We did go to the U.N. repeatedly and asked them many times for action against Iraq.
USA wanted a war with Iraq--nothing more, nothing less! No one else did. Why would the UN go with a pre-emptive war without any proof of anything? Of course the fact that there wasn't any proof of WMD essentially meant that UN wouldn't have given approval anyway (unless US bribes the countries--which it tried but failed).
Stop bringing up the UN excuse. UN, as ineffective as it is, does not usually authorize pre-emptive wars.
From what I've seen, that reason seems to be something along the lines of "there are non-muslims in the world", or "the world is not fully compliant with islamic law".
Is that something new? People have held that views over many centuries. I mean, I can find hindus saying that, buddists saying that, etc.
In any case, if all these guys hated everyone that doesn't follow their ideology, how come I haven't seen them attack China? Or Brazil? Or Sweden? etc? The reason USA is targetted is that USA actually practices imperialism. Is it a coincidence that there are US troops all over the middle east whereas practically no other country has troops there? Or how about the fact that USA backs all these tyrants in the Middle Eastern countries whereas practically the rest of the world (including Europe) doesn't support these guys?
Sorry, but I would rather fight and die for my freedoms than live in the kind of world that those guys envision.
Maybe if that were true then it might mean something... but as long as USA is supporting the tyrants in the Middle East, and as long as USA is invading countries for bogus reasons, you are not protecting anyone's freedom... In the end, you'll just end up a slave to the state, which might happen sooner than later with the conscription I expect to be initiated by USA within a few years...
According to the terrorist's interpretation of islamic law it is their duty to attack the US and all other non islamic states. They believe they are instructed to convert or kill all non islamic people. Those are your choices, join islam or die. This is not an rare interpretation of islamic law.
There have been many "terrorists" throughout the ages. These Islamic fundamentalists aren't the first ones. So are you saying that USA should just carry out imperialism and attempt to take over huge chunks of the world just because of this problem?
And it was okay that Saddam tried to hide and create WMDs, just as long as he wasn't successful?
Maybe what you are saying would make sense if Saddam actually had WMDs. Claiming someone is hiding something that doesn't exist is just an excuse. Too bad you have been reduced to peddling lies and speculations.
And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?
Most of the people you kill are innocent people. Too bad you like to count the innocent as "terrorists" as per Bush Administration doctrine... In any case, you can kill or lose more people than your opponent and yet win/lose. Classic examples include Vietnam and USSR.
USA was killing 10 Vietnamese (Viet Cong and civilians) per 1 US soldier killed, yet they couldn't control the country, let alone win anything.
A contrary example would be Russia during WWII. Nazi Germany lost around 3.5 million soldiers but Soviet Union lost 19 million (this includes total casulties--not necessarily Germany vs USSR, although most of the major battles were between them). Even though Germany was killing 6x more Soviet soldiers (actually it's higher since a lot of German losses were due to the western front) yet in the end, USSR won. Germany couldn't even win Stalingrad/St. Petersberg, let alone try to invade Moscow.
Furthermore, body counts mean nothing given that terrorists use asymettric warfare. They can do massive damage with small resources.
Obviously you are an old-school Imperialist who is still stuck in the past. The fact of the matter is USA, or for that matter any other country, cannot combat terrorism by imperialism. Even a superpower like USA will go bankrupt trying to invade a few countries. Already, USA can't control Iraq and the plans to invade Iran, Syria, and possibly North Korea are totally infeasible. USA has the largest military by far and it is running out of troops, and is close to conscription (watch next year to see what happens). In addition, USA is running massive deficits and escalating the imperialist wars, as you will surely call for, will simply bankrupt the country.
Nielsen chooses a number of households that report their television viewing habits. From this sample, they extrapolate viewing habits. If the news says that 40 million watched the superbowl in the US, it's really saying that Nielsen judged that 40 million watched the superbowl based on a sample of less than 1% of the US population.
I don't know the details of what Nielsen does but IF it is a SCIENTIFIC POLL then the results are pretty valid. It can be scentifically (statistically to be precise) shown that you can achieve a high confidence interval without interviewing a large number of people. If Nielsen samples 1% of USA, that would be around 3 million (not sure if they count babies and little kids) and that's a VERY HIGH sample. Even highly scientific studies don't have sample of a million!
Who would do such a thing, you ask? Complete and utter losers. People that feel they have no voice; the uneducated; the elderly; etc, etc.
But if they sample without any discrimination then what they get IS refelective of the population. What's to say that a, what you call, "loser" will not also watch "good" programs. I don't see why people who watch "good" programs will automatically shun being polled. Sure, it might be a hassle and some might not want to be part of it due to privacy concerns but similar proportion of the "loser" population will have the same views.
I'll give one good recent example. Futurama and The Family Guy had terrible ratings on Fox. After the shows were cancelled, they were released on DVD. They're post-cancellation sales have been through the roof; very disproportionate to the ratings.
That may or may not mean anything. For instance, these shows could be cult hits AFTER they go into syndication. I don't watch a lot of tv so I can't come up with good examples off the top of my head, but I can describe a similar phenomenon in movies. There are many movies that don't do so well in the box office but have very good DVD sales. There are many reasons for this but one main reason is that the movie could become a cult hit after being pulled from theaters. Examples include Fight Club, Seven, Unbreakable, Boogie Nights, (and if you are a classical movie fan, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Conversation), etc. The same thing could happen in tv shows.
One more thing -- the oh-so-annoying 'watermarked' station ID now so popular? It's for Nielsen idiots that never write the correct station down.
lol hehe no comment:)
aside -- I would dearly love to see how different Tivo's national statistics are from the Nielsens; I'd wager that they look like they judge two entirely different populations, which they probably do)
TiVO would be an even worse indicator. Many people don't have TiVo or the ones that do are middle class or higher. Furthermore, DVRs are a cutting-edge technology (well, ok not exactly cutting edge but they are not widely accepted yet either) so the people who use it may be tech-oriented.
So to sum up... I don't really see any problem with Nielsen ratings ASSUMING that they are carrying out scientific sampling. The only thing I would be worried is their sampling. It may discriminate. For instance, does Nielsen contact people without cable but who do watch over-the-air tv? Does Nielsen contact students who are always moving around? And so on. Those are my worries...
Granted, while you cannot get fired for talking about unionizing, most Wal-Mart employees wouldn't dare as they can be replaced for various other (You were three minutes late, you had 10 complaints, etc) reasons.
All businesses are against unions. So they will do whatever they want to crush them. You just need to look at the period from 1950's to (say) 1970's to see that. What you are saying is not just Wal-Mart but every single company out there. If workers decide to unionize at Wal-Mart, they will. All the threats and penalties won't succeed in the end.
Now if enough consumers boycotted Wal-Mart for their work conditions and shopped at K-Mart or Target, Wal-Mart will change its policies in a heart beat.
I don't know about "in a heart beat" but that will certainly have an impact. However, that is very different from unionization. The former is consumer action while the latter is employee action.
In this cause, unions go beyond criticizing the company, they are using strike as blackmail to run it. If you are running a business, would you like it if your employees blackmailed you?
It's not blackmail. It's more like pressure. Yes, it directly impacts the business but if you care about worker rights, you would support it. Obviously you care about the business more than workers.
In any case, no one is forcing the business to agree to the terms of the workers. Rather, it is usally a compromise. Yes, the workers won't accept the business' proposal outright but usually both sides come to a compromise. In many cases you can also bring in an arbitrator (3rd party neutral) to hammer out an agreement.
It'll be like a sys admin telling his boss that he'll shut all the servers down unless they gave him 30 days of vacation per year with 50% pay raise.
Your example is wrong. I think a more accurate portrayl is a system admin refusing to work. A strike is simply refusing to work.
You can create a business without any workers. Many giant companies of today are started by individuals or by small group of partners.
Are you saying that these businesses exist without utilizing any workers? Maybe when you were a one-person shop but there are VERY FEW one person companies around. The vast majority of companies use human labour. If you choose to use labour, like nearly all companies, you have to pay the price of what the labour demands (or at least some compromise). Since humans have feelings and lives, they won't just take what you give them; they will demand stuff. If you don't like human labour, you can always attempt to build a business with robots. I can assure you that robots won't demand anything.
One personal example would be my uncle. He started a home improvement company, with funding from several average-joe-middle-class people. Now he as assets worth several million dollars. He came from a poor family. In fact, when he came over to US, he was 35 years old and started working as a genitor at an office building. Twenty years later, he owns them (office buildings that is). So go ahead and preach to every one about small chunking owning a huge chuck of wealth.
I'm glad your uncle succeeded but it is largely irrelevant. You believe in the American Dream, I don't. The problem is that only a TINY minority of the people ever succeed and become millionaries. The vast majority of the people don't. If you don't believe me, just look at ANY society (small country, or large; rich or poor; stable or unstable; whatever).
The whole American Dream is bogus because only a small number of people become wealthy. If you want to believe in it to motivate yourself, fine--I'm not against that. BUT just know that what YOU become is largely irrelevant. What matters is society as a whole! If the majority of the people are workers (as opposed to capitalists/owners) then we need to care about the workers.
I don't want to dash your hopes. I certainly am not saying
I can agree with you that everyone wants more for less, but this goes for the employers too. I mean, don't the employers ask more and more from the employees. If you think that workers are the only ones that want more, you are sadly mistaken.
Do you know that real wages (wages adjusted for inflations) in USA is lower right now than 30 years ago? In other words, the average worker is worse off now than a few decades ago!!! If anyone understood that (which unions SHOULD) then they should be ok with flat real wages. Unions and workers (non-unionized) already ask for that. It's usually called raises. The vast majority of raises have nothing to do with performance improvements. Rather, they are simply inflation adjustments. Many unions actually ask for inflation adjustments as part of their collective bargaining. Typically the argument would go something like "you (employer) pay a raise to adjust for inflation and we won't demand higher wages over the next 5 years". Most employers do not accept such terms.
I have been waiting for this for a while. A native Real Player for linux is what we need. Furthermore, the Helix Player can potentially become the most popular media player for linux (although it clearly won't play as many formats as mplayer).
I just hope that these guys get the plug-in for Mozilla done properly. I haven't found a single media player plug-in that works resonably well.
As for handing money over to a mutual fund manager, why would someone do that for starting a business?
The vast majority of wealth is owned by a small number of people, so the original poster's view is somewhat skewed. But in any case...
There are many people who DO invest in small businesses, although not the tiny ones. A lot of people who invest in mutual funds actually invest in small companies. For instance, a lot of start-up capital for many tech companies (especially during the dot-com boom*) came from funds (or wealthy investors). Funds also may make private placements before a company is even listed on a stock exchange. You can go through a listing of mutual funds and actually find funds that invest in start-ups, small companies, etc. These aren't your neighbourhood stores or stuff like that but nevertheless they are small. For example, if you wanted to form a tech company with say 10 employees manufacturing a new portable computer, you would basically be getting money from funds, venture capitalists, or wealthy people.
Also, if you invest in small cap stocks or indexes (like Russell 2000, which contains the smallest companies listed on the stock market), you are pumping money into the smaller companies (although, these aren't THAT small--they are more like medium-sized companies).
(* BTW, ever wonder how all those small companies ever got the money during the dot-com boom?)
It wouldn't make sence for Wal-Mart to unionize because Wal-Mart is a retailer with cut-rate prices, which will be hard to maintaine if they unionize.
Whether Wal-Mart unionizes or not is up to the workers--not Wal-Mart.
For-profit businesses don't exist to provide jobs, they exist for profit. The job creation is a side affect of that. Starting a business involves a lot of money, time, and risk (9 out of 10 new businesses fail during the first year, 9 out of 10 remaining fail within 5 years). There are many people out their who are unwilling to create a company, yet they somehow feel that they know how to run one.
You don't need to create a company to criticize it, any more than you need to be a talented athlete to criticize a sports team.
If you really want to get into all that... how are you going to create a business without any workers? Who buys most of the products? Who is going to finance it (granted, a small chunk own a huge chunk of wealth)?
The fact that most small businesses fail is largely irrelevant. I mean, are you implying that we should somehow grant a succeeding small business Godly status? The fact of the matter is, if someone didn't think they couldn't make money, they wouldn't even be starting a business. In other words, as long as profit is a motive, I, as well as many others I'm sure, don't care what you go through in succeeding in business. If, on the other hand, you were doing something non-profit or perhaps something altruistic (say helping the homeless) then yeah, I should be more sympathetic to you.
Basically what we have here is.... you value capital; I value workers.
As someone who was in the union while working at UPS, I found that FedEx has same working conditions with same benefits at much greater pay ($8 vs. $11-12 for package handlers) while not having to give up part of your meager paycheck to the union.
Just because a competitor has better working conditions without a union doesn't mean anything. There are many companies that pay higher wages without unions. It all comes down to the individual company. Some owners pay well for their employees; some don't.
Besides, think about it this way. You had a union and the company was willing to pay less than its competitor. Imagine what would have happened if there was no union. You think they would pay higher? Of course not. If anything, they would have tried to pay even less than you made.
Why should UPS agree to the union's terms if it feels that it's not right? Believe it or not, for-profit companies exist to for profit. The owners/shareholders demand certain level of profit. Otherwise, why risk investing in the stock market?
The question is never about whether a capitalist deserves profits but rather how much. If given a choice, a corporation would claim that they deserve majority of the profits. This is exactly what happened in the 1800's and early 1900's. If you don't believe me, read the works of some of the top well-respected economists and capitalists from that time, and check the wages relative to profits made by companies. A union is simply fighting for greater share of the profits for the workers.
As far as why anyone (i.e. capitalist) would risk their money, well, they would do it if they can make profits. If UPS, or any other company for that matter, didn't think they are making enough money, they would close shop. Yet they don't. What does that tell you? It means that they are ok with the profits even though they are worse than they would like.
If a company thought it wasn't making any money, it would close down. It's pretty simple. Yet they don't.
The reason that happens is because when the employer is losing money, they are more likely to take drastic action. It is precisely at that time that workers need to be protected so the union steps in. It is rare, although it does happen, for companies to totally bankrupt due to the union. If the union knows what it is doing (I hope) then they will not let the company bankrupt--after all, if the company bankrupts, workers lose.
In this case, I have no sympathy for the union. They are more worried about a POTENTIAL loss in a few years, than they are for the welfare of the union members.
Obviously you don't understand unions.
First of all, the workers vote on major issues (unless it is a corrupt union--have no idea if CWA is one). In this case, I'm sure the workers would have voted whether to strike or not. Your friend may or may not have voted in favour but I imagine the majority voted in favour and that's how things work. Often it is bigger than a 50% majority too (maybe 2/3 or something) if it is a major issue. So I don't know how you can claim that this is not in the interest of the welfare of the members when they voted for it.
Second, it is ALWAYS about potential. The potential is worth FAR MORE than the immediate benefits/losses. A worker might lose $40,000 in one year (if on strike for that long) but he/she can lose way more than $80,000 over the next 10 years if the work terms are unfavourable. I'm not saying this will be the case here but generally things like overtime pay policies and vacation pay involve big sums of money. I don't think these issues are at play here but the point is that the potential is much more important than the immediate future.
Workers, and your friends, definitely have to sacrifice in the short term (since their salary would drop close to zero now). But they'll benefit in the long run if they win.
First of all, it isn't collusion. Collusion has a very specific negative meaning. Even companies that get together on some project are not considered to be colluding (eg. if IBM, Intel, and Microsoft joined together in some consortium to push some new standard, it is NOT collusion)...
Secondly, under a democracy, the majority dominates. Therefore it only follows that laws/etc will be made in favour of the population at hte expense of shareholders/capitalists, who are a minority. The fact that most countries are plutocracies means that you don't really see this in practice. But if the world ever starts practicing true democracy, the laws would be made in favour of society (i.e. the population)...
You adjust for inflation and I'll accept fixed wages. I am pretty sure most employees would be ok with ZERO pay raises if cost of living increases (i.e. inflation) is somehow accounted for...
What else do you suggest for the workers? Obviously you haven't paid attention to employer vs employee issues...
If the company wanted to save money by outsourcing, they would have already done it already. Since the company is still around in USA with mostly US workers, they clearly don't plan to outsource. This kind of makes sense given than service-type jobs (eg. repairing, etc) probably cannot be done from far away. Given that the company is not shutting down operations and moving elsewhere, striking makes sense. It would force the company to the table. The company is unlikely to outsource just to avoid strike costs (the cost of moving operations, outsourcing, etc is likely larger than strike costs)...
Obviously you are still living in the 1800's. Managers aren't loyal to the company any more than a factory worker is. Even high level executives aren't loyal as recent events have shown.
White-collar managers basically starting going their own way after the "downsizing" of the 1980's and 90's.
Either you are a major shareholder or you are a naive manager. If the former, I don't blame you (all shareholders feel that way, not just about managers either); if the latter, you will get fired one day for absolutely no reason under your control and then you'll stop worshipping your company... There is no trust--there never was!
From a business perspective, here are the problems I see with Wi-Fi:
i. Too many competing WAPs (i.e. wireless providers) basically means that you can't roam. This problem exists in the cellphone world as well but they are trying some things to overcome. For Wi-Fi to take off, it would be desirable for people to roam between stores without paying for each one. Note: I am only talking about non-free (possibly low cost) Wi-Fi here. Obviously if it is free, this isn't an issue.
ii. The second thing, which is probably the biggest, is that the number of people using Wi-Fi has to increase. In other words, more people need to be carrying around notebook computers, (future) PDAs, etc. Right now, I don't think enough people have portable computers for this to really matter. Granted, professionals and IT people, along with some computer-savvy people, may carry their notebooks all the time, but most don't. At best, wi-fi will only be a small market for now. Until more people starting using portable computers with wi-fi capabilities, it won't take off. The fact that McDonald's is rolling this out will have little impact IMO since most of their customers don't carry notebooks around. Lastly, if only a few people benefit from wi-fi, then the cost will always be too high--critical mass won't be reached.
Having said all this, I am NOT saying wi-fi won't take off. I do expect it to become popular in 5 years or so, especially when wi-fi is a standard for home networking and workplace too. All I'm saying is that whoever that uses wi-fi now will not make any money. Those in the market will probably lose money for years but will definitely get some technical advantage.
Not anytime soon... There are two major differences between heating/airconditioning and Wi-Fi:
(i) Airconditiong/heating cannot be controlled easily. You either have to heat the whole building/store/whatever or you don't. Anyone that walks into the store/building/whatever will benefit whether they want to or not.
(ii) Wi-Fi costs are variable (although I'm not sure if this is significant). Heating/airconditioning is fixed. If everyone starts using Wi-Fi, the costs will go up (at least for the bandwidth).
I don't think internet access of any type (Wi-Fi or not) will be ever free unless it is replaced by something superior. For instance, I believe phones will be free in the future because internet is superior and would be the standard. In 25 years, I would not be surprised to see free phone being offered everywhere (possibly by the government).
This is some good, thoughtful writing. Anyone, with some mod points give it a boost. You right wingers better savage it mercilessly.
Most of what I posted has little to do with left vs right. It's basic stuff:)
Also thanks for giving me the source for the 6 trillion figure for China's GDP, err GDP-PPP I used in the original post.
You are welcome:) PPP is pretty much what matters these days. For instance, if you can produce 1 kilowatt of electricity in one country for x, and you produce it for y in another country, they should both be equal (PPP kind of adjusts for it).
The "socialist" Sweden is more stable than the debt-ridden USA. If it were otherwise, how come I don't see the capitalists pointing out the danger in Sweden? If anything, the capitalists are concerned about US debt these days.
Why are you dividing debt by income? Just because you have higher income doesn't mean you are willing to pay. If the US govt attempted to make everyone pay a higher share, there would be a revolt...
Part of the reason, I suspect, for the US's huge GDP is the cultural acceptance of high personal debt, which I understand is not a cultural similarity to many nations in the EU, though it is slowly creeping in over there. Home ownership and low cost mortgages, federal bank insurance, tax credits on various debts, etc early on in the 20th century provided a fertile field for today's economy in the US.
I don't think debt is the cause of USA's higher GDP figures. Debt is generally a BAD THING! You are basically mortgaging the future for the present via debt. A country will less debt is preferable to one without higher debt.
The reason USA's higher GDP is due to its prosperity, mostly from the 1700's and 1800's. I (this is just my opinion) personally think USA "accumulated" its wealth (GDP if you will) through trade and technology (mostly trade). Contrary to popular opinion, USA actually had the largest economy by the late 1800's! It has been sitting on that and growing since then. If there was no World War II, I am guessing that Europe would be closer to USA than now (EU would be much wealthier than USA now).
When the depression struck the gov't tried all the 'normal' methods to get the economy going, and then a guy by the name of Keynes wrote several treatises on the subject of economics which effectively said that then current theories were no longer applicable to then current economies. The economy only did well when aggregate spending, private, busines, and public, was up.
The most popular form of capitalism right now is not Keynesian Economics. Rather it is Globalization, aka neo-liberal economics, aka neo-liberalism (as trumpetted by Milton Friedman and others). The capitalists who rule do not follow Kenyes anymore (although he certainly did have impact). For instance, I am pretty sure Keynes would have been against cutting taxes for the wealthy (especially dividend taxes).
The US govt spending over the last year has nothing to do with Keyenes' views. Bush's plan has more in common with supply-side stuff than Keynes. For instance, if you were following Keynes, you would spend money on public works, or hire more workers, or something. What happened in USA, in contrast, is that the majority of the deficit is due to tax cuts. I don't think that really fits Keyenesian Economics. I guess starting a bogus war and spending billions in Iraq (which is largely recycled to US corporations) can be considered as a stimulus but the tax cuts are definitely more in line with supply-side economics.
I think too many people are fairly prideful on this point - as if it were their right to be making more than 80% of the world's population at the expense of other employees and businesses.
That may be true of right wingers but leftists like me have a different view. My problem with neo-liberal economics is that it is nothing more than an attempt by capitalists to undermine worker rights. The vast majority of jobs are outsourced mainly because working conditions are worse in poorer countries (no rights, no unions, safety laws not enforced, environmental laws ignored, etc). This may not be true for high-tech and professional jobs being outsourced, but the vast majority of jobs being outsourced are lower end jobs. The amount of professional jobs being outsourced, even in the tech industry, is very small.
If one really didn't agree with outsourcing, one would have to forego buying any products made elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
We did go to the U.N. repeatedly and asked them many times for action against Iraq.
USA wanted a war with Iraq--nothing more, nothing less! No one else did. Why would the UN go with a pre-emptive war without any proof of anything? Of course the fact that there wasn't any proof of WMD essentially meant that UN wouldn't have given approval anyway (unless US bribes the countries--which it tried but failed).
Stop bringing up the UN excuse. UN, as ineffective as it is, does not usually authorize pre-emptive wars.
From what I've seen, that reason seems to be something along the lines of "there are non-muslims in the world", or "the world is not fully compliant with islamic law".
Is that something new? People have held that views over many centuries. I mean, I can find hindus saying that, buddists saying that, etc.
In any case, if all these guys hated everyone that doesn't follow their ideology, how come I haven't seen them attack China? Or Brazil? Or Sweden? etc? The reason USA is targetted is that USA actually practices imperialism. Is it a coincidence that there are US troops all over the middle east whereas practically no other country has troops there? Or how about the fact that USA backs all these tyrants in the Middle Eastern countries whereas practically the rest of the world (including Europe) doesn't support these guys?
Sorry, but I would rather fight and die for my freedoms than live in the kind of world that those guys envision.
Maybe if that were true then it might mean something... but as long as USA is supporting the tyrants in the Middle East, and as long as USA is invading countries for bogus reasons, you are not protecting anyone's freedom... In the end, you'll just end up a slave to the state, which might happen sooner than later with the conscription I expect to be initiated by USA within a few years...
According to the terrorist's interpretation of islamic law it is their duty to attack the US and all other non islamic states. They believe they are instructed to convert or kill all non islamic people. Those are your choices, join islam or die. This is not an rare interpretation of islamic law.
There have been many "terrorists" throughout the ages. These Islamic fundamentalists aren't the first ones. So are you saying that USA should just carry out imperialism and attempt to take over huge chunks of the world just because of this problem?
And it was okay that Saddam tried to hide and create WMDs, just as long as he wasn't successful?
Maybe what you are saying would make sense if Saddam actually had WMDs. Claiming someone is hiding something that doesn't exist is just an excuse. Too bad you have been reduced to peddling lies and speculations.
And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?
Most of the people you kill are innocent people. Too bad you like to count the innocent as "terrorists" as per Bush Administration doctrine... In any case, you can kill or lose more people than your opponent and yet win/lose. Classic examples include Vietnam and USSR.
USA was killing 10 Vietnamese (Viet Cong and civilians) per 1 US soldier killed, yet they couldn't control the country, let alone win anything.
A contrary example would be Russia during WWII. Nazi Germany lost around 3.5 million soldiers but Soviet Union lost 19 million (this includes total casulties--not necessarily Germany vs USSR, although most of the major battles were between them). Even though Germany was killing 6x more Soviet soldiers (actually it's higher since a lot of German losses were due to the western front) yet in the end, USSR won. Germany couldn't even win Stalingrad/St. Petersberg, let alone try to invade Moscow.
Furthermore, body counts mean nothing given that terrorists use asymettric warfare. They can do massive damage with small resources.
Obviously you are an old-school Imperialist who is still stuck in the past. The fact of the matter is USA, or for that matter any other country, cannot combat terrorism by imperialism. Even a superpower like USA will go bankrupt trying to invade a few countries. Already, USA can't control Iraq and the plans to invade Iran, Syria, and possibly North Korea are totally infeasible. USA has the largest military by far and it is running out of troops, and is close to conscription (watch next year to see what happens). In addition, USA is running massive deficits and escalating the imperialist wars, as you will surely call for, will simply bankrupt the country.
Nielsen chooses a number of households that report their television viewing habits. From this sample, they extrapolate viewing habits. If the news says that 40 million watched the superbowl in the US, it's really saying that Nielsen judged that 40 million watched the superbowl based on a sample of less than 1% of the US population.
:)
I don't know the details of what Nielsen does but IF it is a SCIENTIFIC POLL then the results are pretty valid. It can be scentifically (statistically to be precise) shown that you can achieve a high confidence interval without interviewing a large number of people. If Nielsen samples 1% of USA, that would be around 3 million (not sure if they count babies and little kids) and that's a VERY HIGH sample. Even highly scientific studies don't have sample of a million!
Who would do such a thing, you ask? Complete and utter losers. People that feel they have no voice; the uneducated; the elderly; etc, etc.
But if they sample without any discrimination then what they get IS refelective of the population. What's to say that a, what you call, "loser" will not also watch "good" programs. I don't see why people who watch "good" programs will automatically shun being polled. Sure, it might be a hassle and some might not want to be part of it due to privacy concerns but similar proportion of the "loser" population will have the same views.
I'll give one good recent example. Futurama and The Family Guy had terrible ratings on Fox. After the shows were cancelled, they were released on DVD. They're post-cancellation sales have been through the roof; very disproportionate to the ratings.
That may or may not mean anything. For instance, these shows could be cult hits AFTER they go into syndication. I don't watch a lot of tv so I can't come up with good examples off the top of my head, but I can describe a similar phenomenon in movies. There are many movies that don't do so well in the box office but have very good DVD sales. There are many reasons for this but one main reason is that the movie could become a cult hit after being pulled from theaters. Examples include Fight Club, Seven, Unbreakable, Boogie Nights, (and if you are a classical movie fan, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Conversation), etc. The same thing could happen in tv shows.
One more thing -- the oh-so-annoying 'watermarked' station ID now so popular? It's for Nielsen idiots that never write the correct station down.
lol hehe no comment
aside -- I would dearly love to see how different Tivo's national statistics are from the Nielsens; I'd wager that they look like they judge two entirely different populations, which they probably do)
TiVO would be an even worse indicator. Many people don't have TiVo or the ones that do are middle class or higher. Furthermore, DVRs are a cutting-edge technology (well, ok not exactly cutting edge but they are not widely accepted yet either) so the people who use it may be tech-oriented.
So to sum up... I don't really see any problem with Nielsen ratings ASSUMING that they are carrying out scientific sampling. The only thing I would be worried is their sampling. It may discriminate. For instance, does Nielsen contact people without cable but who do watch over-the-air tv? Does Nielsen contact students who are always moving around? And so on. Those are my worries...
Granted, while you cannot get fired for talking about unionizing, most Wal-Mart employees wouldn't dare as they can be replaced for various other (You were three minutes late, you had 10 complaints, etc) reasons.
All businesses are against unions. So they will do whatever they want to crush them. You just need to look at the period from 1950's to (say) 1970's to see that. What you are saying is not just Wal-Mart but every single company out there. If workers decide to unionize at Wal-Mart, they will. All the threats and penalties won't succeed in the end.
Now if enough consumers boycotted Wal-Mart for their work conditions and shopped at K-Mart or Target, Wal-Mart will change its policies in a heart beat.
I don't know about "in a heart beat" but that will certainly have an impact. However, that is very different from unionization. The former is consumer action while the latter is employee action.
In this cause, unions go beyond criticizing the company, they are using strike as blackmail to run it. If you are running a business, would you like it if your employees blackmailed you?
It's not blackmail. It's more like pressure. Yes, it directly impacts the business but if you care about worker rights, you would support it. Obviously you care about the business more than workers.
In any case, no one is forcing the business to agree to the terms of the workers. Rather, it is usally a compromise. Yes, the workers won't accept the business' proposal outright but usually both sides come to a compromise. In many cases you can also bring in an arbitrator (3rd party neutral) to hammer out an agreement.
It'll be like a sys admin telling his boss that he'll shut all the servers down unless they gave him 30 days of vacation per year with 50% pay raise.
Your example is wrong. I think a more accurate portrayl is a system admin refusing to work. A strike is simply refusing to work.
You can create a business without any workers. Many giant companies of today are started by individuals or by small group of partners.
Are you saying that these businesses exist without utilizing any workers? Maybe when you were a one-person shop but there are VERY FEW one person companies around. The vast majority of companies use human labour. If you choose to use labour, like nearly all companies, you have to pay the price of what the labour demands (or at least some compromise). Since humans have feelings and lives, they won't just take what you give them; they will demand stuff. If you don't like human labour, you can always attempt to build a business with robots. I can assure you that robots won't demand anything.
One personal example would be my uncle. He started a home improvement company, with funding from several average-joe-middle-class people. Now he as assets worth several million dollars. He came from a poor family. In fact, when he came over to US, he was 35 years old and started working as a genitor at an office building. Twenty years later, he owns them (office buildings that is). So go ahead and preach to every one about small chunking owning a huge chuck of wealth.
I'm glad your uncle succeeded but it is largely irrelevant. You believe in the American Dream, I don't. The problem is that only a TINY minority of the people ever succeed and become millionaries. The vast majority of the people don't. If you don't believe me, just look at ANY society (small country, or large; rich or poor; stable or unstable; whatever).
The whole American Dream is bogus because only a small number of people become wealthy. If you want to believe in it to motivate yourself, fine--I'm not against that. BUT just know that what YOU become is largely irrelevant. What matters is society as a whole! If the majority of the people are workers (as opposed to capitalists/owners) then we need to care about the workers.
I don't want to dash your hopes. I certainly am not saying
I can agree with you that everyone wants more for less, but this goes for the employers too. I mean, don't the employers ask more and more from the employees. If you think that workers are the only ones that want more, you are sadly mistaken.
Do you know that real wages (wages adjusted for inflations) in USA is lower right now than 30 years ago? In other words, the average worker is worse off now than a few decades ago!!! If anyone understood that (which unions SHOULD) then they should be ok with flat real wages. Unions and workers (non-unionized) already ask for that. It's usually called raises. The vast majority of raises have nothing to do with performance improvements. Rather, they are simply inflation adjustments. Many unions actually ask for inflation adjustments as part of their collective bargaining. Typically the argument would go something like "you (employer) pay a raise to adjust for inflation and we won't demand higher wages over the next 5 years". Most employers do not accept such terms.
I have been waiting for this for a while. A native Real Player for linux is what we need. Furthermore, the Helix Player can potentially become the most popular media player for linux (although it clearly won't play as many formats as mplayer).
I just hope that these guys get the plug-in for Mozilla done properly. I haven't found a single media player plug-in that works resonably well.
As for handing money over to a mutual fund manager, why would someone do that for starting a business?
The vast majority of wealth is owned by a small number of people, so the original poster's view is somewhat skewed. But in any case...
There are many people who DO invest in small businesses, although not the tiny ones. A lot of people who invest in mutual funds actually invest in small companies. For instance, a lot of start-up capital for many tech companies (especially during the dot-com boom*) came from funds (or wealthy investors). Funds also may make private placements before a company is even listed on a stock exchange. You can go through a listing of mutual funds and actually find funds that invest in start-ups, small companies, etc. These aren't your neighbourhood stores or stuff like that but nevertheless they are small. For example, if you wanted to form a tech company with say 10 employees manufacturing a new portable computer, you would basically be getting money from funds, venture capitalists, or wealthy people.
Also, if you invest in small cap stocks or indexes (like Russell 2000, which contains the smallest companies listed on the stock market), you are pumping money into the smaller companies (although, these aren't THAT small--they are more like medium-sized companies).
(* BTW, ever wonder how all those small companies ever got the money during the dot-com boom?)
It wouldn't make sence for Wal-Mart to unionize because Wal-Mart is a retailer with cut-rate prices, which will be hard to maintaine if they unionize.
Whether Wal-Mart unionizes or not is up to the workers--not Wal-Mart.
For-profit businesses don't exist to provide jobs, they exist for profit. The job creation is a side affect of that. Starting a business involves a lot of money, time, and risk (9 out of 10 new businesses fail during the first year, 9 out of 10 remaining fail within 5 years). There are many people out their who are unwilling to create a company, yet they somehow feel that they know how to run one.
You don't need to create a company to criticize it, any more than you need to be a talented athlete to criticize a sports team.
If you really want to get into all that... how are you going to create a business without any workers? Who buys most of the products? Who is going to finance it (granted, a small chunk own a huge chunk of wealth)?
The fact that most small businesses fail is largely irrelevant. I mean, are you implying that we should somehow grant a succeeding small business Godly status? The fact of the matter is, if someone didn't think they couldn't make money, they wouldn't even be starting a business. In other words, as long as profit is a motive, I, as well as many others I'm sure, don't care what you go through in succeeding in business. If, on the other hand, you were doing something non-profit or perhaps something altruistic (say helping the homeless) then yeah, I should be more sympathetic to you.
Basically what we have here is.... you value capital; I value workers.
As someone who was in the union while working at UPS, I found that FedEx has same working conditions with same benefits at much greater pay ($8 vs. $11-12 for package handlers) while not having to give up part of your meager paycheck to the union.
Just because a competitor has better working conditions without a union doesn't mean anything. There are many companies that pay higher wages without unions. It all comes down to the individual company. Some owners pay well for their employees; some don't.
Besides, think about it this way. You had a union and the company was willing to pay less than its competitor. Imagine what would have happened if there was no union. You think they would pay higher? Of course not. If anything, they would have tried to pay even less than you made.
Why should UPS agree to the union's terms if it feels that it's not right? Believe it or not, for-profit companies exist to for profit. The owners/shareholders demand certain level of profit. Otherwise, why risk investing in the stock market?
The question is never about whether a capitalist deserves profits but rather how much. If given a choice, a corporation would claim that they deserve majority of the profits. This is exactly what happened in the 1800's and early 1900's. If you don't believe me, read the works of some of the top well-respected economists and capitalists from that time, and check the wages relative to profits made by companies. A union is simply fighting for greater share of the profits for the workers.
As far as why anyone (i.e. capitalist) would risk their money, well, they would do it if they can make profits. If UPS, or any other company for that matter, didn't think they are making enough money, they would close shop. Yet they don't. What does that tell you? It means that they are ok with the profits even though they are worse than they would like.
If a company thought it wasn't making any money, it would close down. It's pretty simple. Yet they don't.
The reason that happens is because when the employer is losing money, they are more likely to take drastic action. It is precisely at that time that workers need to be protected so the union steps in. It is rare, although it does happen, for companies to totally bankrupt due to the union. If the union knows what it is doing (I hope) then they will not let the company bankrupt--after all, if the company bankrupts, workers lose.
In this case, I have no sympathy for the union. They are more worried about a POTENTIAL loss in a few years, than they are for the welfare of the union members.
Obviously you don't understand unions.
First of all, the workers vote on major issues (unless it is a corrupt union--have no idea if CWA is one). In this case, I'm sure the workers would have voted whether to strike or not. Your friend may or may not have voted in favour but I imagine the majority voted in favour and that's how things work. Often it is bigger than a 50% majority too (maybe 2/3 or something) if it is a major issue. So I don't know how you can claim that this is not in the interest of the welfare of the members when they voted for it.
Second, it is ALWAYS about potential. The potential is worth FAR MORE than the immediate benefits/losses. A worker might lose $40,000 in one year (if on strike for that long) but he/she can lose way more than $80,000 over the next 10 years if the work terms are unfavourable. I'm not saying this will be the case here but generally things like overtime pay policies and vacation pay involve big sums of money. I don't think these issues are at play here but the point is that the potential is much more important than the immediate future.
Workers, and your friends, definitely have to sacrifice in the short term (since their salary would drop close to zero now). But they'll benefit in the long run if they win.
First of all, it isn't collusion. Collusion has a very specific negative meaning. Even companies that get together on some project are not considered to be colluding (eg. if IBM, Intel, and Microsoft joined together in some consortium to push some new standard, it is NOT collusion)...
Secondly, under a democracy, the majority dominates. Therefore it only follows that laws/etc will be made in favour of the population at hte expense of shareholders/capitalists, who are a minority. The fact that most countries are plutocracies means that you don't really see this in practice. But if the world ever starts practicing true democracy, the laws would be made in favour of society (i.e. the population)...
ok how is this?
You adjust for inflation and I'll accept fixed wages. I am pretty sure most employees would be ok with ZERO pay raises if cost of living increases (i.e. inflation) is somehow accounted for...
What else do you suggest for the workers? Obviously you haven't paid attention to employer vs employee issues...
If the company wanted to save money by outsourcing, they would have already done it already. Since the company is still around in USA with mostly US workers, they clearly don't plan to outsource. This kind of makes sense given than service-type jobs (eg. repairing, etc) probably cannot be done from far away. Given that the company is not shutting down operations and moving elsewhere, striking makes sense. It would force the company to the table. The company is unlikely to outsource just to avoid strike costs (the cost of moving operations, outsourcing, etc is likely larger than strike costs)...
Obviously you are still living in the 1800's. Managers aren't loyal to the company any more than a factory worker is. Even high level executives aren't loyal as recent events have shown.
White-collar managers basically starting going their own way after the "downsizing" of the 1980's and 90's.
Either you are a major shareholder or you are a naive manager. If the former, I don't blame you (all shareholders feel that way, not just about managers either); if the latter, you will get fired one day for absolutely no reason under your control and then you'll stop worshipping your company... There is no trust--there never was!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
From a business perspective, here are the problems I see with Wi-Fi:
i. Too many competing WAPs (i.e. wireless providers) basically means that you can't roam. This problem exists in the cellphone world as well but they are trying some things to overcome. For Wi-Fi to take off, it would be desirable for people to roam between stores without paying for each one. Note: I am only talking about non-free (possibly low cost) Wi-Fi here. Obviously if it is free, this isn't an issue.
ii. The second thing, which is probably the biggest, is that the number of people using Wi-Fi has to increase. In other words, more people need to be carrying around notebook computers, (future) PDAs, etc. Right now, I don't think enough people have portable computers for this to really matter. Granted, professionals and IT people, along with some computer-savvy people, may carry their notebooks all the time, but most don't. At best, wi-fi will only be a small market for now. Until more people starting using portable computers with wi-fi capabilities, it won't take off. The fact that McDonald's is rolling this out will have little impact IMO since most of their customers don't carry notebooks around. Lastly, if only a few people benefit from wi-fi, then the cost will always be too high--critical mass won't be reached.
Having said all this, I am NOT saying wi-fi won't take off. I do expect it to become popular in 5 years or so, especially when wi-fi is a standard for home networking and workplace too. All I'm saying is that whoever that uses wi-fi now will not make any money. Those in the market will probably lose money for years but will definitely get some technical advantage.
I have no idea what the hell that means but it makes me laugh lol hehe :)
Are you implying that you can always find something to counter any argument?
Not anytime soon... There are two major differences between heating/airconditioning and Wi-Fi:
(i) Airconditiong/heating cannot be controlled easily. You either have to heat the whole building/store/whatever or you don't. Anyone that walks into the store/building/whatever will benefit whether they want to or not.
(ii) Wi-Fi costs are variable (although I'm not sure if this is significant). Heating/airconditioning is fixed. If everyone starts using Wi-Fi, the costs will go up (at least for the bandwidth).
I don't think internet access of any type (Wi-Fi or not) will be ever free unless it is replaced by something superior. For instance, I believe phones will be free in the future because internet is superior and would be the standard. In 25 years, I would not be surprised to see free phone being offered everywhere (possibly by the government).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This is some good, thoughtful writing. Anyone, with some mod points give it a boost. You right wingers better savage it mercilessly.
:)
:) PPP is pretty much what matters these days. For instance, if you can produce 1 kilowatt of electricity in one country for x, and you produce it for y in another country, they should both be equal (PPP kind of adjusts for it).
Most of what I posted has little to do with left vs right. It's basic stuff
Also thanks for giving me the source for the 6 trillion figure for China's GDP, err GDP-PPP I used in the original post.
You are welcome
Sivaram Velauthapillai
And you think you could get to the moon with 1% of that figure?
The "socialist" Sweden is more stable than the debt-ridden USA. If it were otherwise, how come I don't see the capitalists pointing out the danger in Sweden? If anything, the capitalists are concerned about US debt these days.
Why are you dividing debt by income? Just because you have higher income doesn't mean you are willing to pay. If the US govt attempted to make everyone pay a higher share, there would be a revolt...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I disagree with some of your points...
Part of the reason, I suspect, for the US's huge GDP is the cultural acceptance of high personal debt, which I understand is not a cultural similarity to many nations in the EU, though it is slowly creeping in over there. Home ownership and low cost mortgages, federal bank insurance, tax credits on various debts, etc early on in the 20th century provided a fertile field for today's economy in the US.
I don't think debt is the cause of USA's higher GDP figures. Debt is generally a BAD THING! You are basically mortgaging the future for the present via debt. A country will less debt is preferable to one without higher debt.
The reason USA's higher GDP is due to its prosperity, mostly from the 1700's and 1800's. I (this is just my opinion) personally think USA "accumulated" its wealth (GDP if you will) through trade and technology (mostly trade). Contrary to popular opinion, USA actually had the largest economy by the late 1800's! It has been sitting on that and growing since then. If there was no World War II, I am guessing that Europe would be closer to USA than now (EU would be much wealthier than USA now).
To be pedantic, China's GDP is 1,266,052 Million.
When you are comparing countries, you should be looking at GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity. Most economists use GDP-PPP these days. If you use PPP, the figures are very different ( check out the chart in the middle of the page).
When the depression struck the gov't tried all the 'normal' methods to get the economy going, and then a guy by the name of Keynes wrote several treatises on the subject of economics which effectively said that then current theories were no longer applicable to then current economies. The economy only did well when aggregate spending, private, busines, and public, was up.
The most popular form of capitalism right now is not Keynesian Economics. Rather it is Globalization, aka neo-liberal economics, aka neo-liberalism (as trumpetted by Milton Friedman and others). The capitalists who rule do not follow Kenyes anymore (although he certainly did have impact). For instance, I am pretty sure Keynes would have been against cutting taxes for the wealthy (especially dividend taxes).
The US govt spending over the last year has nothing to do with Keyenes' views. Bush's plan has more in common with supply-side stuff than Keynes. For instance, if you were following Keynes, you would spend money on public works, or hire more workers, or something. What happened in USA, in contrast, is that the majority of the deficit is due to tax cuts. I don't think that really fits Keyenesian Economics. I guess starting a bogus war and spending billions in Iraq (which is largely recycled to US corporations) can be considered as a stimulus but the tax cuts are definitely more in line with supply-side economics.
I think too many people are fairly prideful on this point - as if it were their right to be making more than 80% of the world's population at the expense of other employees and businesses.
That may be true of right wingers but leftists like me have a different view. My problem with neo-liberal economics is that it is nothing more than an attempt by capitalists to undermine worker rights. The vast majority of jobs are outsourced mainly because working conditions are worse in poorer countries (no rights, no unions, safety laws not enforced, environmental laws ignored, etc). This may not be true for high-tech and professional jobs being outsourced, but the vast majority of jobs being outsourced are lower end jobs. The amount of professional jobs being outsourced, even in the tech industry, is very small.
If one really didn't agree with outsourcing, one would have to forego buying any products made elsewhere.
Not quite. After
lol good rebuttal :)