I learnt nothing. The messages it was trying to convey were unclear. IMDB states Surplus “ranks among some of the best interrogative documentaries of all times”. That is one of the most misleading comments I’ve ever read.

The “movie” was just a mashup of public news broadcasts, and interviews with a man promoting destruction of private property.

I usually like left-wing documentaries, but this movie had no purpose and unclear messages/calls to action. It is NOT a documentary – don’t expect to learn anything.

This was the first Yo La Tengo I’ve listened to. Oddly, the name of the band put me off listening to their music earlier. I regret that now – they are fantastic.

Hilarious. Although, I think the humor is very “New Zealand” specific.

I absolutely love the Read My Mind remix. Fantastic.

I don’t felt like I learnt a lot. The very unusual style of the writing detracted (for me) from the actual content. Oh well.

Experimental. That’s all I can say.

The lyrics are trite, the music is unoriginal, yet it’s strangely catchy. Oh well, I’m just a sucker for weak nu-punk I guess.

This has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Truly awful.

The acting was poor. The story was weak. The humor was noticeably absent.

I just don’t understand why it consistently places as one of the best comedy films of all time.

I believe the artist on this album is Dom Pachino. The album details don’t reference this in allconsuming.

I’ve got an issue with one of the fundamental premises in this book. The book asserts that the future potential business value of a company can be measured by determining a ratio between market cap (number_of_shares * share_price) and revenue (at least I think it was revenue!). And I believe this is a generally sensible and applicable approach. The rationale that is used is that investors understand a companies business model, and can see future benefit in the company, so they are willing to pay more today, for expected future returns in the company (the whole NPV of investment thing).

Now, this premise presupposes that investor actually understands and analyses the businesses model – and that is not always the case. Many investors do not perform the due diligence involved to look at business models, and often invest in industry they don’t understand, because of a “bandwagon” type effect. I can see that this effect could also be accentuated by people using momentum investing, or pure technical analysis. They would drive up prices of stocks, when a business may not have a sustainable model.

This book was written in 1997 (I think), and I wonder if the author would refine his theory if this book was written now given the .com boom and bust. Lots of business, with a high market cap, and no future earnings. Suddenly people thought “WTF are we investing for? There’s no sustainable model here?!” and the market fell over.

I’d be interested in others thoughts on this….