i believe that a well-regulated capitalist society, with a proper social safety net, works "best". If thats what you mean by "socialism", then yeh, sure, but I think that your concept of "socialism" is lacking.
And, no, I dont think that Smith is wrong. It is obvious and immoral what happens when capitalism is allowed to be practiced unrestrained. Eventually, like in the card game War, almost all the cards are held by one person.
No, capitalism needs to be regulated to be an effective means to distribute scarce resources.
I'll go with JK Galbraith's and Friedman's work on the Depression, thanks.
I dont get it, going back to Adam Smith, proper regulation has always been a part of a functional capitalist society.
An economic system exists solely to allocate scarce resources, right? Its not meant to create an environment where all the resources end up in the hands of the few.
The USSR never implemented Marx'ist communism, Lenin had changed the philosophy in a material way. The USSR implemented a command economy, and not a communist economy.
Say, how did the Unfettered capitalism thing work out in the 1920's in the US?
right, because the oil-embargo had nothing to do with the gas lines, at all.
you know, the free-market, cartel, embargo. i guess that the govt should have just stood by and did nothing, right? i mean, who is the government to look out for its citizens, right?
After all, the real reason we have capitalism is to make a few wealthy men, eve wealithier, and not some altruistic notion that it is the best way to allocate scarce resources.
Yep, its all about making money, and screw any one who thinks that "people" should be protected.
it doesnt matter if the us gov gave land-grants to the rail co's. it matters that the rail co's illegally bundled their services and illegally leveraged their monopoly.
how many years have they been in the "search business"? 8? 9?
glad to see that they are making money... oh wait... they just went into the red last quarter in the msn division...
i'm sorry, but as a shareholder, i dont think we need any more deworseification. make the damn OS, make the damn office suite, and give me my effing money.
yes, brk.a is fairly valued, but it also has a 15% growth rate, as opposed to GOOG's 80%.
Looking at the numbers, GOOG doesnt seem as horrifically overvalued as people are making it out to be, there are much, much worse examples, such as SIRI who cant even post a profit, but has a 6.5B market cap. Hell, MSFT is terribly overvalued with their 5% earnings growth. And RHAT... and.... etc etc etc...
Google's valuation just doesnt look that out of whack. They're profitable, and growing at a tremendous rate. They've got a recurring revenue model with their advertising, and multiple vehicles to deliver it through.
I dont understand everyone's concerns, truthfully, the company is well run, and making money .
91 million settlement for fraud, eh? Sounds like a minor accounting issue going forward, similar to keeping a reserve for product returns. Plus, its a drop in the bucket compared to overall revenue in the time frame in question. Completely acceptable.
It took how long for the TV advertising model to fail? 60-70 years? I'd take that long of a run.
Google solves one of the most basic problems with marketting, and that is how to measure success of the campaign. Superbowl commercials dont do that, but targetted ads do.
I can see how you think its limited, obviously advertising is not enough to support "free" programming. The failure of Television as a medium is obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
i believe that a well-regulated capitalist society, with a proper social safety net, works "best". If thats what you mean by "socialism", then yeh, sure, but I think that your concept of "socialism" is lacking.
And, no, I dont think that Smith is wrong. It is obvious and immoral what happens when capitalism is allowed to be practiced unrestrained. Eventually, like in the card game War, almost all the cards are held by one person.
No, capitalism needs to be regulated to be an effective means to distribute scarce resources.
I'll go with JK Galbraith's and Friedman's work on the Depression, thanks.
I dont get it, going back to Adam Smith, proper regulation has always been a part of a functional capitalist society.
An economic system exists solely to allocate scarce resources, right? Its not meant to create an environment where all the resources end up in the hands of the few.
The USSR never implemented Marx'ist communism, Lenin had changed the philosophy in a material way. The USSR implemented a command economy, and not a communist economy.
Say, how did the Unfettered capitalism thing work out in the 1920's in the US?
right, because the oil-embargo had nothing to do with the gas lines, at all.
you know, the free-market, cartel, embargo. i guess that the govt should have just stood by and did nothing, right? i mean, who is the government to look out for its citizens, right?
After all, the real reason we have capitalism is to make a few wealthy men, eve wealithier, and not some altruistic notion that it is the best way to allocate scarce resources.
Yep, its all about making money, and screw any one who thinks that "people" should be protected.
there's nothing to rebut on content.
The proper response to Rand inspired idiots like yourself, is to start quoting Marx.
Removing regulations and allowing unfettered capitalism is a very good way to awake class consciousness in the proletariat.
that sir, is a non-sequitor, a logical fallacy.
it doesnt matter if the us gov gave land-grants to the rail co's. it matters that the rail co's illegally bundled their services and illegally leveraged their monopoly.
because some transactions are necessary for survival, and involve unequal powers.
christ, you wrote your comment, did you read his?
msft is already posting slow growth.
well, if we're on the giving msft credit where credit is due bandwagon:: dhcp kicks the crap out of bootp.
how many years have they been in the "search business"? 8? 9?
glad to see that they are making money... oh wait... they just went into the red last quarter in the msn division...
i'm sorry, but as a shareholder, i dont think we need any more deworseification. make the damn OS, make the damn office suite, and give me my effing money.
but, spaghetti must exist to be perfect, so eating it is impossible. the spaghetti is perfect, yet uneatable.
i agree with you completely.
bandwidth is on the cusp of a major advancement, and among people i respect, there are several big events coming up:
* ubiquity of GB ethernet. The chipsets are getting so damn cheap that very soon every box is going to ship with a GB ethernet chip.
* ubiquity of wireless. again, the chipsets cost less than $2 per in bulk. It will be everywhere.
*REALLLLLLLY fast wired connections, such as infiniband.
at around 4Gbps, it becomes irrelevant, as this is the speed between the video card and monitor.
all flash sold today contains wear levelling technology. the lowest that i've seen is 400,000 writes mtbf.
actualy most mau's dont even list that anymore, and give hours of use.
and... flash has been this way for at least 5 years.
bah... and dont you have to run it with the "--huge-security-hole" option to get apache to run as root?
yes, brk.a is fairly valued, but it also has a 15% growth rate, as opposed to GOOG's 80%.
Looking at the numbers, GOOG doesnt seem as horrifically overvalued as people are making it out to be, there are much, much worse examples, such as SIRI who cant even post a profit, but has a 6.5B market cap. Hell, MSFT is terribly overvalued with their 5% earnings growth. And RHAT... and.... etc etc etc...
Google's valuation just doesnt look that out of whack. They're profitable, and growing at a tremendous rate. They've got a recurring revenue model with their advertising, and multiple vehicles to deliver it through.
I dont understand everyone's concerns, truthfully, the company is well run, and making money .
91 million settlement for fraud, eh? Sounds like a minor accounting issue going forward, similar to keeping a reserve for product returns. Plus, its a drop in the bucket compared to overall revenue in the time frame in question. Completely acceptable.
It took how long for the TV advertising model to fail? 60-70 years? I'd take that long of a run.
Google solves one of the most basic problems with marketting, and that is how to measure success of the campaign. Superbowl commercials dont do that, but targetted ads do.
thats the trailing PE. The forward PE is 28.96.
Besides, the growth rate was 80%, and the PE multiple should be (about) what the growth rate is.
IT looks positively cheap to me. I think that people see a multi-hundred dollar price per share, and panic.
I guess that BRK.A would be completely overpriced then.
Google provides a targetted advertising medium.
I can see how you think its limited, obviously advertising is not enough to support "free" programming. The failure of Television as a medium is obvious.
Google's shareholders dont have voting rights.
Sergey and Brin own all the voting shares. You dont like the way its being run, dont buy, because your voice DOESNT MATTER.
Why is Google overvalued? THeir leading PE is only 30'ish...
It, if anything looks undervalued to me.
Sergey and Brin hold a majority of voting shares. They absolutely, positivly DO NOT have to listen to whiney analysts.
GOOG told the investing community, point blank, that they werent providing guidance. Dont like the ground rules, dont buy.
funny how MIT starts with functional....
of course, what the hell do they know.
a-mf-men.
speakeasy has much better terms of service than anyone else, plus i get 2 static ips to do with whatever i want.
yay!
hrm... any idea what chipset is in it?
usb->wifi bridge is really really awful to do, you're right... but it is possible.
just not for the average bear. unfortunately, and its a recognized problem in the community. we're working on it.