actually sort of say look he was better for these reasons? So good companies tend to do well and almost any environment I mean one of the reasons why stocks did poorly in the 70s I don’t think had anything to do with antitrust and had much more to do with high inflation You know that is it a killer for stock markets So I know people would say well the 70s were bad for stock the stock market therefore We can’t go back to that. You know, I think it’s very misguided view but if you’re looking at the overall economy the 60s and 70s were certainly a much more equal society in terms of looking at sort of labor share of GDP And you also had higher Real economic growth and you had higher productivity growth which has basically been on the decline And so I think that when you’re looking at some of the more macro outcomes those were certainly better in the 1960s and 70s Well 50s 60s and 70s and so those are the things that I would point to and you know, the the problem is basically once the Merger guidelines were changed in the 80s And then you had an also an explosion of patents essentially in the 1980s and 90s and then it’s continued and gotten even worse You you essentially have more and more parts of the economy or essentially Monopolies created by patents and copyright and you have essentially increasing concentration And so it’s no surprise that you know pick ADIZ book was as well received as it was because he was pointing out This is leading to essentially a much higher level of inequality but good stocks tend to do. Well, you know no matter what You know, it’s the the problem the 70s was really inflation in terms of the the actual sectors We mentioned a few you talk about the funeral sector you talked about tech in particular, which is obviously their headline but within the US Which of the industries which have really really kind of should be in the spotlight? and also there’s this difference between a lot of people look at this and say well that’s not a monopoly but you make the very Clear distinction that local monopolies do exist So you might have the four or five railroad companies which yes an oligopoly but actually lots of local monopolies So which are the ones in which the industry is in the US which have really been at this game for the longest I go Through the book monopolies do appellees and oligopolies And as you pointed out you have things that may appear competitive but actually are local monopolies So for example, like aggregates, you know or waste management, you know Generally, like if you have a contract for waste management for a town, you know There’s only one company doing it or if you have a local Aggregates pit and a cement those aren’t big transported for and you have a local monopoly a likewise Funeral Homes For example, I point out that people don’t generally shop for for funerals for obvious reasons They’re in great distress. And generally the body is going to be taken care of relatively close to the hospital and so within that you’d have essentially a local monopoly first for funerals and so service corporation, for example you know has their funerals are about 30 percent higher than independent operators, and they have actually local monopolies many parts of the US, but Hospital mark, it’s 90 percent of US hospital markets in this urban hospital markets are highly concentrated So you generally don’t have almost any competition when it comes to going to a hospital, right? And then I point out that in the book as well that if you’re looking at drug scores, right? You essentially have a duopoly Between CVS Walgreens right and if you look at a drug wholesalers There’s three drug wholesalers right there three former benefit managers So the US healthcare system is among the worst and I certainly hope that you end up with more competition the local insurance markets They basically are highly concentrated almost all our duopoly in terms of its the state level and so these are the ones I think that should be most ripe for a reformed they’re obviously vast powers of lobbying allied against it, but the insurance markets, for example have their their state a little fiefdom built through the mccarran-ferguson act and I think would take quite a lot to change that but The book goes through many many of these that you wouldn’t might not have even considered as Monopolies and I certainly hope they get broken up and changed. There was the five areas which you identified as being problems productivity She was startups your jobs lower investment Less diversity wages and inequality but what do you see as the solutions that how what are the things that we’re going to see that really changes that and and These things often take place over five to ten years the big changes that we see but how we gonna get them sooner in a meaningful way, I Don’t think that antitrust itself will solve all these problems But I certainly think that it it can contribute to an improvement and I think that antitrust is broken But I think that the loss of competition also is broader and encompasses regulations So in the last chapter the book I point out that you know, a few solutions are one of preventing future mergers, you know We shouldn’t allow industries to get down to three and two, you know Or even one player. So we have to make sure that we’re not allowing for more concentration There are many mergers that have happened that have reduced competition Those should be broken up, you know and and reversed many come to mind. Like for example Google buying double-click, right? That’s not one that should have ever been allowed or Facebook buying Instagram and whatsapp, but you could go into many other Industries, so you have breaking up past mergers, but then on the regulation side I think what we have to do is to regulate more intelligently, and so I think that for example Dodd-frank itself should be reformed and made simpler. I Do like many of the ideas behind it? You know, we should have lower levels of leverage We know we make sure that banks are safer but all this could be done in a much simpler way that you know does not create an instrumental barriers to entry and so Regulation is also a part. I think for example if you’re looking at some of the large tech platforms Interoperability, right and what when people can port their phone numbers, you know in many countries suddenly Prices started falling in telecoms, right? So allowing the customer to be locked in is another key issue So I think that it’s not just antitrust, but when you think very broadly about how do you restore competition? I think you know on the medical side Patents should not be endlessly extended through, you know reformulation of drugs They go into that and the book and so it’s a it’s a wide array of potential solutions But all of which I think would make everyone better off Obviously, they’ll be fought because people who are currently gouging consumers and enjoying these set profits are not going to want it lawyers probably in the most to gain out of this but another group that Has probably been Behind a lot of the Meuse that have created the unwanted competition is economists Particularly Chicago School, you mentioned Bork and you say that capitalism is too important to be left to economists Why is it that economists we then end up sort of being on the wrong side of this versus what sort of feels much more? Natural and kind of correct in the marketplace. So I think many economists are actually doing a wonderful job of highlighting these problems so there’s like loads of new studies coming out and it’s a very Sort of it’s a it’s a growth area to look into the promise of concentration When I say that, it’s too important to be left to the economists I think part of it is that the antitrust laws were written by Congress and were meant to be Implemented to you know to pursue the way we wanted markets in the economy to run What’s ended up happening is essentially that all these decisions on who should merge and who should not merge? These are now in the hands of bureaucrats essentially in terms of the FTC working in close collaboration with economists Right who have a vested interest in making sure that mergers get through and as you know talked about earlier Most of the merger models and simulations in terms of these price savings they’re going to happen or total bullshit and so when I say that should be allowed to the economists is ultimately the the Acts were meant to reduce concentration to avoid monopolies and effectively what’s happen is we sort of out sourced mergers to people going through the revolving door or the K Street law firms in the economist like Charles rivers dissociating compass Lexecon and others so I don’t think the problem is all economists But certainly when you end up with a very small group of people who stand to benefit greatly, you know They’ll defend their area and they want all the sort of non specialists stay out And so the irony is that you know, the the book was endorsed by Mike Spence is a Nobel Prize winner or Angus Deaton. Who’s a Nobel Prize winner Kenneth Rogoff, right? So the economists outside of the antitrust world see that there’s a very clear problem People within the antitrust world who you know are looking for what Nassim Taleb calls the retrospective bribe, right? They want to get hired by, you know, the compass and Charles River work, you know K Street law firms. They think everything’s fine, right? With the with the sort of us and you’ve been talking specifically about the u.s Firstly is this only a u.s. Male or is it global is a global issues it in the UK xored in Europe Is it in Australia and secondly? Is it likely that the US is going to break up? it’s it’s kind of monopolist because If you look at it from a kind of global perspective the US had done pretty well over the last ten years The US equity market and yes, it’s been concentrated But again, it goes back to if you come came in from the outside world And you saw as you go the US looks great, but Napoles look great because the US has outperformed almost everywhere so isn’t a good thing in some ways and Will the US authorities really want to break what looks like a relatively good system or do you need other regions to say? Hey, you know, this is a problem. So one of the reasons that I focused on the US was the u.s In a way is the the leader and the most advanced right? So for the u.s First created antitrust and exported it to the rest of the world and then the u.s Essentially had the counter-revolution and exported that to the rest of the world. So I think that whatever battle is happening in the u.s That’s going to end up playing out elsewhere the u.s Certainly is the most advanced in terms of going down. The consolidation route Europe is less consolidated in many ways than the u.s Is some emerging markets are highly concentrated and they also interestingly tend to be the most unequal in in terms of Gini coefficients. So like Chilles known as the Chicago experiment essentially where a lot of the University Chicago people went down and advised Pinochet Right, so they have very high industry concentration and extremely high inequality So when you look around the world you often do find these very interesting relationships Some countries like Australia are highly oligopolistic and monopolistic and it’s not surprising also that you end up with sort of higher degrees of profitability in some of the sectors and very large transfers of wealth from people who are outside the sector to the sector and the financial industry in particular, you know due to the the four banks, so That’s you know, one of the problems other countries like Canada Australia, which are very oligopolistic often have higher tax rates And so they don’t deal with they don’t have antitrust to increase competition what they’re doing is saying, okay You can pay people very very well in these industries We’re just gonna tax you at a pretty high rate, but my view is you know Rather than go for the very high tax route. Which Piketty argues this let’s create Let’s increase competition to make sure that you don’t have like some very fat Monopolies or dois police and so it does go go around the world the u.s Just happens to be sort of the farthest along and what is the perfect? environment do you think we’re where this kind of really works because it still goes back to put regulation or antitrust laws in place and we clip that top end of Competition, but how what what are the features that you envisage would be? Perfect competition. We know what perfect competition should look like, but real world perfect competition. How’d you get it? So I I’m not precise. I’m not in favor of a perfect competition, which is also like another textbook extreme, right? I’m very much in favor of you know, people who come up with great ideas get patents they can then you know have Very high profitability for a period I’m not against that at all if you happen to create a new market You should enjoy that, you know Until you get competitors, you know and that creates essentially monopoly type profits until competitors emerge I don’t have a problem with that. My problem is essentially with mergers that reduce competition materially so taking out competitors from the market, but what’s interesting in the book I talk about You know earlier chatting about prices going up There’s a lot of work that’s been done by John Koch at Northeastern University showing that when you get below six players in an industry you end up with price increases and a pricing power and so I Argue that we shouldn’t allow for mergers and industries below six players right now If you want to increase your market share by being better go for it You know try to become number one and you know, take everyone else’s market share But we shouldn’t have mergers between players and under six industries. Sorry six players per industry. So that that is what I wear I think you know you can draw the line in terms of mergers But it doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have one company dominating an industry if they’re doing it through best service The problem is what when I talk to people almost no one can point to industries like well They have a monopoly because they’re just the very best, right? Generally what happens is companies merge, even in the case of Google and Facebook The reason they have a duopoly in the ad market is due to purchases of direct competitors Do you have a view code? Does this have any impact on princes the bond market? Because it feels like over the last 20 years 30 years when this has been in place or if in fact have been seeing that sort of eating away at potential economic growth in order to fuel excess profits So the long equity long bond trade which has worked kind of pretty well over the last thirty years We’re just coming in for a little bit of a little bit of us a tricky patch now But if this doesn’t get broken up, does that suggest that bond yields should actually stay relatively so much you’re not saying they stay down but Relatively subdued so I’m not certain how this plays out in terms of the level of bond yields, but what’s certainly interesting? Is that the real rate of interest has an enormous impact on? Collusion, you know between market players and the ability of companies to buy each other So when debts cheap in a company a can buy Company B And so you’ve ended up with merger waves so merger waves tend to happen during bubbles people can use their stock is acquisition currency It also happens when rates are relatively low and people companies can then borrow money cheaply to buy competitors So those are two things driving merger waves and then also when real rates are low It means that the payoff period can be longer in terms of collusion When real rates are very high companies generally don’t want to clewd because you need a very high initial payoff you know to make that clusion work and so that’s the Very interesting thing. I have a chart in there on global Real rates which of course have been very low which encourages collusion, you know and allows companies to borrow to buy each other So I think to the extent that you end up with higher bond yields higher rates going forward that would Make it more difficult for companies to merge and would be a damper on on the collusion ask You’ve shown that from your own work The concentration of industries outperforms the broad index and I think it was strata gas You did the lobbyists index where those companies Lobby the most outperforms the broad index Until we see any major changes in this structure Would you recommend basically still be the wrong concentration and long the lobbyist as an investor? Would you still kind of take and you’re almost I want to be immoral here and sure in more grameen and continue with those concentrate? I think you’d have to do it on a selective basis I think there’s certainly unfortunately what we’ve seen in the last couple years is that sort of growth forces value stocks or high quality versus low quality stocks and reached extremes and you know as we’re seeing this year a lot of the tech stocks are getting beaten up people are waking up to the fact that Facebook might be broken up. Certainly. There’s a move in Congress to do that and also what you’re finding out is that you all totally can kill the goose that lays the golden eggs and Some of the pharma companies have discovered this where you know, like for example Valiant you can hike prices You know quite a lot when you have a monopoly, right? They have some chain patents on a particular drug or a monopoly on that drug Ultimately, though there’s a backlash and ultimately you can only take that so far and so I think that investors need to think very hard About what you know, what is the source of that? Sort of dominance that they’re getting is it natural. Is it unnatural and and are they? Essentially going to raise the ire of regulators or not and at the end of the book you talk about ways that we can Try and make a difference. I mean a small ways between a from a corn you get the oak tree What are the things that you think can be done? So this shift rather than going on the street to our pickaxes and our sides and all the rest of it You think there are a few things that we can do everyone can do slowly but surely to sort of just start chipping away what are those things so in some cases the consumer has no choice when it comes to like high-speed Internet in the US or you know when it comes to Insurance markets, but there are many places in the US economy where you can decide every day. It’s an election You can decide where you spend your money. I I would recommend that investors and consumers Back David’s versus Goliath, you know that you can decide we know where you spend your money That’s a choice that you can make every day in terms of search. For example, I personally use DuckDuckGo I have no interest in the surveillance capitalism of Google and Facebook, you know which basically appear free but you’re handing over very valuable person betta so there there are alternatives to you know, some of the Programs and companies that essentially are built on surveillance of the user and obviously you know people need to get politically active and let their congressman and Representatives know that this is something that they care about and I think they already are coming to that view and I think that we’re gonna hear a lot more from Congress on this bring the men to My where do you think? How long from now what’s your what’s your time frame? What you think it’s gonna all happen what and so you know if you think of World War two, for example There was the Battle of Midway was essentially the turning point, right and that was, you know, very early on in the war Essentially, but but once once that had happened it was quite clear that Japanese it couldn’t win in the Pacific and then the question was What kind of loss were they going to take and I think that if you look at antitrust right now all the money is stacked on one side of the table and you know, but I think the it’s extremely popular to Get some reform and if you’re looking at the pop culture or you look at John Oliver is running segments on antitrust, you know The show Netflix Patriot Act. Basically that pop culture is moving and ultimately the regulators and Congressmen are gonna want to get ahead and pretend that they’re leading the parade rather than be run out of town It’s the great thing is what you’re saying is that capitalism is good capitalism works It’s become a bit grotesque, but it will probably self correct rather than implode. So therefore it’s actually quite an optimistic outlook We’ve got yes the u.s in the past in other countries there been moments where things have been extreme and you’ve had People like Teddy Roosevelt and I certainly think that we’re going to see more of that, you know, we receive a reform, you know Rather than a revolution Jonathan thank you very much indeed. Well, thank you. Thank you

    Westworld S2E04 Explained
    Articles, Blog

    Westworld S2E04 Explained

    August 20, 2019


    In Westworld Season 2 Episode 4, Bernard is
    dragged on his arse by Clementine, who grabbed him last episode. She drags him to a cave that’s “miles”
    from anywhere , which means A) Bernard’s butt must hurt, and B) there’s a secret here. Inside, Bernard finds Elsie – last season,
    Ford programmed Bernard to capture her, cause she almost found out Ford’s plans. Apparently, Elsie’s survived on protein
    bars ever since . Bernard frees Elsie, and she finds out Bernard is host. She takes the news pretty well that that her
    boss was a robot along. Her curiosity as a programmer is greater than
    her fear – so she helps with Bernard’s brain damage. They find a secret Delos lab, like the lab
    in Episode 1 where drone hosts record guest data . But this lab is something more – it
    has James Delos. About thirty years ago, James died of a disease
    . But his company, led by William, copied his mind into a robot body – a hybrid of
    human and host . The goal was to make James immortal. But this human-host is unstable, it breaks
    down . So the company keeps burning James and making a new one, achieving a longer life
    each time. Over thirty years, he is born then dies one
    hundred and forty-nine times , having the same conversation with William over and over. The imagery of a spinning record and exercise
    bike and circular room evoke the loop that James is trapped in. He finds out that his wife and kids are dead
    over and over. He’s burned alive over and over, to the
    soundtrack of the Rolling Stones’ Play With Fire. He had tried to “cheat the devil” and
    live forever, but he ended up in hell. By the time of Season 1, William’s wife
    Juliet has died, and he’s stopped believing in the immortality project – saying “People
    aren’t meant to live forever” . So he leaves James to break down, and then the robot revolution
    happens so there’s no one to terminate James until Bernard and Elsie find him two weeks
    later. By then, James is mad and suffering, which
    may be the closest he’s been to alive. Cause one of the big ideas last season is
    that suffering makes hosts conscious and free . So maybe in Jim’s pain and death, he felt
    alive for the first time in decades. So this is part of the Delos secret project
    that’s been hinted at all series . They’re trying to make humans immortal by putting
    their minds in host bodies. But how does this connect to the Westworld
    guest behaviour data recorded in these labs ? And whose brains are these? To clone James, he has an “observation period”
    and “baseline interview” – they make a record of who James is so they can copy
    him with high “fidelity” . Westworld is kinda the same thing. William says the park reveals who guests really
    are , through their choices and sins – and Delos has been watching. With this “baseline” data , maybe Delos
    can make human-host clones of all Westworld guests. And as we see with Jim’s script, these hybrid
    hosts are predictable. Maybe Delos could use this technology to control
    human behaviour . This could be Glory – Dolores’ weapon , William’s mistake , the burning
    of the species Logan mentions – not human-like robots, but robot-like humans . We don’t
    know the details, but Glory must be something that combines humanity and hosts, immortality
    and control. And there’s another mystery here. We find out that sometime round Season 1,
    Ford sent Bernard to this lab to kill the techs and make another hybrid brain of some
    human. Whose mind did they build? One possibility is Ford – maybe they’ll
    bring him back. But Ford’s death made a point about the
    end of the humans and rise of the hosts . Ford said he’ll live on in his music – he exists
    in the code of his hosts like Lawrence’s daughter and young Robert. So bringing back Ford as a hybrid-host would
    undermine the climax of last season. Maybe this host could be a young William to
    confront old Bill at the end of his quest – he is told to revisit his past . Or maybe
    this mind will be Arnold’s – Ford’s partner who Bernard is based on. If they wanna get tricky, it could be that
    the Bernard we saw in the week ahead timeline in Episode 1 is actually Arnold as a human-host
    hybrid . Because he’s acting super weird, and he has flashbacks of Arnold with Dolores. How could Bernard remember Arnold’s life? Last season, Westworld showed us Arnold and
    made us think it was Bernard – maybe they’re pulling the same trick this season. So this hybrid mind might be Arnold’s. But there is one more complication – what’s
    the data in Peter Abernathy’s head. Is it a copy of James Delos’ mind? Or Arnold’s mind? Charlotte said there’s “Thirty-five years
    of … data” in there , so maybe it’s all the guest behaviour and DNA data – that
    might explain why Delos needs it so bad. William and Lawrence see Chinese railway worker
    hosts who kill their overseers and use their bodies as railroad ties. Chinese railway workers in the real American
    west suffered dangerous conditions and discrimination. So along with colonial India, and Confederate
    slavery, Westworld explores real historical injustice to parallel the treatment of hosts. It also looks at violent revenge, personified
    by Dolores. Is it justice to kill your masters, or, as
    Maeve suggests, does revenge just make you just as bad as them ? Bill and Lawrence arrive
    as Las Mudas, the home of Lawrence’s wife and daughter. Lawrence says that his family loves him, but
    really he’s “a son of a bitch”, so it’s kinder for him to avoid his family . This
    is similar to William’s situation – he had a wife and daughter , but he’s a bad
    dude, and spent time in Westworld instead of with them .
    The town is controlled by Craddock. He holds court in a church and brags about
    his resurrection earlier – says he’s the chosen one of death . This annoys William,
    because he believes death is final, and people shouldn’t be brought back . And then Craddock
    starts murdering and tormenting the townspeople – just like William did when he was here
    last season. So Bill is faced with his own past sins, and
    this time, he feels some sympathy for the hosts. Lawrence’s wife reminds him of the death
    of his own wife, Juliet. So the Man in Black takes on the role of death,
    and kills Craddock and his men in the rain. Showrunner Lisa Joy says this represents washing
    away Bill’s past – trying to achieve redemption . Lawrence’s family thank him for the help
    , but Lawrence’s daughter, speaking as Ford, says one good deed doesn’t erase William’s
    crimes . So this season, we’re getting a more morally ambiguous William. Last season, he was a villain, but now he’s
    trying to make things right. As Lawrence’s daughter says, “If you’re
    looking forward, you’re looking in the wrong direction” – William is facing his past. We see Grace, the woman from The Raj last
    episode. She’s been captured by Ghost Nation, along
    with some guests from Season 1 – tourists who get more than they bargained for. There’s also Stubbs, captured last season. He says that while Ghost Nation does kill
    hosts, they don’t kill humans. Ghost Nation takes their prisoners to Akecheta,
    who they call “the first of us” . Maybe Akecheta was first Ghost Nation host created
    – we do see him as an early host in Episode 2. Grace escapes, then Akecheta threatens Stubbs,
    and says “You live only as long as the last person who remembers you” , which connects
    to the themes of legacy and immortality with James. Then the Ghost Nation hosts disappear – apparently
    letting Stubbs leave and meet up with Delos for the week ahead timeline. Why would Ghost Nation capture humans then
    let them go? Are these hosts programmed, or free? Are they protecting humans, or doing something
    else? We still don’t know. In the end, Grace meets William, and reveals
    that she is his daughter, Emily – maybe Grace is a fake name. We know from last season that Emily and William
    have a difficult relationship. She blames Bill for the suicide of her mother
    Juliet , and Bill says his daughter would “Probably” like to see him gunned down
    . So this isn’t the happiest reunion. But Bill and Emily seem to have the same goal
    – to reach Glory, symbolised by this hexagonal pattern that appears in Delos labs. Now that we know about James’ immortality
    project, this symbol almost looks like an infinity sign, or an hourglass tipped on its
    side. William and Grace might need to work together
    to reach the mystery at the centre of this season. Thank you for watching. And thanks to the Patrons, including MELINDA
    RUBIN, Matthew Athey, isrightkev, Gareth Foot, and hayburtz. Cheers.

    Cuphead – Did You Know Gaming? Feat. TheCartoonGamer
    Articles, Blog

    Cuphead – Did You Know Gaming? Feat. TheCartoonGamer

    August 15, 2019


    (Here’s a real high class battle) (And Begin!) Did you know? Brothers and Cuphead creators Chad and Jared Moldenhauer Always had the idea of making a game of their own Though they lack the resources to do so for many years After seeing the success of the indie scene in 2010 Especially with games like Super Meat Boy and Castle Crashers The two realized it was possible for them to make a quality game And development on Cuphead entered its early stages soon after From the start the gameplay was inspired by run-and-gun games Like Contra and Gunstar Heroes But the game’s eventual look was rooted in 1930s cartoons Notably from the works of Fleischer Studios The brothers grew up watching cartoons from the era through VHS tapes They got themselves or as gifts The duo figured that as technology improved, someone would make a game in that style But no one attempted it to the degree they hoped for The idea of 1930’s visuals actually began as a joke they’d shoot around in brainstorming sessions Thinking they’d be unable to pull the look off successfully, they dabbled in other styles But always came back to that idea Despite their lack of training, it was something that resonated with them And they dove right into it When thinking of designs for the game’s protagonist, there had been hundreds of ideas drawn up But nothing was working for them at first They wanted to steer clear of animals due to how common they were in platformers Opting for something they could call their own A Light Bulb character fittingly led to the idea of more inanimate objects for heads And led to them being more experimental with their designs Near the end of the process Chad would study background elements in cartoons for anything he could find And over time they came to the design we now know The designs also said to have roots in a 30s Japanese propaganda film That featured a man with a Teacup Head Some of the scrapped ideas showed up in the final game as NPC’s Such as the Axe and Apple head designs And Mugman’s character came from the desire of a two-player dynamic Being the younger brother, Jared said he always identified as Luigi And they wanted to give off a Mario Brothers vibe with the duo The game started out simple and was planned to have eight bosses In a similar structure to the Mega Man series However with its popularity at tradeshows, the two felt the need to expand the game To feature more content, what they originally envisioned before scaling back It resulted in the team and development time increasing But they were still set on seeing it to the end The game’s animation process was said to slow down production by 80% When compared to doing it digitally They stuck with it because they wanted to be as true to the art style as they could And to help keep traditional animation alive It was even considered to color everything by hand But it only would’ve gone to add years to production time The style lent itself to the gameplay due to the wild, eccentric nature of 30s cartoons Leading to near endless possibilities for boss ideas That said, before coming up with a boss They needed to know how it’d play out in advance Depending on its size or location they designed it with that in mind Coupled with the theme of where they’d appear in the game There was one idea where a boss would be fought on a sheet of music With the patterns relying on the levels actual soundtrack This idea didn’t get off the ground as the pattern couldn’t be changed once implemented Plus the track had to be different for each of the game’s difficulty settings Despite the push backs in the 4 years since its first announcement the game proved popular through it all Selling over 1 million copies in its first two weeks The studio took many chances throughout development But took things in small steps before getting to the game’s current scope Gerardus said that had they known just how much work would go into Cuphead from the start, they likely never would have made it Cuphead’s development was an intimate affair Spouses, Cousins, and Friends of the brothers lend their talents to help bring it to life Being as passionate as they were about the project and gaming as well The game’s composer Chris Madigan was a friend of the brothers since childhood and was their go-to guy Knowing he could deliver on the soundtrack they needed That said the game was also a first for Madigan Though he had studied jazz he didn’t consider it his strong suit on top of doing little actual composing beforehand Game tracks often loop at a points in their songs But for cuphead Madigan wanted each piece to be as long as it needed to be Even if the player wouldn’t hear the full piece in game Though there were limitations to how the music could interact with the action on screen A staple of classic cartoons Madigan instead went for the vibe of excitement and unpredictability, complementing the game’s nature Each piece also has several different mixes and solos when one was recorded that have Soloists play over the finished piece with a variety of instruments and improvised segments Because of this when fighting the same boss again a slight variation of the theme can be heard There are a few nods to other video games in Cuphead’s score The Funfair Fever track has a similar segment to the Athletic Theme from Super Mario World This bit according to Madigan was a crazy coincidence The Mario series helped influence another track more directly The elder kettles theme was initially made for a possible Waterworld that was cut from the final product Madigan looked to Koji Kondo’s method of scoring for water levels in the Mario Brothers Soundtrack 33 and a Third Book, noting that many were based on Waltz Numbers Coincidentally, a master class he attended was covering how to write waltzes, and he saw it fitting to make one There are dozens of references to games and animations sprinkled throughout Cuphead With the team wanting them to act more as subtle nods than direct shoutouts Goopy Le Grande’s look was inspired by early RPGs Where enemies were commonly slime creatures, and was in Cuphead before their own boss formula The third phase of dramatic finatic is another nod to JRPGs With Sally stage play’s cut out bearing a striking resemblance to Kefka from Final Fantasy VI Grim Matchstick has roots in Mega Man 2’s Mecha Dragon Boss And his name references animator Grim Natwick who worked on many Fleischer cartoons And like Matchsticks spoke with a pronounced stutter Dr. Kaul shares his surname with one of Disney’s nine old men Milt Kahl And the level perilous peer shows a building named Hotel Iwerks Referencing animator and co-creator of Mickey Mouse Ub Iwerks Baroness Von Bon Bon has design roots in not only cartoons But also in actresses from the era such as Betty Grable, Bebe Daniels, and Loretta Young The railroad Wrath bosses all have ties to Japanese Yokai The ghost with Tenome, a ghost with eyes on their hands The skeleton with Gashadokuro, a giant skeleton The Train Pistons possibly with long neck Yokai such as Rokurokubi and the head of the Train with Oboruguruma, Ox carts with faces that appear in the dead of night The stage also draws parallels with Final Fantasy 6’s Phantom Train As both have the player making their way through a haunted train before fighting the train itself The level Clip Joint Calamity is one huge shout-out to the Street Fighter series Ribby and Croaks start the fight with Ryu and Ken’s taunts and their moves reference other fighters From E. Honda’s hundred Hand Slap, Guile’s Sonic Boom, Dawson’s Yoga Fire and even Blanca’s Roll Their slot machine phase references the Street Fighter 2 bosses with U.S. Balrog depicted by the machine itself And Vega, Sagat, and M. Bison by the slot patterns As it shows Snakes, Tigers, and Bulls respectively Lastly when the player dies to the devil in his second phase his death quote will be “Anyone who opposes me will be destroyed” Which is directly lifted from M. Bison’s game over quote in Street Fighter II Did you also know that the sonic franchise’s Chaos Emeralds aren’t actually emeralds and should be named the Chaos Diamonds? for more platforming facts check out our video on Sonic secrets and censorship And if you want to hear me talk about cuphead even more here’s a little review I did for just such the occasion check it out and see why I think it’s one of the best games I ever did play Plus some other cool stuff about it too. Later haters!

    Warren Buffett explains Purchase of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (April 1, 2011)
    Articles, Blog

    Warren Buffett explains Purchase of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (April 1, 2011)

    August 15, 2019


    warren buffet is here as you know he is
    perhaps the world’s most respected investor is also chairman and c_e_o_
    berkshire hathaway he’s been on this program many times i
    last spoke with him over a year ago at the peak of the worst economic crisis
    system great depression at that time he said that america been struck by the
    economic pearl harbor but much has changed since then he’s here to tell us
    how you use a global an american economy recovery his own company reflects a
    progress made in recent months last week berkshire hathaway struck eight twenty
    six two billion dollar deal to buy all of burlington northern santa fe railroad the largest acquisition company
    history he called the deal at all in wager on
    the american economy he’s in new york return all of that
    could help with bill dated from university yesterday iteration agreed to stay over in new
    york annette tonight and i am pleased to have a good friend of this program of
    the friend of mine back at this table welcome thank you charlie completed here a_t_c_ it has been certainly from the middle of two
    thousand eight to the middle of two thousand nine one incredible year
    monogram away so why do a lot of chocolate can be answered tell me about for you well at it was that we did was an
    extraordinary times this country we came closer to a financial meltdown than than
    uh… certainly anytime i’ve ever seen and
    probably in certain respects even it was even more panic in the the great
    depression because it came out so fast and so on expected and and uh… the whole country one of the the
    leverage of corporations individuals and unfortunately we have a government that
    responded and that was inclusive when we talked last that that it was will question and uh… of
    whether congress would wish mom like they should they did defiantly finding there that i i i i without there with me and i mean in in
    the end the come together for things of this vital to the country but but we have the right people and and and
    washington at least if we had a group of the the behave like a near the
    headlights uh… uh… there we got run over so paulson
    and burning kian geiger were the right people at the right time and you don’t know what might have
    happened if others have been in those positions of power out there that i can think of other tomato may provide
    the government work toward the ending one of the would have been with us in
    the abyss revenue just tearing down and do it uh… you made some investors during
    that period right general electric goldman sachs atop but you just pulled out the big elephant
    gun meat contaminated water mark roberts
    yourself and i think he said it sticks to the last nickel for this workshop why did you do well i i i felt was an opportunity to my
    a the business that those is going to be around for a
    hundred two hundred years that’s that’s that’s been a roll when with the
    american economy in a way that that the american economy prospers leave the
    business will prosper so that that that is the most efficient way of moving
    uh… goods in the country it’s the most uh… environmentally friendly way of moving
    goods and both will send him a very important but the biggest thing as
    united states is going to be going to do well in india we campbell guerrero dirt rider and do
    you have to accept it so uh… it so like the river that’s sort of a new
    york we have to make it here we’ve got to get anywhere i have not heard and
    send them elliott but it does move four hundred ns stand all the time of of good four
    hundred and seventy miles on one gallon of diesel that replaces adult rain
    replaces two hundred eighty trucks on the road and that it omits for us into the atmosphere
    that’s damaging than uh… than trucking spend animals forty brown one of them up
    already removed forty percent of the goods pleasanton yet new port of entry
    is like houston and bring a lot of europe through the panama canal and we’re going
    to more people this country and around the using more goods over top of that and sure there’s a bad year from time to
    time in the next hundred years probably fifteen bad years but but and i don’t
    know what order of the whole peer but i also deliver a little bit of
    sexual the country you know when you call troy monitor them think about this
    did did he say right on warren or do you say about this
    somewhat and it’s bitterly chores around came up we thought it i don’t care about
    likely have our white combined financially jellyfish alligator travel
    all level of almost nothing and at that and if that is a really
    portion of the jury so but i mean he also pointed out it is said that you know there was this was a regulated industries juror
    this was an industry that was capital-intensive a recap of this was an
    industry uh… now if you do spend money unionized do
    you know how you spend money in this business regularly every day you spent a lot of
    money repair tracker window at rolling stock whatever may be so its capital
    intensive and and uh… tentative spenders regulated and it will
    continue the regular and continue the cap on times and i think that what the service provided by
    railroads is so important captain in many ways are made at at at
    at that it’s the right way to movements around
    the country to the terms that you’re going to work that can do it farm far more attractive in terms of uh… global warming and and and and then
    uh… using trucks for example so it will be here and if we get made the reasonable return on the added
    capital investment a little break out of capital investment uh… will do okay admissible returns
    going up reason which is good enough for the
    tremendous fifty years ours looking for spectacular
    returns but i think i can i can find i think that’s going on in the area that
    we have a bit eight or ten billion dollars to invest
    every year and when you totally business and it’s the
    same thing there i mean when we build a bridge on a rationing or something of
    the short we shouldn’t expect a spectacular
    returns were building things at ur a sexual society and people-meter services that we don’t have
    any choice in the in the case of the electric utilities for example and
    sometimes in case of rail in we should get a decent return on that
    and advanced enough to encourage us to keep putting money into the business but
    we’re not entitled a spectacular pictures god u_k_ recall well it’s a bit that’s a big win in
    terms of timing john bread and if the fact we’d wean ourselves off cole is that a big problem well we will win
    ourselves off ko overtime but with we can’t change forty percent of electric generation the
    ghost of comfortable we can change that next week or next month or next year but
    we will reduce over time and we should be to join you can do the things that
    are any changes will be other world there’ll be more grain to move and i’ll
    be moral all that chemicals or whatever it may be uh… that there will be more things moving around
    this country ten or twenty or thirty years knowing your idea about mostar it is it a pleasing idea that no one is
    likely to get into the railroad business promote if they want to come on to
    reproduce uh… the burlington northern santa fe are you know it might take a
    hundred billion dollars are solid billion years they are they got their roles for me
    also modernize today are they not only one or more sleep than normal for the
    uh… the the railroad line et cetera like the events as they are
    they’re moving far more time uh… some miles uh… a product uh… uh… will with less awesome the way of people uh… less in the way if you all rental income for more efficient over
    the years there were a million and a half people
    employed the rail industry after world war two now there are some mob less than two hundred thousand united
    states and they’re moving far more good so it’s really become a video you watch
    those hundred and thirty in the trains double stacked you have all the railroad companies in
    your portfolio you’re selling them i’ve already told
    them they are not that i i i don’t know i just official take the transaction i
    think that the government investments but i uh… i would’ve held on this if this had
    happened uh… when you look at the future there’s also the argument made combat that this is something that goes with
    your philosophy today get out of cash and get into assets as we don’t know what’s gonna happen to
    the top cash is always a bad investment abuses so it will be able to cash is
    king a year ago i mean that’s crazy coming cash wasn’t
    producing anything and it was surely a noun value over time i know you always want to sure have
    enough time to have her back because i think my god you are you sure to rally
    to get out at which they don’t have you don’t have access to the maserati and
    cash we will always have enough cash around
    what anytime we have surplus cash around i’m unhappy i mean i would much rather
    have a good businesses in cash and and uh… we found a chance in the last year
    thereabouts to deploy weekly came and with something over forty billion a
    camera and we’ve got about twenty billion dollar and we’ve had some
    earning so we would put a lot of cash for work and i like that no i’d much rather out
    of the business uh… that cash hot and it is a hedge against the dollar begins at all assets are edgy and set up
    a dollar on and that all of you know is that the dollar is
    going to be worthless ten twenty thirty years from now ice a worth what’s
    not working chellam notes left but i think it will be a factor or
    special almost every person that i go back over the question is how much depreciate in
    value but cash cash is not a place that uh… that-and
    why is it well there’s always gonna be worthless
    because will will be mo put more of a man relation to the amount
    of goods and are moving there and all of it week if we drop we dropped a billion dollars of cash and
    every household united states today everybody feel very good except the people invest in things that
    were denominated in dollars wheat activity that will be no tendency outdoor deflation and in this country
    over time or or virtually in attendance to inflation absolutely well the conversation we’ve had and never thought that i would sit with
    you and we’ll talk about a fifty one split traffic lights blacktop right i mean
    this had to be a hard when or not i think i had a lobotomy one night and i
    don’t know why i did dot it it is not is not natural for me but but it it was needed to facilitate the small shareholders of bien es up
    getting the same deal