You could create auctions that end after your marks let the other bidders disperse, and then bid them all up after the target auction closes. Not cheap (with all of Ebay's fees, I suppose you could claim non-payment on your dummy accounts), but essentially the same shill sellers.
They were, but the courts changed their mind in the 70s when they figured out that really sucks to be Ritz camera who keeps having to do all the work of selling a camera with a markup only to have your customer learn all about it and go buy it from a discounter. The law specifies intent to monopolize, what that means is an exercise for others to interpret.
It's the same reason that CFOs rarely rise to CEO. The CEO is almost always the head of a major profit center before becoming CEO, CIOs and CFOs are cost centers, so no matter how talented the manager might be, they'll almost always be over looked. If you are a CIO and want to become a CEO, either start your own firm or follow the path's of other CEOs.
The wealth of the stock market comes in part (for most companies) from dividends which changes a zero sum game to a postitive sum game, less directly but equally positive, share repurchases also infuse new money into the markets.
I saw the replica for sale on ebay a few years back. Went for a pretty penny for a dressed up MGB (fun car btw), but not the insane amounts that would be commanded by a real 250 GT.
Regarding a, the stocks touted are tiny otc or barely listed NASDAQ or AMEX stuff that doesn't have much of an operating history or products (think Infinum labs/Phantom console which was the same scam on a much grander scale).
I dunno, you don't have to actually buy an iPhone to wait on an iPod purchase to see if it's worth it. The key fact here is that to Wall St, you're only as good as your last quarter so if folks wait three months to see the iPhone and then don't buy (but buy an iPod) Wall St decides the fad is over in April.
Perhaps know isn't the right term. If I say, "Go Liberty Statue, how?" that isn't even remotely close to, "I would like to go see the Statue of Liberty. Would you be so kind as to provide directions?" 99% of english speakers will understand what both mean. If you butchered the grammer as badly as in my example in many languages you would be far less understandable.
Half of the top 6 links (and the most professional) cited the same study that put him directly at the center of the political spectrum). Google searches aren't always indicators that you've found truth right away.
Think further back, to where toys were less gender specific. Boys would play with the dolls, but they would play with them competitivly. GI Joe is essentially the same thing as Barbie, but when my sister nicked one he wasn't sneaking over bed mountain to blow up the commie base, he was taking Barbie in the 'vette to go see a play or something. When my sister and I would play lego together, I'd be building stuff, and she'd get a house built and then take the lego people and enact social situations. We both had lego (and shared them) from a very early age on. These are great things, and in the right settings both mindsets enhance the other's weaknesses.
Another example, is that women aren't known for checking guys out, while guys are. More recently studies have shown that women observe the opposite sex just as frequently, but their vision is far better, so they don't turn their head and eyes to do it.
I've always found it odd that when people talk about Fox News conservatism they bring up O'Reilly, and then say the channel is biased, but no one has ever accused Brit Hume (who anchors an actual news program on Fox) of being biased.
O'Reilly isn't supposed to be fair or balanced, his show has always been opinion and comment (which allows some news reporting, but is mostly about pursuading). The op-ed pages of your local paper are biased, too! The front pages generally aren't and if they are, that's a travesty (just as it would be quite serious if ole' Brit were biased). I realize that many days the same issues are on the front pages and the op-ed pages, but when did everyone forget how to tell the two apart?
O'Reilly is supposed to be a biased blowhard, and the fact that his program isn't called "the Nightly News Report" should be a huge indicator that he's going to be giving you mostly his opinion. Did everyone forget how to think?
It's technically a really easy language to learn (almost everyone who knows even a small amount of English is understandable), but it is tremendously difficult to master (as the grammar Nazi's show us very frequently).
In your example of it working, essentially the world agreed that South Africa was evil, so essentially no one traded with them. This resulted in a change to their policies. In the modern example no one agrees on what is good (socially responsible is such a cheesy term) so no change occurs. The reason I brought it up is that from Disney to Apple, there will be some folks here who think they do the devils work and others who think they are good as gold (and we're a fairly homogeneous group), which contingent should a socially responsible fund listen to (obviously a self interested person would say mine, but how does the fund pick whom it will be)? A majority, everyone, those with low user accounts?
I'm saying that unless you have a small group with very similar shared beliefs about what is evil calling something socially responsible will most likely mean very different things to many different clients (some of whom probably would not agree with what the fund owned. A $20 billion dollar mutual fund that calls its self good, has delusional clients.
Unless the investors are a tiny number of nuns pensions or something, then SRi really doesn't make sense. The funds exist because a portion of investors "feel better with that label." I'd say that the investors succumbed to clever marketing.
I should have qualified the first statement with when you have $70 billion dollars to invest, the universe of public companies available to you are all exeedingly complex and almost all of them have something that offends a portion of people out there. They can't put their money in single product companies like SCO, good or evil. Most companies worth more than $10 billion have multiple business lines and are complex. If you think it's so easy pick 10 public companies that everyone on/. will agree are good or evil companies, I'll even let you pick small caps (anything over $100 milion is fair game).
Apartheid is a pretty special case. Wake me up when an a beer, cigarette company, or casino shuts it's doors due to SRI.
There are socially responsible funds of all sorts (some conservative ones don't own cable or phone companies because they mint money selling porn to hotels). One of the many replies said it better than I could, essentially there are too many different opinions on what's ok and what's reprehensible that aside from a mass boycott (like Apartid, there won't be any difference either way).
Socially responsible investing is essentially impossible. Public companies are almost always too large and complex to boil down into a single binary good/evil decision matrix, and if one could, if investing in the evil company (for little direct benefit to the company by the way) you could do 25% more really good things (say 25% fewer malria cases or more clean drinking water in Africa, the moral calculus becomes quite complicated.
I agree you're probably right, but don't know if it's that wise. I'm using my observations of Microsoft where a convenience store's drink selection was available to programmers and was removed a few years ago. Obs 1-Most programmers are salaried at MS so the longer they stay the lower your total compensation costs. Obs-2 Programmers stayed longer with the free drinks. Obs 3-The drinks were far cheaper than paying for an extra hour of a programmer's salary (even if they sounded like tremendous waste to investors). I've found at other firms the time savings from having employees eat at the good subsidized cafeteria vs going off site every day, is well worth the minimal cost of operating it. I doubt the chef is cooking all the meals so most of the labor isn't as expensive as he is.
Ha ha, I guess that's a pretty effective mnemonic (the firefox spell checker is the bees knees). I remembered that it was one, and remembered it, but had to google what it was supposed to be reminding me (even though I apply the order of operations nearly every day).
Hi, college educated here, but I will on occasion mispronounce words that I know how to (and normally pronounce correctly). Sometimes my mind just doesn't get to the tongue in time and a soft c becomes a hard c or something equally inane (it sounds really dumb). It more frequently happens when I'm reading out loud (I read silently exceedingly quickly and really have to slow my eyes down to say all the words). I try to practice in a setting where it matters less, and rarely write something that will be read verbatim.
Yep, unfortunatly that's why those bars were all increasing pretty sizably (and all budgeted to increase in 2007, too--not that the others wont). Don't forget to thank the Asian central banks for keeping treasury relativly flat (even as debt rises). If you can't cut then taxes have to rise, which is a great way for politicians to get dumped pretty quickly. At least in Europe they are honest about how much a social welfare system costs (and are beginning to ask themselves harder questions about if such a broad safety net is worth the costs--while we collectivly argue about bridges to nowhere, science grants of questionable value, and farm subsidies).
The key is the social security "savings" are US government bonds (rather than global investment grade bonds) so the rest of government will eventually have to reduce spending to repay the debt (at that point just cutting roads to nowhere and corn/ethanol subsidies won't be enough real muscle programs will also have to be reduced--I think it will be interesting to see what remains a priority in that environment).
Even those are cupfuls in the bucket. Most of the government's spending is on Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare and they grow faster than the rest of the budget. Bread and circuses are expensive these days.
Slashdot Mirror
You could create auctions that end after your marks let the other bidders disperse, and then bid them all up after the target auction closes. Not cheap (with all of Ebay's fees, I suppose you could claim non-payment on your dummy accounts), but essentially the same shill sellers.
They were, but the courts changed their mind in the 70s when they figured out that really sucks to be Ritz camera who keeps having to do all the work of selling a camera with a markup only to have your customer learn all about it and go buy it from a discounter. The law specifies intent to monopolize, what that means is an exercise for others to interpret.
It's the same reason that CFOs rarely rise to CEO. The CEO is almost always the head of a major profit center before becoming CEO, CIOs and CFOs are cost centers, so no matter how talented the manager might be, they'll almost always be over looked. If you are a CIO and want to become a CEO, either start your own firm or follow the path's of other CEOs.
The wealth of the stock market comes in part (for most companies) from dividends which changes a zero sum game to a postitive sum game, less directly but equally positive, share repurchases also infuse new money into the markets.
I saw the replica for sale on ebay a few years back. Went for a pretty penny for a dressed up MGB (fun car btw), but not the insane amounts that would be commanded by a real 250 GT.
Regarding a, the stocks touted are tiny otc or barely listed NASDAQ or AMEX stuff that doesn't have much of an operating history or products (think Infinum labs/Phantom console which was the same scam on a much grander scale).
I dunno, you don't have to actually buy an iPhone to wait on an iPod purchase to see if it's worth it. The key fact here is that to Wall St, you're only as good as your last quarter so if folks wait three months to see the iPhone and then don't buy (but buy an iPod) Wall St decides the fad is over in April.
Yeah, it should not only be insecure out of the box, it should come with a trojan.
Perhaps know isn't the right term. If I say, "Go Liberty Statue, how?" that isn't even remotely close to, "I would like to go see the Statue of Liberty. Would you be so kind as to provide directions?" 99% of english speakers will understand what both mean. If you butchered the grammer as badly as in my example in many languages you would be far less understandable.
Half of the top 6 links (and the most professional) cited the same study that put him directly at the center of the political spectrum). Google searches aren't always indicators that you've found truth right away.
Think further back, to where toys were less gender specific. Boys would play with the dolls, but they would play with them competitivly. GI Joe is essentially the same thing as Barbie, but when my sister nicked one he wasn't sneaking over bed mountain to blow up the commie base, he was taking Barbie in the 'vette to go see a play or something. When my sister and I would play lego together, I'd be building stuff, and she'd get a house built and then take the lego people and enact social situations. We both had lego (and shared them) from a very early age on. These are great things, and in the right settings both mindsets enhance the other's weaknesses.
Another example, is that women aren't known for checking guys out, while guys are. More recently studies have shown that women observe the opposite sex just as frequently, but their vision is far better, so they don't turn their head and eyes to do it.
I've always found it odd that when people talk about Fox News conservatism they bring up O'Reilly, and then say the channel is biased, but no one has ever accused Brit Hume (who anchors an actual news program on Fox) of being biased.
O'Reilly isn't supposed to be fair or balanced, his show has always been opinion and comment (which allows some news reporting, but is mostly about pursuading). The op-ed pages of your local paper are biased, too! The front pages generally aren't and if they are, that's a travesty (just as it would be quite serious if ole' Brit were biased). I realize that many days the same issues are on the front pages and the op-ed pages, but when did everyone forget how to tell the two apart?
O'Reilly is supposed to be a biased blowhard, and the fact that his program isn't called "the Nightly News Report" should be a huge indicator that he's going to be giving you mostly his opinion. Did everyone forget how to think?
It's technically a really easy language to learn (almost everyone who knows even a small amount of English is understandable), but it is tremendously difficult to master (as the grammar Nazi's show us very frequently).
In your example of it working, essentially the world agreed that South Africa was evil, so essentially no one traded with them. This resulted in a change to their policies. In the modern example no one agrees on what is good (socially responsible is such a cheesy term) so no change occurs. The reason I brought it up is that from Disney to Apple, there will be some folks here who think they do the devils work and others who think they are good as gold (and we're a fairly homogeneous group), which contingent should a socially responsible fund listen to (obviously a self interested person would say mine, but how does the fund pick whom it will be)? A majority, everyone, those with low user accounts?
I'm saying that unless you have a small group with very similar shared beliefs about what is evil calling something socially responsible will most likely mean very different things to many different clients (some of whom probably would not agree with what the fund owned. A $20 billion dollar mutual fund that calls its self good, has delusional clients.
Unless the investors are a tiny number of nuns pensions or something, then SRi really doesn't make sense. The funds exist because a portion of investors "feel better with that label." I'd say that the investors succumbed to clever marketing. /. will agree are good or evil companies, I'll even let you pick small caps (anything over $100 milion is fair game).
I should have qualified the first statement with when you have $70 billion dollars to invest, the universe of public companies available to you are all exeedingly complex and almost all of them have something that offends a portion of people out there. They can't put their money in single product companies like SCO, good or evil. Most companies worth more than $10 billion have multiple business lines and are complex. If you think it's so easy pick 10 public companies that everyone on
Apartheid is a pretty special case. Wake me up when an a beer, cigarette company, or casino shuts it's doors due to SRI.
There are socially responsible funds of all sorts (some conservative ones don't own cable or phone companies because they mint money selling porn to hotels). One of the many replies said it better than I could, essentially there are too many different opinions on what's ok and what's reprehensible that aside from a mass boycott (like Apartid, there won't be any difference either way).
Socially responsible investing is essentially impossible. Public companies are almost always too large and complex to boil down into a single binary good/evil decision matrix, and if one could, if investing in the evil company (for little direct benefit to the company by the way) you could do 25% more really good things (say 25% fewer malria cases or more clean drinking water in Africa, the moral calculus becomes quite complicated.
Strange, thanks for the correction, I know they announced they were planning to remove it. Glad they kept it around.
I agree you're probably right, but don't know if it's that wise. I'm using my observations of Microsoft where a convenience store's drink selection was available to programmers and was removed a few years ago. Obs 1-Most programmers are salaried at MS so the longer they stay the lower your total compensation costs. Obs-2 Programmers stayed longer with the free drinks. Obs 3-The drinks were far cheaper than paying for an extra hour of a programmer's salary (even if they sounded like tremendous waste to investors). I've found at other firms the time savings from having employees eat at the good subsidized cafeteria vs going off site every day, is well worth the minimal cost of operating it. I doubt the chef is cooking all the meals so most of the labor isn't as expensive as he is.
Ha ha, I guess that's a pretty effective mnemonic (the firefox spell checker is the bees knees). I remembered that it was one, and remembered it, but had to google what it was supposed to be reminding me (even though I apply the order of operations nearly every day).
Hi, college educated here, but I will on occasion mispronounce words that I know how to (and normally pronounce correctly). Sometimes my mind just doesn't get to the tongue in time and a soft c becomes a hard c or something equally inane (it sounds really dumb). It more frequently happens when I'm reading out loud (I read silently exceedingly quickly and really have to slow my eyes down to say all the words). I try to practice in a setting where it matters less, and rarely write something that will be read verbatim.
Yep, unfortunatly that's why those bars were all increasing pretty sizably (and all budgeted to increase in 2007, too--not that the others wont). Don't forget to thank the Asian central banks for keeping treasury relativly flat (even as debt rises). If you can't cut then taxes have to rise, which is a great way for politicians to get dumped pretty quickly. At least in Europe they are honest about how much a social welfare system costs (and are beginning to ask themselves harder questions about if such a broad safety net is worth the costs--while we collectivly argue about bridges to nowhere, science grants of questionable value, and farm subsidies).
Ultimatly, one of the big 4 (at the bottom will have to be cut). http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif
The key is the social security "savings" are US government bonds (rather than global investment grade bonds) so the rest of government will eventually have to reduce spending to repay the debt (at that point just cutting roads to nowhere and corn/ethanol subsidies won't be enough real muscle programs will also have to be reduced--I think it will be interesting to see what remains a priority in that environment).
Even those are cupfuls in the bucket. Most of the government's spending is on Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare and they grow faster than the rest of the budget. Bread and circuses are expensive these days.