Slashdot Mirror

And who added the first half of that debt?

Errr not Trump ? Little defensive there aren't you chief ?

Not really, just laying the ground work for pointing out that the Republicans are on track to match Obama. Bush was in eight years responsible for somewhat less than half of the current US debt, Obama added the second half in eight years, Clinton was responsible for much of the rest. So far Trump has added $1.46 trillion to the national debt in just 19 months and if that rate of debt collection continues he'll probably add more than even Obama did. This projection put Trump's national probable debt increase at 8-9 billion if he remains in office for 8 years and If things continue as they are doing today. That means that Trump will bring the US national debt to between ~29 billion by 2024. However, keep in mind this projection is six months old and Trump has already blown the projected debt increase for 2017 and 2018 combined in only 19 moths.

I get it. You are a retard who refuses to listen to any peer reviewed studies but think that the "facts" you pull out of your ass are worthwhile to spread.
Flag as Inappropriate

You just cited a leftwing wiki https://www.sourcewatch.org/in... while complaining someone else pulls facts out their ass ?
What's more somehow you don't even get that as problematical ?

Then you cite the people in charge of a project to show that it will work as opposed to say outside sources ? Despite the fact they have already been caught lying ?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1...

Otay buckwheat. Maybe you can be a diversity hire in the future.

No, no, Mr. Coward (if that is your real name), that's not true.

Had the ACA not been signed, global temperatures would have increased by 17.152 degrees (NOT 17.149 degrees that some Republican thinktank lowballed).

I get sick and tired of the Trump disciples low-balling the amount the temperature would have increased. Scientists said 17.152 degrees, and they don't lie. In fact, Science never lies. Except when it claims that there are only two sexes because there are only two chromosome combinations. Chromosomes are a Nazi concept that all real scientists rebuff. Everyone knows that sex and gender are determined by a consensus of highly-educated white people from the suburbs who moved to the city and gentrified all minorities out of it while shouting "Black Lives Matter".

Science also says that men and women are the same, as are all races and creeds of peopl ... wait, no it doesn't say that ... look, I believe the Science that the media and entertainment industry believes in, and I came to the conclusion all by myself without any influence or peer pressure. Did too. DID TOO!

You know how you know that I'm sincere?

Why, I live my values, of course. Sure, studies show that self-identified "progressives" take more flights each year, and fly more miles each year, than do self-identified "conservatives". Not me, though. I don't have a car, don't fly, I actually care enough about the environment that my daily actions reflect that concern. No, really. DO TOO! And I hate the working-class, rednecks who pollute less than I do but REFUSE TO TALK THE TALK. Oh they just MAKE . ME. SO. MAD! I'm so mad! Look at how mad I am! The climate! The earth! The earth climate! Nothing is more important to me than the comfort of the terrible breeder's offspring 60 years from now. The over-populate the planet, and I hate them yes, but dammit, I want them to be comfortable and to enjoy beachfront property unencumbered. I don't know why I care about that, I just do. Don't tell anyone but I might be God. I mean, my parents always told me I was and I always suspected they were right, but .... anyway.

It's not just me that cares about the climate, but all of California cares too.

I mean just look at this:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/1...

Wait, I mean ... fuck you! I bet you voted for the big Cheeto or some guy with bass in his voice! Macho Bro asshole! Impure! Unclean! Shame! Shame! Shame!

My college professor said climate change and science and even when promoting the establishment view I do so as anonymous coward so NYAH! Nyah! Nyah!

I'm so good.

It's not hard to find sourced articles showing that home ownership is a losing investment. Here is a CNBC (note that this is the NBC business network, not the NBC network that conservatives love to trash for being "too liberal") article:

it's better to rent than to buy in today's housing market

But there have been plenty others in recent months and years that have done a more thorough mathematical workup of it. There is a long list of things that are better financial investments than houses and physical properties.

Uh-huh.

Equifax is already facing the largest class-action lawsuit in US history
https://bgr.com/2017/09/08/equifax-hack-lawsuit-class-action-how-to-join/

Equifax's Massive Data Breach Has Cost the Company $4 Billion So Far
http://time.com/money/4936732/equifaxs-massive-data-breach-has-cost-the-company-4-billion-so-far/

How to Get In on a Class-Action Lawsuit Against Equifax
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/credit/T017-C000-S002-get-in-on-a-class-action-lawsuit-against-equifax.html

I won $8,000 from Equifax in Small Claims Court. Here’s how you can, too.
https://blog.legalist.com/i-won-8-000-from-equifax-in-small-claims-court-heres-how-you-can-too-f0ce6925c079?gi=f38cd2b5686f

Equifax will not survive fallout from massive breach, says technology attorney
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/14/equifax-will-not-survive-fallout-from-massive-breach-says-technology-attorney.html

There are 23 class-action lawsuits filed and a congressional investigation, as well as lawsuits that may be yet to come, Grossman said.

Sure, there's been little fallout.

Yes, a market-leading company with a high-quality product and robust sales is just about to go bust, right:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/0...

Generally, investors aren't stupid enough to think smoking a bit of weed in the context of an informal media interview has any serious implications for the future of the company however, if the stock is under pressure, it's far more shareholders are responding to things like legitimate market news of actual new competition:

https://www.highsnobiety.com/p...

But of course the average Slashdot reader focuses on things like the weed, and doesn't even follow such actual market news. Investors are generally much better at looking at what really matters.

Morton left because he was a privatization expert for a company no longer looking at going private, and felt nobody cared about his privatization ideas anyway.

Although the above underlined sentence above contains ideas mentioned in the article, the summary doesn't reflect what the author wrote and instead conveys a meaning that is very different from the article.

From the article: "Morton, who left his role as Seagate's CFO to join Tesla, was not flustered by the tweet [about privatization] and met with Musk to go over various details that would make a take-private difficult. He brought up specific details such as equity change of control provisions and potential step-ups in the value of Tesla's debt associated with a new controlling shareholder. Musk and other executives didn't seem to care about the various financial obstacles, which concerned Morton."

Then only after all this, "When Morton offered advice about capitalizing the company through other means rather than going private, he was ignored."

These missing parts paint a very different picture of the reason for Morton's departure. From the article, Morton is painted much more positively and Musk and Tesla in a much less positive light.

Indeed.

First thing that came to my mind reading that "Funding was not secured, the price of $420 was not based in reality" anonymous coward quote in the summary was - "What about a price of $240 then? Or about? Is there funding secured for THAT price?"

Cause, thanks to the timeline, he can now just turn around and point his finger at SEC.
"You caused this, with that talk of an investigation, not me.
In fact, I think of suing you for devaluing my stock and losing me and my shareholders billions."

Nobody stepped down over it. Morton left because he was a privatization expert for a company no longer looking at going private, and felt nobody cared about his privatization ideas anyway. Toledano has been on a leave of absence for over a month. The fun thing about Toledano is that people got to FUD Tesla twice - once when she went on leave, and again when it was confirmed that she wouldn't be returning. Two for one - what a deal!

Even if you assume that her "personal reasons" and "family" is PR speak (and not literally what it says on the tin), the simple matter is that - as a company which has nearly two dozen people at the VP level or higher (not even counting department heads) - executive departures will happen at regular intervals. Just like they do at all companies (but particularly in Silicon Valley, where average executive stays are shorter than average). The main difference is that people don't have a giant FUD blitz every time, say, some VP in Kraft Foods leaves.

It actually was. And anyone criticizing it for the "OMG Elon Is A Pothead Promoting Drug Usage!" notion clearly never watched it. It's practically an anti-pot ad. Musk is offered a joint (which he has to ask if it's a joint), takes one puff, doesn't even inhale, looks at it, shakes his head no, passes it back - then later on they discuss marijuana, and Musk says that he doesn't like it because it inhibits his ability to get things done and have a meaningful effect on the world.

But of course, that doesn't make for a clickbait headline, now does it?

Seriously, this Slashdot "summary" is one of the clickbatiest, most misleading summaries I've seen in ages. Also poorly copyedited - starting to talk about marijuana, then acting like it's going into a summary about pot, but instead going back to Morton. Naturally, their quoting of Morton cuts out before his line, "I want to be clear that I believe strongly in Tesla, its mission, and its future prospects, and I have no disagreements with Tesla’s leadership or its financial reporting." - because, hey, why bother to mention a trivial thing like that when you have a hit piece to right?

And of course, there's no mention of the in-detail reporting on why Morton left. Specifically, Morton was brought in because his background was privatizations. But he felt like nobody appreciated his ideas as Tesla and he was being ignored. His ignored ideas included, and I quote, "advice about capitalizing the company through other means rather than going private". Had Morton bothered to listen to a single earnings call, they would have heard the Tesla executive team repeatedly and strongly ruling out capital raises from equity; instead that their capital expenditures going forth are to be from profit and debt. He seems to have misunderstood that privatization wasn't a means, it was a goal: to eliminate short-sellers, and thus the financial incentive to FUD the company - as well as to eliminate the end-of-quarter rush and allow the company to stay more long-term strategically focused.

By the way, as for executives leaving in general: Tesla has 23 people at the VP level or higher - we're not even counting department heads here. The average stay of a high level executive is around 4 years, and less in Silicon Valley. Executive departures will happen. Get used to it.

Of course, Slashdot concludes with a paragraph that is an epic smear, curiously sourced from some random person commenting on some other site's message board (is that a first here?):

It's now obvious that everything Elon tweeted that manipulated the market was a lie.

Meanwhile, in the universe that we live in, there were multiple entities competing to buy Tesla. Including, among others, multiple sovereign wealth funds (not just the Saudis), and Volkswagen. The terms however were more painful to Tesla than staying public, including various combinations of loss of control, requirements to build large local production facilities and so forth. It also became clear that the best their advisers could do for allowing retail investors to remain in (which was part of the plan, to minimize the size of the buyout) was an exotic trust structure that would have had a low chance of being approved by regulators.

But naaaaaah - who cares about actual investigative reporting when you can base articles on "Megatrex from the comment section of Ars Technica"? FUD away everyone! It's a lot more fun!

Wages have been slow to adjust, but a recent report shows wage growth(*) at 2.9% last month (monthly increase, annualized for a year), which is higher than inflation. Unemployment is at about 2.9% and steady.

(*)Yes, Breitbart.com, which always lies and never tells the truth and are a bunch of poo-poo heads that should be banned. Now dispute the actual numbers and the government report like an adult, or GTFO.

You know, like a stopped clock, Breitbart just might be right now and then. And in this case, it appears they are.

But I mean, c'mon. Breitbart? Their reputation is well-known. If you want to be taken seriously, provide some links to other sources, assuming you read any.

Don't forget that the economy, from the point of view of the *people*, only started to get better about October of last year. Looking at the DJIA (or other leading indicators) shows we were out of the woods and back to health in 2013.

Repeat after me:

The stock market is not the economy. The economy is not the stock market.
The stock market is not the economy. The economy is not the stock market.
The stock market is not the economy. The economy is not the stock market.
[...]

And also, the reason he left wasn't "illegal shit", but because Tesla didn't like his privatization ideas and ignored him (he was hired to help with the privatization)

He should have listened to at least one earnings call before accepting the job. Namely, he appears to have misunderstood going private as a means for fundraising. Tesla has repeatedly (endlessly) said - to the endless disbelief of shorts - that it has no interest in fundraising with dilution, and that it only plans to fund further capital expenses through profit and debt. So when there's things like:

When Morton offered advice about capitalizing the company through other means rather than going private, he was ignored, said the person.

No duh he was ignored. Privatization wasn't a means, it was the goal. In order to eliminate shorts, and thus the financial incentive to FUD the stock, as well as the need to focus on quarterly earnings rushes and instead stay focused on long-term strategy.

A.I. could spur global growth as much as the steam engine did, study shows

Your right, the numbers are low for general population holding stocks.

54% of households hold some stocks
93% of stocks owned by 20% of households
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/0...

Though I agree, there are a class of people that all they do is invest and manage investments instead of labor in a factory, I disagree that it is a bad thing.
Investors are necessary for the economy and the market. Professional investors especially.

There are leeches, however and I dont like that. Many mutual funds have too high of a MER, which sucks profit out of your investments. People should invest in index funds, which cost less.

There are factors I dont like however, like HFT (High Frequency Trading). I feel that is a leech on the markets and should just not exist. Though they pretend it creates liquidity in the market.

I think one of the important factors is state education does not do enough of a good job helping people understand how investments work, how important they are and how everyone should have investments. Its harder when you are young to invest, but it should be done. I myself am a late comer with investments beginning in my late 30s, I'm behind.

Citation

The vehicle will be produced on the same line as the company's C-Class Saloon and Estate, GLC and GLC Coupe. ...
"Our decision to produce electric vehicles on the same line as models with combustion engines enables us to respond flexibly to demand and use plant capacity to best effect.

In case you don't realize, the GLC and C-class are related, but rather different vehicles (completely different body, lots of commonality internally). The $12B figure is from TFA.

This is what you get by insisting on a for-profit higher educational system. I see all sorts of wild data points.

On one hand I get that making people pay for college will cause them to take it more seriously and value it more, but the idea you have to go into debt for life to get higher education is insane. It used to be mostly MDs did that but now it seems to be everyone.

At the same time, major corporations are no longer demanding degrees to grant interviews and award employment. Any degree that isn't strictly professional (medical, law, teacher, engineering) is more likely than not to turn out to be worthless.

China is producing three times the number of engineers the U.S. does (out of a 4x population) and I don't see the citizens there financially ruining themselves to do so. At the same time movement conservatives insist that anyone without a degree is doing so only through bad life choices and don't deserve any financial security in a decent living standard. They will then go on to point out how the Chinese have a great work ethic and we don't and that is why China is "winning" so vote Republican/MAGA.

Our major educational institutions have turned into basically huge investment banking firms accumulating massive assets like crazy, even while they hike their crazy tuition ever higher because of "rising costs." Harvard has endowments more than $35 Billion, and the poorest of the top ten has more than $8.5B. Can you afford to go there without a huge loan or financial assistance? Why not?

I don't know where this is all going or what should be done. Maybe voting socialist (Bernie?) will work because voting MAGA sure as hell won't. I'm just glad that I'm not in the position of having to earn a degree at this point of my life. But the way things there is ruining a generation. Maybe two or more.

Sure, using support for Democratic politicians as a proxy for leftward lean: "Google employees are spending heavily to elect Democrats in California and to flip the House" and it's not a recent thing, "98% of search engine's employees gave money to Democrats in '04".

For the news sources, see 96 Percent of Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Are from Liberal Media Outlets and then you can confirm for yourself by going to Google News and either looking at their headlines or searching for any politically relevant topic and counting the number of sources they highlight first on the left vs. the right side of the media bias chart, which if anything underestimates sources like CNN which have turned farther left since the election.

It's made in China, so that's enough reason on its own to avoid it. If you aren't supposed to use Kaspersky Antivirus or buy Huawei phones, you shouldn't use this thing.

Yes, Norway created a sovereign wealth fund out of nationalizing their oil industry. Of course they could have done the same if they sold the extraction rights to private companies. Also, they didn't take the usual route of nationalizing an existing industry that had been privately established. Rather they just decided that the government would run the extraction for their newly discovered offshore oil. This was pretty easy to do since it's pretty hard for any individual to claim mineral rights on a patch of ocean.

However, for a large portion of its history, they weren't spending any of it, which was quite wise of them. Only more recently did they tap into it (and there are limits to how much they can spend) and in their newest budgets they're trying to cut what they're spending out of it. There was a lot of criticism of the Conservative government leadership spending a lot of that money out in order to get reelected, which I suspect is behind the efforts to curtail the spending. However, they'll claim that they only did this to ease revenue shortfalls as a result of the collapse in oil prices.

The other funny thing about Norway is that their top marginal tax rate is lower than the top rate in the U.S. Also the Scandinavian countries in general don't really have a "tax the rich" type of approach the social democrats (or democratic socialists) seem to spout on about. They tax everyone quite highly. You only need to earn about 1.5 times the national average income to fall into the top bracket in the Scandinavian countries, whereas it's over 8 times as much in the U.S. If you look specifically at Norway their top marginal tax rate is 38.52% (compared to the U.S. at 37%) and both Norway and Denmark have lower rates now than they did 10 years ago, whereas the U.S. actually has higher rates, even though they were recently lowered (from ~39%).

This notion that the Nordic model is some great socialist system is just nonsense. Up until the recent changes from Congress, every single one of those countries had lower corporate tax rates than the U.S., and by a wide margin as well. All of them had been in the low 20% for years now (the U.S. was at 35%, but now we're much closer to them) and every single one of those countries had been gradually lowering corporate tax rates over the last decade as well. These supposed socialist states, are anything but and if you look at how many of them have been adjusting their taxes, they're moving away from what the kind of people who think they're socialist countries would make them socialist countries. I think people just see the healthcare system and assume everything must be socialist.

The Alberta Heritage fund got raided because there weren't enough protections put in place to stop asshole politicians from putting their fingers in the pie and they eventually quit paying into it and spent the money instead. I don't think North Dakota has spent any of their oil fund (Legacy Fund) money yet. I think they're just having issues because they probably got used to having all of that oil money in their budget and the price collapse left them in a lurch. Random side note, but from a certain perspective North Dakota is the most socialist state in the U.S. in that they have the only state-owned bank. Maybe it's all the Norwegian farmers.

Or the simpler answer: they just asked them what they were doing.

From a different article:

"Researchers at the University of the West of England (UWE) set out to examine the impact of free Wi-Fi on commuter trains.
They surveyed 5,000 rail passengers traveling on Chiltern Railways trains on two major London routes — from/to Birmingham and Aylesbury — over a 40-week period in 2016 and 2017."

Good analogy, I think.

So, by this analogy, the subprime mortgage industry was a frustum whose bottom face kept getting smaller and whose height and top face kept getting bigger.

Let's see... where was government in this?

It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007.

https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...

and

The housing bubble was inflated by federal policies created by President Bill Clinton, then expanded by President George W. Bush. The policies were supported by Senator and then President Barack Obama.

The policies were intended to help low-skilled Americans — especially African-Americans — and Hispanic immigrants gain housing wealth by pushing down mortgage requirements, such as down-payments.

But the government policy had the reverse effect, and the housing collapse after 2007 eliminated much of the wealth held by African-American and Hispanic families.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07...

and

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/1...

and

The seeds of the mortgage meltdown were planted during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Under Clinton's Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in "credit-deprived" areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting. If banks didn't comply with these rules, regulators reined in their ability to expand lending and deposits.

These new HUD rules lowered down payments from the traditional 20 percent to 3 percent by 1995 and zero down-payments by 2000. What's more, in the Clinton push to issue home loans to lower income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job history was also thrown aside. The phrase "subprime" became commonplace. What an understatement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/2...

I covered this one here: http://www.amerika.org/politic...

$13,388.

You need shelter, so let's put you in a studio hovel for a fair $500/mo (serious lowball figure); so that's $6,000/yr for housing, leaving you with $7,388. Oh, but wait - you probably need utility service too... well the national average is about $200/mo, so there's another $2,400 for housing, so once that's all paid for you're looking at $4,988 left.

We don't yet live in this fantasy utopia where magical AI robots do everything, so you need a job, and to get a job in Average America, you need a car. Let's say you get lucky and come across a reliable vehicle for $200/mo (haha, right); that's $2400/yr, taking your total down to $2,588. Of course that car isn't going to get far without gas, which costs Americans between $1400 and $2200 a year, depending on fuel prices; let's split the difference and call it $1,800, taking your total income for the year down to $788. /Deity help you if you have any maintenance costs...

Do you see what's going on? We've put you in tenement housing and given you shitty, unreliable transport, and we've got less than a grand for a years worth of everything else. Let's keep going anyway...

According to this chart, the average American couple spends about $7,500/yr, so a single person would be at half that, or $3,750. But you only have $788 left after transport and housing for the year... better not get sick, either.

So no, take it from a guy not only bothered to run the numbers, but who actually lived in that very situation before - the poverty line is not even close to what any rational first-world citizen would consider "livable," it's a shit situation that forces you to rely on government services just to survive.

CNBC and Harvard pretty much agree with the President, and I don't think those are two right-leaning organizations...

Big pharma is only able to overcharge because the FDA creates a virtual monopoly, through its costly and lengthy process at the end of which very few companies are allowed to make a drug. Try to make an Epi-pen and sell it, it only costs like $30 to make. Auto-injectors were created in the 1970's and the patents on it has expired a long time ago. We have no overcharge issues with non-prescription (non-FDA monopoly) drugs.

https://mises.org/wire/lack-ep...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/1...

This is a metaphor for musks incompetence.

Trump supporters say the same thing.

"I think one thing that should be distinguished here is that the media is always taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally. ... I think a lot of voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally, so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment, their question is not, 'Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?' or, you know, 'How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?' What they hear is we're going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy."

You are a liar. You knew what you were doing. Now you are defending your lies.

Fox can choose to not broadcast \ report any news that doesn't fit their world view, and so can Twitter.

Fox is the company that is generating the content of the new reports that they broadcast (they tell the news anchor what to say). Twitter does not create the content of user's tweets, so it is not the same. A correct parallel would be if Fox were a public access TV network, then they would not be the ones creating the content.

It's cute that you think that there's a difference. It's ironic that the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.

Have fun with that.

I guess the CEO of Target is all wrong about the great economy?

They mustn't be very good at it with so many billionaires .

Intel is AMAZINGLY self-destructive, IMO!

Intel says this: Intel's Brian Krzanich is forced out as CEO after 'consensual relationship' with employee. Another story: New details emerge on the office affair that led to Intel CEO Brian Krzanich's surprising resignation on Thursday.

Do you believe this quote? "The office affair which sparked Intel CEO Brian Krzanich's surprise resignation on Thursday started a decade ago and ended before he became CEO in 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported."

I'm guessing that Intel is trying to hide the real reasons that CEO Brian Krzanich is no longer CEO: 1) The Sceptre and Meltdown vulnerabilities in nearly all Intel CPUs, problems that began with former CEO Paul S. Otellini. 2) He used inside information to profit: Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock.

The new Intel CEO is Robert Swan. He joined Intel in September 2016 as CFO.

One of the most self-destructive acts is to appear to lie. Then everything else is examined as also possibly a lie.

The California bullet train is projected to cost as much as $98BN for 119 Ike's of track - that's a bit more than $50M/mile.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1...

Uh, you're getting a hell of a lot more than just a set of train tracks for $98BN.

Stupid comparison, is stupid.

If I were posting something in favor of the ill fated already several times over cost California bullet train I'd do it as an AC too.

Unlike that of the USSR, who only supported foreign Leftists, Putin's Russia is non-partisan, looking for support and influence wherever they can find it. In Germany, for example, thay happen to be particularly successful among the Left (no doubt with the aid of the old Stasi files). In France they supported the supposed rightists.

Western societies aren't immune to corruption — if the price is right — and for years Putin could afford bribes on the scale of millions.

Likewise, their targeting computers of all political parties is not at all surprising. That the GOP runs a tighter ship is not surprising either...

The California bullet train is projected to cost as much as $98BN for 119 Ike's of track - that's a bit more than $50M/mile.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1...

Uh, you're getting a hell of a lot more than just a set of train tracks for $98BN.

Stupid comparison, is stupid.

The California bullet train is projected to cost as much as $98BN for 119 Ike's of track - that's a bit more than $50M/mile.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1...

Average price of a Tesla. ;)

From this article it seems that stakeholders are the shareholders plus employees and local residents:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/1...

Still seems brilliant to me. If Trump ever does something brilliant, I'll call it brilliant. For example I think it's good that he took some measures to pull the ladders of corruption up behind his menagerie of swamp monsters:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/2...

From this article it seems that stakeholders are the shareholders plus employees and local residents:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/1...

Still seems brilliant to me. If Trump ever does something brilliant, I'll call it brilliant. For example I think it's good that he took some measures to pull the ladders of corruption up behind his menagerie of swamp monsters:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/2...

Higher education costs are increasing at rates much higher than inflation and wage growth. My pet blame target is the expense of suit-weasel administrators who don't do anything but make rules for other people. Now, when it comes to doctors, is someone really going to to defend one of the highest paid professions in the country from high education costs?
Personally, after their repeated failures to help my wife, me, and everyone I know with just about everything they've ever gone to see a fucking worthless doctor for, I couldn't give a shit less if doctors were debt bonded slaves chained to the ER wheelchair handrails and beaten by the nursing staff twice a day to remember what criminal failures they are, but hey that's just me. When antibiotics quit working (and we are well on our way) because doctors won't say no to mommy who wants to leave with an amoxicillin prescription for junior's hand cramps, about the only thing they can help you with is to set a broken bone. Everything else they do will either kill you, maim you, give you a worse health problem, addict you to opioids or benzos and/or completely bankrupt you. I'm not going to their filthy MRSA-filled office or hospital unless I get shot or break a bone (maybe). Remind me again who the fuck is supposed to cry for these people and why? I got a whole long list of people to feel a helluva lot sorrier for.

Black unemployment falls to lowest level on record

Black unemployment rate falls to record low

Black unemployment hits all-time low

No, I'm suggesting the possibility of things like collusion exists.

So? Collusion is not a crime... :^D

That would be awesome. It cost about $5 billion to build so likely the tax value is about right.

Eminent domain valuations are often based on tax valuations. If Apple feels the complex is worth $200, let the county acquire it, for the good of the people.

Yep. Not very friendly at all. Imagine how much bigger it could be if the State was business-friendly? Many companies stay in spite of the business climate, because other intangibles are beneficial (like climate, for example).

IOW, CA has figured out what right wing cranks can not - there is more to economic prosperity than low taxes and weak regulation.

As for being even bigger - CA is resource limited and already crowded, largely with economic and cultural refugees from “business friendly” places.

But I love the argument - “Sure, California is kicking the ass of ‘business friendly’ states. But imagine how much harder they could be kicking ass if they adopted the losing strategy!”

That's why China is still Importing all kinds of waste from all kinds of places.

China just stopped doing that about 3 months ago https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/1...

Yep. Not very friendly at all. Imagine how much bigger it could be if the State was business-friendly? Many companies stay in spite of the business climate, because other intangibles are beneficial (like climate, for example).

It is at least 800 this year

A few things.

1) US Steel planning to add. Planning. Believe it when you see it. This isn't your grandad's blast furnace, today the steel industry is highly automated. And how many times must you endure this Trump promise charade before you recognize the pattern?

2) What is the chance that somebody from Trump's administration did not "make a deal" to elicit that US Steel press release? (I'll help you here: exactly zero.)

3) The Tax Foundation estimates that the Trump tariffs will immediately result in the loss of 48,585 jobs and that job losses could number as high as 250,000 Subtract from your 800 (I'll be charitable) then multiply by your precious 3.6 additional jobs. Reality.

4) Everybody knows these things except Trump's "Q pack".

5) Here's another one for you. It's a wave all right, these are not promises, these are things that actually happened.

6) The value of iron and steel produced in 2014 was $113 billion.

7) Software Industry Growth Far Outpaces US Economy, Hits $1.14 Trillion.

8) Go to lake Erie, get some lungfuls of that rust belt air. Yum yum, really miss that rust belt.

my understanding is that insider information always exists. Using insider information to make stock purchases or sells is considered illegal.

True, but that's something else.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/0...

240.14e-8 Prohibited conduct in connection with pre-commencement communications.

It is a fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative act or practice within the meaning of section 14(e) of the Act ( 15 U.S.C. 78n) for any person to publicly announce that the person (or a party on whose behalf the person is acting) plans to make a tender offer that has not yet been commenced, if the person:

(a) Is making the announcement of a potential tender offer without the intention to commence the offer within a reasonable time and complete the offer;

(b) Intends, directly or indirectly, for the announcement to manipulate the market price of the stock of the bidder or subject company; or

(c) Does not have the reasonable belief that the person will have the means to purchase securities to complete the offer.

Seems you aren't allowed to run a play-action on a takeover.

It is at least 800 this year, and given that ever manufacturing job creates 3.6 additional jobs, that would be around 3000+ new jobs from US Steel expansion this year, alone.

You're welcome.

Second-highest paid actor and now second-highest paid De?wayne Johnson.

I'm on the fence here. I do think Oracle is in the right (Obi Wan's "from a certain point of view.") Such a 10B monopoly cannot be allowed to happen.

AWS and Azure each do over $20B a year (and growing), adding $1B a year more to either one will not create a monopoly.

I am talking about a cloud infrastructure monopoly when serving and creating a private, sec-cleared cloud infrastructure for the DoD. Once you (the generic "you") get an exclusive contract to create it all, that is, in effect, a monopoly in that space.

I'm on the fence here. I do think Oracle is in the right (Obi Wan's "from a certain point of view.") Such a 10B monopoly cannot be allowed to happen.

AWS and Azure each do over $20B a year (and growing), adding $1B a year more to either one will not create a monopoly.