Yep we are disagreeing. Given that there were fairly low levels of progressive policies in the 1920s leading into the crash, and the economy was highly regulated during the 1950s and 1960s boom... I'm not sure how you can sustain that argument. There are objective measures of regulation and government interference and they were dropping off all during the 1920s.
I agree but that's a separate issue. The US can print its way out of default risk. It may or may not be able to print it's way out of the trade deficit.
a) Picking the more moderate of the two candidates b) Sending a message to one of the two parties.
They've been doing (b). Which has resulted in more polarized parties. The Democrats are fighting hard for the center, but 2010 did a lot damage in terms of centrist Democrats losing.
I don't really think the party system is failing so much as trying to send a message to moderates... you have to pick. Ideologically America is much more purely right left in 2010 than it was in 2005. It may be just take one party or the other winning and staying in power.
I understand. I agree that there was confusion between prioritization and sovereign default. And I agree that Obama and Geitner both said they wouldn't default, and could easily have avoided it.
That doesn't change the fact that we still had 50 congressmen who were totally OK with default. That is a big change in policy.
Yes. There are pension funds and other such funds that are aware of the news and are looking for 3rd parties to help make them make the call "is this just noise or something I actually need to consider?"
As for the extensive data. S&P is one of the better data houses out there. The data for buy side investors doesn't fall off a tree.
Yeah the top 10% have definitely had a bad generation. So why is that policies that benefit the bottom 90% are stealing from the top 10%, but policies that benefit the 10% aren't stealing from the bottom 90%?
About 30% smaller. We still need to get out of the two wars, and get unemployment down around 5% and then it goes away. But I agree I hope Obama vetos the Bush tax cuts after 2012.
We have private debt that is hard to pay and a high public debt:gdp ratio. Assume nothing changed about the economy but we had 10% inflation. How would that not be making things better?
We have an unusually low tax burdon relative to gdp both historically (i.e. relative to our own history) and certainly relative to other countries. Even assuming that 8% number were right we could do something like 3% inflation, 3% real growth, 2% increase in tax burdon (i.e. 60% increase over a generation).
Revenue percentage increases as wages increase. We've been engaging in wage suppression for a generation. We could very easily decrease demand for government services and increase revenues by shifting profits towards wages.
a) They had questions about the budget strategy over the medium term. b) They believed that political risk in the United States had increased substantially.
Given that we had 50+ US congressmen arguing that a sovereign default was either no big deal or desirable I can't see how one can disagree with (b). Political risk has substantially increased.
(a) is more questionable. The US economy is very large and the US ultimately does own a printing press. But the United States because of political divisions is simply unwilling to engage in the actions required to end high unemployment nor willing to reduce the government to the size needed if we intend to maintain a much lower labor participation rate than we had been.
So I can see both sides for (a), but (b) is the big factor. I think the Obama administration in trying to attack S&P based on secret conversations is simply failing to address the depth of the real problem. Whether their story is true or not, S&P is not wrong to notify investors that treasuries have risks they did not have 5 years ago.
Good point about #1. I hadn't considered that. If that's true it makes things even easier.
Worse since he's the author he can swear that he was heavily influenced by any piece of GPL code and thus considers it a derived work. I wouldn't want to the company trying to claim exclusive copyright in that case.
They are going to have to show the code create was work for hire. Burdon is on them not OP to prove ownership. OP by releasing GPL created a public claim of ownership that's dated. That is very strong evidence of copyright.
Have a great holiday weekend as well. And the new PBXes are all VOIP. They are SIP over MPLS and connect to the PSTN only when needed. That for example allows a BB customer to make international calls on their Blackberry without paying international rates (assuming the company is international).
The point is they have a few areas where they are years ahead. Their are companies that will stay with them and that buys them time. Now the question is what they do with it.
Now lets be clear, this is an enterprise only product. The enterprise must have: an in house high end feature rich PBX BES
But no one else offers the ability to integrate enterprise PBX features into employee handsets. Avaya, Mitel... have an Avaya only product that does a fraction of this work but I can't manipulate that via. BES in particular I can push the installs, and auto configure I have to have each employee individually configure which is a nightmare i.e. no advanced features. And MVS is cheaper than most PBX vendor solutions (about $15-20k flat vs. $25-100 / head) .
There is an example. I could give a few more. But I think those are the sorts of things you aren't seeing. I'm not sure how large your company is.
Exactly. Your original point was that they were close to death. I'm disagreeing, I think they are about a year from being in a large profitable niche. They have been innovating. And they are still the leader in quite a few areas. And that buys them years. Obviously if they waste a decade they are done.
Ask the same questions about Apple 10 years ago. As for DEC they made a killing for years on VMS that's why Compaq bought their extremely profitable service arm, many years after VMS stopped being even considered for new business. As for Sun they weren't high margin low volume, they never were profitable when their volumes dropped.
I remember people saying the same things about Apple. Companies with a respected brand name and some market share can release a killer product and recover. Shrinking market share often leads to very high margins and a more focused customer base, what RIM had when it essentially invented the smart phone.
AOL could have very easily moved into specialized services. Huge classes of services existed in the early 90s that don't exist today. Other features like facebook, Myspace, 2ndlife, twitter could have been AOL products. Wikipedia could have been funded out of AOL. For a long time they were funding but not using Mozilla / Firefox. AOL could have been in the 2000s where they were in the late 90s a wrapper around the raw internet offering specialized content.
They didn't have to die just because dialup did. Dialup was just one of their offerings.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep we are disagreeing. Given that there were fairly low levels of progressive policies in the 1920s leading into the crash, and the economy was highly regulated during the 1950s and 1960s boom... I'm not sure how you can sustain that argument. There are objective measures of regulation and government interference and they were dropping off all during the 1920s.
I'm not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing. I suspect the later. Could you be more specific about which policies?
I think you may have responded one level down in terms of post, given the thread of discussion.
I agree but that's a separate issue. The US can print its way out of default risk. It may or may not be able to print it's way out of the trade deficit.
Yes moderates often have to choose between:
a) Picking the more moderate of the two candidates
b) Sending a message to one of the two parties.
They've been doing (b). Which has resulted in more polarized parties. The Democrats are fighting hard for the center, but 2010 did a lot damage in terms of centrist Democrats losing.
I don't really think the party system is failing so much as trying to send a message to moderates... you have to pick. Ideologically America is much more purely right left in 2010 than it was in 2005. It may be just take one party or the other winning and staying in power.
I understand. I agree that there was confusion between prioritization and sovereign default. And I agree that Obama and Geitner both said they wouldn't default, and could easily have avoided it.
That doesn't change the fact that we still had 50 congressmen who were totally OK with default. That is a big change in policy.
Yes. There are pension funds and other such funds that are aware of the news and are looking for 3rd parties to help make them make the call "is this just noise or something I actually need to consider?"
As for the extensive data. S&P is one of the better data houses out there. The data for buy side investors doesn't fall off a tree.
Yeah the top 10% have definitely had a bad generation. So why is that policies that benefit the bottom 90% are stealing from the top 10%, but policies that benefit the 10% aren't stealing from the bottom 90%?
About 30% smaller. We still need to get out of the two wars, and get unemployment down around 5% and then it goes away. But I agree I hope Obama vetos the Bush tax cuts after 2012.
We have private debt that is hard to pay and a high public debt:gdp ratio. Assume nothing changed about the economy but we had 10% inflation. How would that not be making things better?
The Great depression was avoidable. We just are choosing to repeat their mistakes. There are structural problems in the US but those are fixable.
That's been a pattern it isn't structural. And right now I want stimulus.
I don't think they understood those risks. The sorts of people who think about systematic failure weren't in place.
The biggest thing we could do to end corruption on Wall Street is make every house either buy-side or sell-side exclusively.
I don't agree with the 8%.
We have an unusually low tax burdon relative to gdp both historically (i.e. relative to our own history) and certainly relative to other countries. Even assuming that 8% number were right we could do something like 3% inflation, 3% real growth, 2% increase in tax burdon (i.e. 60% increase over a generation).
Revenue percentage increases as wages increase. We've been engaging in wage suppression for a generation. We could very easily decrease demand for government services and increase revenues by shifting profits towards wages.
S&P in their report had essentially 2 issues:
a) They had questions about the budget strategy over the medium term.
b) They believed that political risk in the United States had increased substantially.
Given that we had 50+ US congressmen arguing that a sovereign default was either no big deal or desirable I can't see how one can disagree with (b). Political risk has substantially increased.
(a) is more questionable. The US economy is very large and the US ultimately does own a printing press. But the United States because of political divisions is simply unwilling to engage in the actions required to end high unemployment nor willing to reduce the government to the size needed if we intend to maintain a much lower labor participation rate than we had been.
So I can see both sides for (a), but (b) is the big factor. I think the Obama administration in trying to attack S&P based on secret conversations is simply failing to address the depth of the real problem. Whether their story is true or not, S&P is not wrong to notify investors that treasuries have risks they did not have 5 years ago.
Good point about #1. I hadn't considered that. If that's true it makes things even easier.
Worse since he's the author he can swear that he was heavily influenced by any piece of GPL code and thus considers it a derived work. I wouldn't want to the company trying to claim exclusive copyright in that case.
They can sue you, they can't take the money you earned on the other job.
They are going to have to show the code create was work for hire. Burdon is on them not OP to prove ownership. OP by releasing GPL created a public claim of ownership that's dated. That is very strong evidence of copyright.
Actually no. The same way that if you worked a side job on their time, they couldn't steal the money back.
Have a great holiday weekend as well. And the new PBXes are all VOIP. They are SIP over MPLS and connect to the PSTN only when needed. That for example allows a BB customer to make international calls on their Blackberry without paying international rates (assuming the company is international).
The point is they have a few areas where they are years ahead. Their are companies that will stay with them and that buys them time. Now the question is what they do with it.
I'll give you an example where they are years ahead.
http://us.blackberry.com/apps-software/business/blackberry_mvs/blackberrymvs5.jsp
Now lets be clear, this is an enterprise only product. The enterprise must have:
an in house high end feature rich PBX
BES
But no one else offers the ability to integrate enterprise PBX features into employee handsets. Avaya, Mitel... have an Avaya only product that does a fraction of this work but I can't manipulate that via. BES in particular I can push the installs, and auto configure I have to have each employee individually configure which is a nightmare i.e. no advanced features. And MVS is cheaper than most PBX vendor solutions (about $15-20k flat vs. $25-100 / head) .
There is an example. I could give a few more. But I think those are the sorts of things you aren't seeing. I'm not sure how large your company is.
Exactly. Your original point was that they were close to death. I'm disagreeing, I think they are about a year from being in a large profitable niche. They have been innovating. And they are still the leader in quite a few areas. And that buys them years. Obviously if they waste a decade they are done.
Ask the same questions about Apple 10 years ago. As for DEC they made a killing for years on VMS that's why Compaq bought their extremely profitable service arm, many years after VMS stopped being even considered for new business. As for Sun they weren't high margin low volume, they never were profitable when their volumes dropped.
I remember people saying the same things about Apple. Companies with a respected brand name and some market share can release a killer product and recover. Shrinking market share often leads to very high margins and a more focused customer base, what RIM had when it essentially invented the smart phone.
AOL could have very easily moved into specialized services. Huge classes of services existed in the early 90s that don't exist today. Other features like facebook, Myspace, 2ndlife, twitter could have been AOL products. Wikipedia could have been funded out of AOL. For a long time they were funding but not using Mozilla / Firefox. AOL could have been in the 2000s where they were in the late 90s a wrapper around the raw internet offering specialized content.
They didn't have to die just because dialup did. Dialup was just one of their offerings.