tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post1416527002553789188..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Soros Examines the Causes of the World Financial MeltdownDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25799700179586578592008-12-04T17:16:00.000-08:002008-12-04T17:16:00.000-08:00>> Try calculating what fraction of the popu...>> Try calculating what fraction of the population in most ancient nations must have been descended from the harems of kings. (Recent data show that 8% of the Chinese population, today, is directly descended from Ghengiz Khan.)<BR/><BR/>To the best of my knowledge, almost all of us are directly descended from the harems of kings. (I believe I am descended from both Charlemagne and Buddha.)<BR/><BR/>However, while that is no doubt because kings had more babies than the rest of us, part of that may be because the babies of kings were better documented than those of the rest of us. Certainly, Charlemagne for one kept excellent records.<BR/><BR/>If we were to count Charlemagne's decedents, we would probably find that he had many more than the average peasant working for him. But "number of decedents" doesn't tell us the whole story either because it doesn't record the level of (non-harmful) inbreeding along the way, does it?<BR/><BR/>But none of that is why I'm posting. My primary concern is that the lines connecting me to Charlemagne and Buddha, while they are probably direct, are so long that the genes might be diluted beyond recovery. How can I measure the significance of their effect on me? How can I compare that with the effect of the genes of their advisors and noblemen?onegaishimasuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07290038148012768539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53624130301712342462008-12-03T12:58:00.000-08:002008-12-03T12:58:00.000-08:00The frantic pretzel-writhing of the right would be...The frantic pretzel-writhing of the right would be hilarious, if it did not show us to be members of a species capable of utter delusion. And they call ME a fantasy writer?<BR/><BR/>The "ownership society" measures were a purely republican push, to increase the number of "greater fools" in every market, from mortgages to stocks to wild investment schemes, all in order to inflate the value of assets already owned by top Republicans.<BR/><BR/>1) sucking in vast numbers of under-qualified mortgage buyers was only part of it. There was also the push for negative mortgaging... getting millions of Americans to draw down their home equity. THAT had no racial-justice silver lining. It was simply a way to vampire value out of middle class Americans.<BR/><BR/>(It amounted to a a much larger share of recent equity loss than a few measly billions lent to a few poor ghetto folks.)<BR/><BR/>2) The attempt to privatize Social Security... had it been allowed... would have destroyed by now several trillions of dollars in value from the SSI fund. This is utterly inarguable and should be pushed in the faces of those fanatics,. relentlessly and forcefully.<BR/><BR/>The purpose of this privatization was never to let individuals benefit. It was to flood the stock markets with a hundred million new buyers of stock! Even if everything had been honest, that would have primarily benefited the then-current OWNERS of stock, largely the GOP-rich. Who would have sold high, so that average Americans could later sell-low.<BR/><BR/>But of course, it WASN'T honest. We all would have been screwed. Fortunately, the dems stopped this one.<BR/><BR/>(Ironically, if the Dow suffers another steep plunge, THAT is when I might be happy to see part og the SSI fund buy up tons of cheap stock.)<BR/><BR/>3) Are they actually telling us that there are 600 trillion dollars worth of fraudulent mortgages in America? That a few hundred thousand poor black people, lying about their income, are actually to blame for a scam that dwarfs all US expenditures on all its wars, put together?<BR/><BR/>(In fact, it has been proved that it was mortgage BROKERS who did most of the lying, pushing bad mortgages in order to draw commission, knowing they would never be responsible for the bad loans. A collapse of the banking fiduciary relationship that was entirely Wall Street and GOP-driven.)<BR/><BR/>These delusional assholes need to be hammered again and again. <BR/><BR/><I>98% of the deficit spending and obligations ever incurred by the United States happened under the watch - and policies - of four Republican presidents. Who had only one consistent priority. To benefit an already outrageously rich top 0.1%.<BR/><BR/>Excluding Eisenhower, capitalism and small business and markets and even stock values ALWAYS do better under democrats. That is utterly and always. Repeat that in their faces. Always always always......<BR/><BR/>The CEO caste has ripped us off more, and destroyed more value, than the hated US government could ever be remotely accused-of. <BR/><BR/>Adam Smith proclaimed that freedom and markets have far more to fear from aristocratic cronyism than from socialism. Which is why the right has been turning its back on the founder of capitalism theory.<BR/><BR/>BOTH socialism and crony elitism are deadly enemies of sensible market freedom. But the obsession of the right with just one of them is tantamount to tunnel vision psychosis.<BR/></I>David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10839307103411171432008-12-03T12:44:00.000-08:002008-12-03T12:44:00.000-08:00Thanks, Cliff! I can get the link fine, but the co...Thanks, Cliff! I can get the link fine, but the computer I'm on right now can't handle videos. I'll give it a look when I get home.<BR/><BR/>licaton: That theoretical partical William_Shatner was talking about earlier.Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41443385480794204312008-12-03T12:34:00.000-08:002008-12-03T12:34:00.000-08:00Illithi - here's a clip of an economist, Peter Sch...Illithi - here's a clip of an economist, Peter Schiff going on to Fox News and explaining why we are in so much trouble. It's entertaining because the blowhards ridicule him mercilessly (thus showing how horrendously wrong they are). But he also makes a lot of good points.<BR/><BR/>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/01/save-money-turn-off-your-tv/ <BR/><BR/>(If Blogger doesn't like the long link, I'll get a tiny url for it.)<BR/><BR/>imbersh - phrase used by drunk people demanding payment.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198405937534052637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20661309881796707032008-12-03T12:04:00.000-08:002008-12-03T12:04:00.000-08:00Thanks, guys! I've talked to people who've been bl...Thanks, guys! <BR/><BR/>I've talked to people who've been blaming that for the state of the economy, and/or using it as a stick to beat against 'Leftist Democrats/Liberals', and I'm looking for a solid source I can reference to show them wrong. I'm also trying to put together a rough but fairly easily-explainable picture of why our economy is in the state it is, with the sources and information to back it up. I think I have a good idea already, just not refined and informed enough to present to other people. Definitely gonna have to do more of my own research on that, though.Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40676522099533005652008-12-03T12:02:00.000-08:002008-12-03T12:02:00.000-08:00There it is, posted by Stefan Jones:http://davidbr...There it is, posted by Stefan Jones:<BR/>http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-is-credible-to-fix-mess-its-time.html<BR/><BR/><I>I posted the 2004 REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM which has several paragraphs lauding the ownership society and calling for barriers to be lowered to allow minorities to get homes. Oh, and how the party could help by eliminating regulations so more homes could be built, and helping people get homes without down payments.</I><BR/><BR/><I>All there in black and white:</I><BR/><BR/><I>http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R2004</I><BR/><BR/>As for Illithi's initial question - try searching for some legislation Phil Gramm snuck through around 2000; it's my understanding that he managed to get a bunch of this stuff deregulated.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198405937534052637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18508619898208790672008-12-03T11:56:00.000-08:002008-12-03T11:56:00.000-08:00Wait a second, I thought it was an official plank ...Wait a second, I thought it was an official plank of the GOP platform to open up loans and mortgages for the lower classes.<BR/>I could swear I've seen Brin post that here several times - I'll go look for it.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198405937534052637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2171613672477344652008-12-03T11:40:00.000-08:002008-12-03T11:40:00.000-08:00Ilithi,The line of reasoning stems from the idea t...Ilithi,<BR/><BR/>The line of reasoning stems from the idea that Democratic congresscritters labeled tight credit standards as "racist", due to the coincidence of poverty with racial minorities. The intent was to open up opportunity for honest, hardworking minorities. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately for that line of reasoning, the labeling by congresscritters was bipartisan, as far as I've been able to see.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618647194288598056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7840499459721702812008-12-03T11:25:00.000-08:002008-12-03T11:25:00.000-08:00Hey, you guys wouldn't happen to have solid inform...Hey, you guys wouldn't happen to have solid information/references to refute the "the Government/Democrats forced the banks to make bad loans" argument handy, would you? I did some quick searching, and didn't turn up much (mostly just "OMGWTFBBQ!!11! The Government/Democrats FORCED the banks to make bad loans!!!111!one!1" stuff). I can probably find it on my own after a more in-depth search, but I figure somebody here probably has a handy reference that'll save me an in-depth search. Thanks!<BR/><BR/>Mattei: Having matte tones?Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56750808800973527622008-12-03T08:41:00.000-08:002008-12-03T08:41:00.000-08:00Wow, a lot of interesting info there, Shat, thanks...Wow, a lot of interesting info there, Shat, thanks! Gonna have to go back through it later and take notes.<BR/><BR/><BR/>On Universe: I intend to subscribe, but haven't gotten around to it yet - busy weekend over the holiday.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Slespi: Sleep aid in the form of a slurpy.Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1856143827180771732008-12-02T19:06:00.000-08:002008-12-02T19:06:00.000-08:00Robert - Corporations are driven by current tax po...Robert - <BR/><BR/>Corporations are driven by current tax policy to retain profits so shareholders can defer paying capital gains taxes. Since they're holding onto the shareholder's profits, they are driven to make that capital yield more profits, by growing and expanding. <BR/><BR/>They run into a Corporate Peter Principle - expand to the point where their failures wipe out net capital accumulation. Then get stuck there until they lose track of their core mission, and collapse in the face of competition. <BR/><BR/>So I have to ask - why are you so set on pushing for capital accumulation into ever fewer, ever larger, ever less efficient existing corporations, headed by ever fewer executives being paid ever higher salaries? <BR/><BR/>Why do you want to encourage corporate incompetence, exporting jobs to where workers can be more easily exploited, shoddy products, financial game-playing, and so on? <BR/><BR/>Because that's what you're arguing for, even if you haven't realized it. <BR/><BR/>The economy would function more efficiently (and perhaps even more kindly in the long term) if tax policy instead drove corporations to return profits to shareholders, who would in turn be driven to invest in more efficient and innovative companies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32091608707908227712008-12-02T15:48:00.000-08:002008-12-02T15:48:00.000-08:00Just read http://mcsweeneys.net/2008/11/20tucker.h...Just read http://mcsweeneys.net/2008/11/20tucker.html<BR/>It was worth it:<BR/><I><BR/>"There's a whole world out there of byzantine financial products just waiting to be invented, Dagny. Let the leeches run my factories into the ground! I hope they do! I've taken out more insurance on a single Rearden Steel bond than the entire company is even worth! When my old company finally tanks, I'll make a cool $877 million."<BR/>...<BR/>Their eyes locked with an intensity she was only beginning to understand. Yes, Hank ... claim me ... If we're to win the battle against the leeches, we must get it on ... right now ... Don't let them torture us for our happiness ... or our billions.<BR/>...<BR/>He fell upon her like a savage, wielding his mouth like a machete...<BR/>...<BR/>"Collateralized debt obligation."<BR/>"YES! YES! YES!"<BR/>...<BR/>John Galt's face betrayed no signs of pain or fear or guilt, and his body had the clean tensile strength of a foundry casting with skin the color of a polished full-port brass valve. In the center of this secret mountain valley where the titans of Wall Street had retreated for an extended junket was a 3-foot-tall dollar sign of pure gold atop a granite column. It was tacky, yes, but it was also their emblem, a symbol of their triumph.<BR/>...<BR/>"And that's why I created the financial plan you found. It's true, it works. But it is not sustainable. It will ruin this country's financial system, and then we'll see how those who despise us prosper when their lenders and investors refuse to invest or lend." He laughed joylessly. "Funny, isn't it? I must destroy the very thing I love in order to save it."<BR/>"Just to avoid paying taxes?"<BR/>"I do not compromise my beliefs, and I will kill anyone who asks me to!"<BR/>...<BR/>He shrugged. "What is infinity?"<BR/>She let out a rich, powerful moan, like the sound of a passing diesel train in the night.<BR/></I><BR/>/ClassicFake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-28546554663285254042008-12-02T12:31:00.000-08:002008-12-02T12:31:00.000-08:00Berman's piece was interesting. (For those who ar...Berman's piece was interesting. (For those who are lazy like me:<BR/>www.judithberman.net/sffuture.html )<BR/><BR/>But her critique was leveled at the field of SF in general for becoming too backward looking, based on the assumption that editor Gardner Dozois was picking the best stories available.<BR/><BR/>My hunch is that there is still a bias in Asimov's towards stories about old people and fear of the future. But it'd be interesting to see a similar comparison performed today and see how things have changed.<BR/>For instance, I have seen quite a few stories that reflect the conditions of our current state of war.<BR/><BR/>mertins - medieval castle decorations, shaped as playful spritesCliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198405937534052637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70770040682756244072008-12-02T11:31:00.000-08:002008-12-02T11:31:00.000-08:00Looks like common citizens save the day again.For ...Looks like common citizens save the day again.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/world/asia/02heroes.html?_r=1" REL="nofollow"><B>For Heroes of Mumbai, Terror Was a Call to Action</B></A><BR/><BR/><I>On any ordinary day, Vishnu Datta Ram Zende used the public-address system at Mumbai’s largest railway station to direct busy hordes of travelers to their trains.<BR/><BR/>But last Wednesday just before 10 p.m., when he heard a loud explosion and saw people running across the platform, he gripped his microphone and calmly directed a panicked crowd toward the safest exit. The station, Victoria Terminus, it turned out, was suddenly under attack, the beginning of a three-day siege by a handful of young, heavily armed gunmen.<BR/><BR/>“Walk to the back and leave the station through Gate No. 1,” he chanted alternately in Hindi and Marathi, barely stopping to take a breath until the platform was cleared. No sooner, gunmen located his announcement booth and fired, puncturing one of the windows. Mr. Zende was not hurt.<BR/><BR/>Overnight, Mr. Zende became one of Mumbai’s new heroes, their humanity all the more striking in the face of the inhumanity of the gunmen. As the city faced one of the most horrific terrorist attacks in the nation’s history, many ordinary citizens like Mr. Zende, 37, displayed extraordinary grace.<BR/><BR/>Many times, they did so at considerable personal risk, performing acts of heroism that were not part of their job descriptions. Without their quick thinking and common sense, the toll of the attacks would most likely have been even greater than the 173 confirmed dead on Monday.</I>JuhnDonnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06795417373366495092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79896655886807593442008-12-02T10:56:00.000-08:002008-12-02T10:56:00.000-08:00Our two fuzz balls (60 lbs. and 70 lbs.) are named...Our two fuzz balls (60 lbs. and 70 lbs.) are named Sheila and Sasha. Daughter likes "S" names. I like Sirius. Lots of different meanings a connotations. And it can be shortened to Siri.<BR/><BR/>Man, William_Shatner's on a roll. Good stuff; thanks!JuhnDonnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06795417373366495092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83377632407536570042008-12-02T10:41:00.000-08:002008-12-02T10:41:00.000-08:00SATIRESAtlas Shrugged Updated For The Current Fina...SATIRES<BR/><BR/>Atlas Shrugged Updated For The Current Financial Crisis.<BR/>By Jeremiah Tucker<BR/>http://mcsweeneys.net/2008/11/20tucker.html<BR/><BR/>In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?<BR/> http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=513David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-171734870083772632008-12-02T09:13:00.000-08:002008-12-02T09:13:00.000-08:00Sorry to be so chatty on the blog, but I was Just ...Sorry to be so chatty on the blog, but I was Just listening to "Ring of Fire" and had to share. This should help spread some outrage and perspective to those Ostriches who still think that Unions are the problem;<BR/><BR/>Lost in the discussion of how competitive Ford is to Toyota is the following little statistic;<BR/>The CEO at Ford makes $30,208 per hour based upon a 60 hour work week, meanwhile the Toyota CEO makes $289 per hour based on that same 60 hour work week for a successful company. No telling if the Ford CEO actually works 60 hours -- but what is a few hundred Million dollars give or take a year? Perhaps if we doubled this man's salary, he might be more inspired to build plug-in hybrids like Toyota.<BR/><BR/>Based on the totally inflated figure of US auto workers making $75 per hour (that is based upon owed pension funds to retired workers, healthcare and perhaps even executive funds -- the real hourly wage is $28 -- thank our craptastic media for missing that) That is the pay of 402 workers per hour, or a little over 1200 workers if we were talking about actual compensation. The Toyota CEO gets the pay of 3.8 workers.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the CEO of Ford lost $500 million the last two years. I think I found it -- it's sitting in his f-ing pay check. In this same time, Toyota's market share has risen to $245 Billion.<BR/><BR/>Does the media mention that Toyota also pays for its worker's healthcare in Japan?Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41119780041016276922008-12-02T08:15:00.000-08:002008-12-02T08:15:00.000-08:00To add to what Rob H. said...The idea of forcing g...To add to what Rob H. said...<BR/><BR/>The idea of forcing great profits from a company may be fundamentally unsupportable as a culture and a planet. It will blow a few gaskets -- but investments should be diminished as a way to make money.<BR/><BR/>I have had stocks, but the most VALUE or return I've ever gotten, is from what I do in labor. However, this is not true of true capitalists, those who make money from investments.<BR/><BR/>It's kind of like the idea of royalties for patents -- it was intended to spur innovation, likewise, investment is intended to spur growth. But why is an auto manufacturer or bank going to invest in a plant, when more money can be made on some financial venture? Or in buying up the competition? And why stay in America at all, when you can lobby congress, to get rid of Tariffs and just make everything in a country that has no labor laws or safety constraints? There is very little incentive to build anything in the USA.<BR/><BR/>If a company does not grow more than 5% a year - it is a bad stock investment. Yet it provides jobs. It may actually be vital to industry -- like the steel plants. If Capital Gains were taxed higher, money may leave the country. <BR/><BR/>We need a system that changes the balance between Labor and Capital -- because it is mostly Labor vs. Capital. What you are saying when you want to make Shareholder value a better ROI, is that you want to compensate Labor less -- add in Royalties, and I think those are the principle ways to make money. We used to understand this, but there has been a lot of education, to make workers think that lifting all the Yachts, will also lift all the Row Boats. How's that working? The past 26 years has seen a sharp increase in productivity, and wages have flat lined. They used to track within a percentage point except for things like Depressions and Wars. <BR/><BR/>When the wealthy had a 90% tax rate, we had plenty of growth and innovation. Oh, you don't want to be wealthy or own a business because the taxes are too high? Well, I'd be happy with 90% tax on $3 Million per year -- so for every wealthy whiner, there are ten more people who would take their place. I don't think it needs to be that high -- but for a time, there needs to be a surcharge on wealth as a "War and Financial Bail Out Tax." It should go on imported energy products and dividends and it should be right there in their face when they pay taxes. Or tax trades that Financial Institutions make by 1% -- that should cover their handout. They have this idea that we can borrow from China and the Saudis forever -- yeah, well forever just ended folks.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65451230449844800872008-12-02T07:59:00.000-08:002008-12-02T07:59:00.000-08:00The "Stockholder" is the most important ...The "Stockholder" is the most important thing for a company has got to go - along with the fantasy that markets are self-correcting.<BR/><BR/>Venture Capital starts a company, and Stock helps it get a cheap loan in a sense, in order to improve and re-invest in the company. Without a tax incentive to coerce re-investment, the whole exercise is pointless. The stock market has become a high-tech gambling casino, and the Derivatives market even worse. Since Paulson and Bernanke, found it to be their jobs to let the kids run the candy store, nobody is stopping companies from being "Market Makers" a nice way of saying "Stock Manipulators."<BR/><BR/>If you want stocks to mean something and help invest in a better future, then make them two years or more between sale -- or a steep penalty if not for some emergency. You should actually prevent employees from owning stock -- at least the executives, because they should be depending upon the long-term value of the company and their job, not trying to fluff up the stock value every quarter. Our entire economy has just-in-time inventories and get rich quick investing. Other than a few things, like tax-payer sponsored research on drugs, which the drug companies are happy to patent and charge us extra for, there is little long term research outside of Universities.<BR/><BR/>The Oil Industry does not invest. The Steel Industry does not invest. The real money is playing with paper -- or it was, until about a month ago, when that little house of cards collapsed.<BR/><BR/>When John Q Executive wakes up in the morning, he should be thinking; "How do I make my company better?" Rather than; "How do I help my stock portfolio." Heck, we could just have a government run business bank and scrap all stocks for all I care. The market is useless for evaluating companies now. The "bet" is based upon what the stock will do in a few days, and the company is just the pony of the week. Meanwhile, we have 401K plans that automatically invest in stocks -- all sorts of automatic buying. Do all these companies automatically go up? No. But yet, we constantly invest as if it does. So, IBM isn't valued as to what IBM can do in 10 years, IBM is valued based upon the share of the market it will return in a quarter. Enough said.<BR/><BR/>>> I was listening to Thom Hartmann, and a caller had a great idea for the auto industry. Allow Americans to reserve a plugin-hybrid or electric car from any of the big three automakers. $5000-$10,000 that would sit in an account and allow automakers to borrow against, until delivery -- targeted in 2 years. So, a citizen could say; "I'll buy a car with a deep discount." And they start putting some earnest money away for it, and get the "bail out" money, but on contingency for delivery.<BR/><BR/>It re-builds a market for cars which is drying up, and it forces innovation. The strings attached means that the automakers get nothing, if they try to pull up ropes and go to China or Mexico. Sounds like a great idea to me.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57068970066172793312008-12-02T05:03:00.000-08:002008-12-02T05:03:00.000-08:00Focusing on the "reliable" product and not taking ...Focusing on the "reliable" product and not taking risks is what got the automotive industry in the dire straights it is currently in. Rather than pushing the technology to build more and more fuel-efficient cars, they built more and more gas-inefficient cars that were comfortable and looked pretty, and worked through advertising so that smaller cars weren't as "sexy" or "American."<BR/><BR/>Businesses need to indulge in risk in order to grow. It's just they need to moderate that risk and ensure it doesn't risk bankrupting the company. In addition, the religious pursuit of profits has resulted in companies laying off 30% of its workers and insisting the other 70% of the workers pick up that slack... and when they do, then laying off another 20% of the workers and pushing employees to pick up that slack as well.<BR/><BR/>Profits are but <I>one</I> element a company should strive for, and it should not be the fulcrum on which the success of a company is measured. Such things as employee satisfaction, quality of products, company image, and the social responsibility of the company are equally important, and all together give a far more healthy view of the state a company is in. <BR/><BR/>A company could have monstrous profits, but a product that sucks and is defective, a reputation as a company that poisons the environment and ignores its responsibilities, and workers who hate working there. Do you honestly think profits will remain hot a few years down the line, especially if there's a competitor who has a better product and a far healthier work environment?<BR/><BR/>Shareholders don't often look at the entire picture. They look at their own personal profits and if it's not as high as they want, they get upset and demand action. It is motivated by greed rather than sound business practices, and it's unhealthy for industry and for society as a whole. And it is part of what has led us to the edge of a cliff that is crumbling.<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32245397246521832042008-12-01T22:43:00.000-08:002008-12-01T22:43:00.000-08:00Robert - Who's talking about tax cuts? My prefere...Robert - Who's talking about tax cuts? <BR/><BR/>My preference would be to tax all corporate profits (excluding operations and maintenence, but not expansion or losses to bad corporate investments) directly to the shareholders, at their individual tax rates. Raise the top personal tax rate, if necessary, to keep it revenue neutral.<BR/><BR/>Corporations could keep and re-invest profits - but they'd better have a sensible explanation ready for the shareholders who'd be paying the taxes. <BR/><BR/>It would encourage investors to insist on corporate accountability for internal investments. <BR/><BR/>A corporate executive who blows hundreds of millions on a failed expansion into a new line of business shouldn't be praised for "risk-taking" - he should be pilloried for not being able to make the investment work, or for investing in an un-workable scheme. <BR/><BR/>Leave "risk-taking" to start-up companies that could grow on the vast amounts of capital this would shake loose from corporations. Corporations do best and are most efficient when focused on a single clear-cut area of business. Leave risk-spreading and diversification to mutual funds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57101834174516110012008-12-01T19:46:00.000-08:002008-12-01T19:46:00.000-08:00@Tom - Have you not looked at what businesses have...@Tom - Have you not looked at what businesses have been doing with the tax cuts the Shrub gave them? Mergers and Consolidations up the wazoo. Reinvesting in the company means doing such things as infrastructure improvements, purchasing new computers for workers, investing in new office chairs and in programs to ensure workers don't suffer from workplace injuries. It means behaving responsibly. <BR/><BR/>Those print companies that have invested in new technologies are able to print books cheaper and in smaller numbers than the old traditional printers. This allows them to gain more of a profit as a result.<BR/><BR/>Companies also invest in research and development, and then come out with long-term product development to succeed beyond the next year. Those companies that are private and invest profits back into the company itself often are more successful than companies that squeeze every last iota of profit out of the corporation and return it to selfish stockholders who punish the company at the smallest sign of weakness. (And having stocks drop significantly because profits were ONE FREAKING CENT below expectations is a sign of selfishness and idiocy.)<BR/><BR/>If you look at Dr. Brin's past blogs, you will notice something: industry and business does better under the "tax and spend" Democrats than under the "lower taxes" Republicans. <BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38015277709398207252008-12-01T18:53:00.000-08:002008-12-01T18:53:00.000-08:00If high taxes encourage corporations to re-invest,...If high taxes encourage corporations to re-invest, rather than return their profits to shareholders...then high taxes are a bad idea.<BR/><BR/>Corporations commonly blow huge wads of cash "investing" by buying up hot companies in attempts to break into new business areas, then eventually have to bail out and take a big tax loss. <BR/><BR/>As a shareholder, I'd rather they'd return the money to me. I may spend it - helping the economy - or I may re-invest it. The latter would push up stock prices, which would in turn make it more attractive to invest in start-up companies who will likely do much better by focusing solely on that new business area.<BR/><BR/>"Unknol" - the de-edification that takes place over spring or summer breaks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34670903963239023902008-12-01T16:30:00.000-08:002008-12-01T16:30:00.000-08:00The name just doesn't seem "cute" enough....hence ...<I>The name just doesn't seem "cute" enough.</I><BR/><BR/>...hence the late inclusion of 'Gromit'<BR/><BR/>Not 'fluffy' enough? Make him a pocket dog. Plasticine and lint will work wonders!<BR/><BR/>(My daughter has a turtle called 'fluffy'. Actually, she has a lot of turtles... it really is turtles all the way, down here!)<BR/><BR/>predo: chechwan term for 'liffcapcha'Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12804918823649263482008-12-01T16:16:00.000-08:002008-12-01T16:16:00.000-08:00Serius?Is that for "seriously"or Serius satellite,...Serius?<BR/>Is that for "seriously"<BR/>or Serius satellite, or the star cluster, or the constellation. Is that a wolf? <BR/>Cereus? Did you mean Cerebus?<BR/>Or related to this? <A HREF="http://www.csicop.org/si/7809/sirius.html" REL="nofollow">Sirius Mystery, Dogon tribe (Skeptical Inquirer Fall 1978)</A><BR/>This seems a better fit; <A HREF="http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/buried-treasure/2008-10-30/the-legend-of-sirius" REL="nofollow">SIRIUS NO DENSETSU (A.K.A. The Sea Prince and the Fire Child)</A><BR/>I'll have to wait for the kids to see it and get inspired.<BR/>The name just doesn't seem "cute" enough.<BR/><BR/>I guess Google can make all of us seem like obscure reference geniuses. Sounds like a good movie though.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I need to check out some old Chechwa (sp?) tribal words, since my kids are 50% Inca-American princes.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.com