Obviously you guys don't understand capitalism.. or at least business management. One of the first things people learn in business school is creating barriers of entry for you business. Locking in customers by using proprietory technologies, standards, etc is a common strategy used by nearly all companies that can afford to do so.
Some of those ideas are good and can/will work. Targetting the female teenage market, or webvan, or govworks, or stuff like that are good ideas. Even the online currency thingie can work, although it will be in very tough competition against the credit card companies, debit cards, or even newer stuff like goldmoney.
It's just that nearly all dot-com companies were way too ambitious and arrogant. This was mostly because they were run by business-oriented individuals (these people tend to be like that). If some of these companies didn't squander away their capital, they would still be in business. Let's also not forget that these companies didn't have good cost controls (spending millions on the the Super Bowl ads, which incidentally is the most expensive advertising around, for a target market that generally isn't even tech-oriented looks lame to me).
For example, stuff like govWorks IS the future. There is a big opportunity to streamline and automate interaction between government and citizens. Not only is this cheaper, it is is more efficient too.
Real estate is downward rigid. Real estate prices don't tend to drop as much in such a short period of time because people have to live somewhere. So even though the real estate market may be in a bubble, it wouldn't drop like the dot-coms...
So how are you doing so far? Any success? (Don't reveal anything that may reveal your technique--unles you are ok with that)
Are you using so-called technical analysis that is used by traders for your quantitative stuff (eg. MACD, moving averages, etc)? Or are you going with your own ?
I'm not sure what you are using for qualitative measures (maybe analyst opinion or something) but that's interesting. As you mentioned, most techniques that are out there simply use numbers (quantitive) and don't really look at human thoughts (qualitative). It'll be interesting to see if you can pull it off (of course if you pull it off, you'll be a millionaire crusing in some yacht in some tropical island with no need to waste time posting on Slashdot;) )...
Good luck with your goals... Your attempt at merging quantitative and qualitative stuff is different...
The present day advertising revenue is legit, unlike the dot-com days when companies were just exchanging so-called "ad revenues" with each other. Companies like Yahoo and Google actually make hundreads of millions of (real) dollars on the ads. The question with Google is whether they can increase profits at the crazy rate that the market expects. Even though internet advertising is the highest growing advertising market, I'm not sure if that's enough for the Google shareholders who have Google valued at a P/E ratio of 120 (i.e. if Google's income stays the same (it won't but let's assume), it will take 120 years for it to pay off one share purchased by a shareholder).
"
YHOO's currently doing about $35 where GOOG's doing $300. Sure there's a premium on perceived Google's tech superiority, but it's probably worth 2x or 3x YHOO. 10x does not make sense, long term. (It's fine if you want to make short-term gains, however.)"
One shouldn't compare companies by looking at share prices. Instead, you should look at market cap (capitalization) or P/E ratio. Share price is meaningless because one company with one million shares at $1 is equal to another company with 100,000 shares at $10.
For absolute rankings, market cap (=share price * shares outstanding) is what is used to value companies. Google is roughly worth around $84 billion while Yahoo is $46 billion.
If you are an investor then one commonly used measure is the P/E ratio (=price of share/earnings per share). Google is at a P/E of 120 while Yahoo is at 31. For reference, the S&P500, which is the largest 500 companies listed in the US, has a P/E ratio of around 16. Based on this, Google looks overvalued. Google literally has to increase its earnings 4x (+500%) to reach Yahoo's relative value level.
Of course, the market is placing a big premium on google because it expects Google to grow fast. However, I think a lot of Google shareholders are going to be dissapointed. It is going to be difficult for Google to grow like it has in the past because it is getting bigger. Just last week, Google dropped 5% intra-day (although it recouped some of that loss by the close) after earnings came out. Earnings came in at a record but weren't good enough for the huge premium placed on the stock.
Nearly all financial sources will adjust the prices for the split. So you'll just see the post-split prices. For example, if you look at a chart and see the stock price going to $60, you'll only see $30 after the split (you won't see $60 on the chart at all because the charts are automatically adjusted).
So, in general, if you see a price half what it was, it likely means that the stock dropped 50%--and not that it is some 2-for-1 split (because the splits are adjusted and you really can't tell on the surface).
Usually the listed stock prices are adjusted for splits. So the price isn't simply half due to any splits; rather, it, like nearly all tech stocks, dropped 50% after the dot-com meltdown...
"
This annoys me to no end. I've tried to dabble in the stock market for a while now and analyze companies, look at the charts/fundamentals/etc., and an analyst comes out and pisses all over the stock, and it goes down the next morning. It's like printing their own money. It's rediculous.
I'm almost to a point of believing the conspiracies that the stock markets are completely controlled by a small elite and there really is no free market at all."
If the fundamentals of the company are strong (i.e. they are actually going to make money and increase profitability) then you will do well. It doesn't matter what an analyst or anyone else says/does. In the long run, the execution and results are what matter. If you are right about results then you will ultimately do well; if not, you will lose...
"...as I'll never, ever, install XP or any of the 'phone home to register' versions that follow it. I always wince when I install a 'newer than default' version of WMP on the system. But, then, I know better than the average user."
Practically all software companies are moving to online activation. If it isn't Microsoft, it's Symantec or Adobe or whatever...
Government intervention to alter people's lack of knowledge is prone to failure. You can't ask companies to remove this or that just because the consumer doesn't want to spend the time/resources to pick one that may be better.
This European govt intervention is one of the dumbest in the history of the computer industry. It is going to accomplish almost nothing because you can't change consumer behaviour with legislation.
"I have worked for many companies that do not have any place in the stock market, and they continue on simply because they make somewhat of a profit (which quickly gets put into upgrades, etc.) and the people there still like doing what they're doing."
I'll bet that the owners of those companies are making a ton of money... maybe not hundreads of millions but at least hundreads of thousands.
Even small businesses where it seems the owner isn't making much offer a lot of benefit for the owners. Apart from making hundreads of thousands (versus tens of thousands for an average worker), the owners also get perks such as tax-deductible business expenses. For example, many owners deduct the cost of lunches, travel, hotels, cars/leasing, etc. Clearly, if such a person closed down the business, they would be worse off as a worker than if they owned it...
So to sum up, most people who own business benefit from it in monetary terms.
"There are probably a lot of folks out there who hate Microsoft and would never own MSFT stock, but are forced to own a lot of it anyway in their index funds."
Well... if someone really believed in that "principle" then they wouldn't buy the index that contains Microsoft in the first place (or alternatively they can buy the index and short Microsoft shares). Otherwise, that person doesn't care in the first place...
"
However you raise an interesting point, is all of that money saved in some bank or is it the investors money? if all that money comes from the stock market than a bank, then if a certain number of people with a decent set of it decide to take their investment somewhere else where does that leave Microsoft?"
The money held by a company, whether Microsoft or not, is not "borrowed" from the investors. Microsoft, like most companies, may own a little bit of debt (which can be loaned by investors when they buy bonds) but it will be very small compared to their cash. It is rare for a company to borrow money (i.e. have high debt) while also having high cash--you would just pay down the debt with the cash. So, most of Microsoft's money is simply cash that they acquired through earnings.
When you invest in the stock market (secondary market), the company doesn't really get your money. Instead, you are simply buying ownership from another investor. So there really isn't any loaning of money or anything like that (except when you buy bonds as mentioned above). You can't really "take the money" and walk away. At best, you can sell the stock on the market and take the proceeds, but you are simply selling to another buyer and the company is not involved in any of this (but do note that if a lot of people sell, then the stock price will drop due to basic supply & demand, and this will be bad for the company (and its investors) in the long run).
Most of the people in the pirating scene (not the general public at the bottom but the guys near the top) do it for fun. It's the technology equivalent of vandalism, graffiti, taking drugs, or whatever. It's the nature of youth to take risks and carry out illegal activities like that. It's all about a lifestyle. The scene is sort of the culture for these guys...
The majority of the pirates don't even use the software/movies/games/whatever they pirate. A courier might upload 100 software titles/games/movies/whatever in a week/month(?) yet they hardly even use 10% of that.
The only people who really use the stuff are the guys at the bottom: the general public. The guys who run the scene don't use the stuff much and don't really profit from it...
Although factually correct, your arguments are weak (no offense). To see what I mean, check this out...
Some of the railways and a lot of the highways WERE due to the military. They were built by the military due to the war. But that doesn't prove anything. If the allocation was incorrect, it's wrong no matter what the result was. For instance, it would likely be more efficient for the govt to give all the money to the construction companies (or not collect the taxes in the first place) than it is to divert it to roads via the military. What the military does is for their purposes (i.e. war) and whatever benefit that you derive is tangential and tertiary. It is far more efficient to give the money directly to the task in question. This applies to anything. For instance, consider the GPS system. This was developed for military purposes and has become useful for non-military purposes. But the fact that it became useful for non-military purposes is accidental or tangential. It would have been better to give the billion dollars (or whatever it cost--I think it's more) to a university research lab or to a private satellite company to develop a communcation network (or not collect taxes or go into debt) than it is to spend it on the military in order to generate some civilian use, which may or may not have happened.
Lastly, most of the military spending (especially spikes such as during war) is financed via debt. You are basically spending something you don't have. You'll feel the pain of the debt within 50 years (because USA is reaching critical levels--so are many other countries)...
My question is, who is goin to pay for it? Getting a city hooked up will cost several hundread million dollars. Do the citizens really want to pay for it, when the majority don't even know what wi-fi is? In addition, will the govt implement something when the ISPs will be fighting to death over the issue?
As far as I'm concerned, wi-fi will likely only be implemented in some regions (maybe near city hall where the govt can hand out information, or something) or for limited areas.
I don't think this wireless access thingie is a good idea...
Re:Slashdot becoming fascist?
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
The reason the left never deals with immigration is because liberalism is inherently in favour of immigration. The reason the right deals with immigration a lot is because conservatism is inherently against immigration. Conservatives are generally against change and immigration brings on a lot of change; liberals generally favour change so immigration is part of the ideology.
This is not to say that people on either side don't deviate. However, from an ideological point of view, the left has always been immigration-friendly for hundreads of years. The whole right wing should be against immigration but it hasn't happened because (in my opinion) capitalists control the right. Capitalists are in favour of immigration, even though their conservative ideology will lean against it, because of demographic reasons. The fertility rates in most Western countries are too low and in order to prevent the economy from contracting, capitalists favour immigration (to replace aging workers). If that were not the case, I'm sure all the right wing parties (such as the Republican Party) would be against immigration.
Re:Slashdot becoming fascist?
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Abraham Lincoln, as well as guys like Thomas Jefferson, WOULD be fascists by modern views (although note that the times were different back then). Lincoln clearly believed that blacks (and I guess non-whites in general) were inferior to whites. So yes, if someone were to hold Lincoln's exact views right now, they would be racists and also likely fascists.
"What makes you so willing to think that the Vdare folks are inclined to become mass killers?"
Fascism doesn't mean an ideology where people are mass killers. You can easily have a fascist system without much violence (early Nazism was like this--remember that the Nazis largely started their mass killings after they couldn't expel the "inferior people"). As you point out, any totalitarian system can kill people. Fascism has nothing to do with violence. Instead, it is more accurate to consider it as a system where something, usually a trait like ethnicity or religion, but it can also be nationality, chivalry, or stuff like that, is used to classify people into a hierarchy. What seperates fascism from most other systems is that some people are considered to be superior with some being inferior under fascist systems. Examples include whites being superior to native Americans; Aryans superior to non-Aryans; Indonesians superior to ethnic Chinese; men superior to women; and so on.
So, I'm not saying the VDare contributors are going to be mass killers, no more than you or I. All I'm saying is that they are mostly fascist. They may end up killing people or they may not--but that's beside the point. These guys base most of their opinions on white supremist ideology, and as long as they stay that way, they are fascists in my eyes...
Re:Sort of like the Hindu Nationlists in India?
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
I'm not Indian but those guys would be religious fundamentalists. They may end up being fascists but so far they are not there...
BTW, India never pointed nukes at USA; they don't have any nukes that can reach USA...
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you guys don't understand capitalism.. or at least business management. One of the first things people learn in business school is creating barriers of entry for you business. Locking in customers by using proprietory technologies, standards, etc is a common strategy used by nearly all companies that can afford to do so.
Some of those ideas are good and can/will work. Targetting the female teenage market, or webvan, or govworks, or stuff like that are good ideas. Even the online currency thingie can work, although it will be in very tough competition against the credit card companies, debit cards, or even newer stuff like goldmoney.
It's just that nearly all dot-com companies were way too ambitious and arrogant. This was mostly because they were run by business-oriented individuals (these people tend to be like that). If some of these companies didn't squander away their capital, they would still be in business. Let's also not forget that these companies didn't have good cost controls (spending millions on the the Super Bowl ads, which incidentally is the most expensive advertising around, for a target market that generally isn't even tech-oriented looks lame to me).
For example, stuff like govWorks IS the future. There is a big opportunity to streamline and automate interaction between government and citizens. Not only is this cheaper, it is is more efficient too.
Real estate is downward rigid. Real estate prices don't tend to drop as much in such a short period of time because people have to live somewhere. So even though the real estate market may be in a bubble, it wouldn't drop like the dot-coms...
It was a joke.. kind of funny too :)
So how are you doing so far? Any success? (Don't reveal anything that may reveal your technique--unles you are ok with that)
;) )...
Are you using so-called technical analysis that is used by traders for your quantitative stuff (eg. MACD, moving averages, etc)? Or are you going with your own ?
I'm not sure what you are using for qualitative measures (maybe analyst opinion or something) but that's interesting. As you mentioned, most techniques that are out there simply use numbers (quantitive) and don't really look at human thoughts (qualitative). It'll be interesting to see if you can pull it off (of course if you pull it off, you'll be a millionaire crusing in some yacht in some tropical island with no need to waste time posting on Slashdot
Good luck with your goals... Your attempt at merging quantitative and qualitative stuff is different...
The present day advertising revenue is legit, unlike the dot-com days when companies were just exchanging so-called "ad revenues" with each other. Companies like Yahoo and Google actually make hundreads of millions of (real) dollars on the ads. The question with Google is whether they can increase profits at the crazy rate that the market expects. Even though internet advertising is the highest growing advertising market, I'm not sure if that's enough for the Google shareholders who have Google valued at a P/E ratio of 120 (i.e. if Google's income stays the same (it won't but let's assume), it will take 120 years for it to pay off one share purchased by a shareholder).
So what are you trying to do? Predict the markets based on historical data?
" YHOO's currently doing about $35 where GOOG's doing $300. Sure there's a premium on perceived Google's tech superiority, but it's probably worth 2x or 3x YHOO. 10x does not make sense, long term. (It's fine if you want to make short-term gains, however.)" One shouldn't compare companies by looking at share prices. Instead, you should look at market cap (capitalization) or P/E ratio. Share price is meaningless because one company with one million shares at $1 is equal to another company with 100,000 shares at $10.
For absolute rankings, market cap (=share price * shares outstanding) is what is used to value companies. Google is roughly worth around $84 billion while Yahoo is $46 billion.
If you are an investor then one commonly used measure is the P/E ratio (=price of share/earnings per share). Google is at a P/E of 120 while Yahoo is at 31. For reference, the S&P500, which is the largest 500 companies listed in the US, has a P/E ratio of around 16. Based on this, Google looks overvalued. Google literally has to increase its earnings 4x (+500%) to reach Yahoo's relative value level.
Of course, the market is placing a big premium on google because it expects Google to grow fast. However, I think a lot of Google shareholders are going to be dissapointed. It is going to be difficult for Google to grow like it has in the past because it is getting bigger. Just last week, Google dropped 5% intra-day (although it recouped some of that loss by the close) after earnings came out. Earnings came in at a record but weren't good enough for the huge premium placed on the stock.
Nearly all financial sources will adjust the prices for the split. So you'll just see the post-split prices. For example, if you look at a chart and see the stock price going to $60, you'll only see $30 after the split (you won't see $60 on the chart at all because the charts are automatically adjusted).
So, in general, if you see a price half what it was, it likely means that the stock dropped 50%--and not that it is some 2-for-1 split (because the splits are adjusted and you really can't tell on the surface).
Usually the listed stock prices are adjusted for splits. So the price isn't simply half due to any splits; rather, it, like nearly all tech stocks, dropped 50% after the dot-com meltdown...
" This annoys me to no end. I've tried to dabble in the stock market for a while now and analyze companies, look at the charts/fundamentals/etc., and an analyst comes out and pisses all over the stock, and it goes down the next morning. It's like printing their own money. It's rediculous. I'm almost to a point of believing the conspiracies that the stock markets are completely controlled by a small elite and there really is no free market at all."
If the fundamentals of the company are strong (i.e. they are actually going to make money and increase profitability) then you will do well. It doesn't matter what an analyst or anyone else says/does. In the long run, the execution and results are what matter. If you are right about results then you will ultimately do well; if not, you will lose...
"...as I'll never, ever, install XP or any of the 'phone home to register' versions that follow it. I always wince when I install a 'newer than default' version of WMP on the system. But, then, I know better than the average user."
Practically all software companies are moving to online activation. If it isn't Microsoft, it's Symantec or Adobe or whatever...
Government intervention to alter people's lack of knowledge is prone to failure. You can't ask companies to remove this or that just because the consumer doesn't want to spend the time/resources to pick one that may be better.
This European govt intervention is one of the dumbest in the history of the computer industry. It is going to accomplish almost nothing because you can't change consumer behaviour with legislation.
"I have worked for many companies that do not have any place in the stock market, and they continue on simply because they make somewhat of a profit (which quickly gets put into upgrades, etc.) and the people there still like doing what they're doing."
I'll bet that the owners of those companies are making a ton of money... maybe not hundreads of millions but at least hundreads of thousands.
Even small businesses where it seems the owner isn't making much offer a lot of benefit for the owners. Apart from making hundreads of thousands (versus tens of thousands for an average worker), the owners also get perks such as tax-deductible business expenses. For example, many owners deduct the cost of lunches, travel, hotels, cars/leasing, etc. Clearly, if such a person closed down the business, they would be worse off as a worker than if they owned it...
So to sum up, most people who own business benefit from it in monetary terms.
"There are probably a lot of folks out there who hate Microsoft and would never own MSFT stock, but are forced to own a lot of it anyway in their index funds."
Well... if someone really believed in that "principle" then they wouldn't buy the index that contains Microsoft in the first place (or alternatively they can buy the index and short Microsoft shares). Otherwise, that person doesn't care in the first place...
" However you raise an interesting point, is all of that money saved in some bank or is it the investors money? if all that money comes from the stock market than a bank, then if a certain number of people with a decent set of it decide to take their investment somewhere else where does that leave Microsoft?" The money held by a company, whether Microsoft or not, is not "borrowed" from the investors. Microsoft, like most companies, may own a little bit of debt (which can be loaned by investors when they buy bonds) but it will be very small compared to their cash. It is rare for a company to borrow money (i.e. have high debt) while also having high cash--you would just pay down the debt with the cash. So, most of Microsoft's money is simply cash that they acquired through earnings.
When you invest in the stock market (secondary market), the company doesn't really get your money. Instead, you are simply buying ownership from another investor. So there really isn't any loaning of money or anything like that (except when you buy bonds as mentioned above). You can't really "take the money" and walk away. At best, you can sell the stock on the market and take the proceeds, but you are simply selling to another buyer and the company is not involved in any of this (but do note that if a lot of people sell, then the stock price will drop due to basic supply & demand, and this will be bad for the company (and its investors) in the long run).
I don't think anyone on IRC is a top-level site. I think this was just a dump site as the article references...
Most of the people in the pirating scene (not the general public at the bottom but the guys near the top) do it for fun. It's the technology equivalent of vandalism, graffiti, taking drugs, or whatever. It's the nature of youth to take risks and carry out illegal activities like that. It's all about a lifestyle. The scene is sort of the culture for these guys...
The majority of the pirates don't even use the software/movies/games/whatever they pirate. A courier might upload 100 software titles/games/movies/whatever in a week/month(?) yet they hardly even use 10% of that.
The only people who really use the stuff are the guys at the bottom: the general public. The guys who run the scene don't use the stuff much and don't really profit from it...
I guess it's an attack on open-source software by tying it to outsourcing...
Although factually correct, your arguments are weak (no offense). To see what I mean, check this out...
Some of the railways and a lot of the highways WERE due to the military. They were built by the military due to the war. But that doesn't prove anything. If the allocation was incorrect, it's wrong no matter what the result was. For instance, it would likely be more efficient for the govt to give all the money to the construction companies (or not collect the taxes in the first place) than it is to divert it to roads via the military. What the military does is for their purposes (i.e. war) and whatever benefit that you derive is tangential and tertiary. It is far more efficient to give the money directly to the task in question. This applies to anything. For instance, consider the GPS system. This was developed for military purposes and has become useful for non-military purposes. But the fact that it became useful for non-military purposes is accidental or tangential. It would have been better to give the billion dollars (or whatever it cost--I think it's more) to a university research lab or to a private satellite company to develop a communcation network (or not collect taxes or go into debt) than it is to spend it on the military in order to generate some civilian use, which may or may not have happened.
Lastly, most of the military spending (especially spikes such as during war) is financed via debt. You are basically spending something you don't have. You'll feel the pain of the debt within 50 years (because USA is reaching critical levels--so are many other countries)...
Just remember that corporations have no souls. They are simply driven by profit. Google is just doing what 90% of the countries in the world do.
If anything, the only influence one can have is with the shareholders...
My question is, who is goin to pay for it? Getting a city hooked up will cost several hundread million dollars. Do the citizens really want to pay for it, when the majority don't even know what wi-fi is? In addition, will the govt implement something when the ISPs will be fighting to death over the issue?
As far as I'm concerned, wi-fi will likely only be implemented in some regions (maybe near city hall where the govt can hand out information, or something) or for limited areas.
I don't think this wireless access thingie is a good idea...
The reason the left never deals with immigration is because liberalism is inherently in favour of immigration. The reason the right deals with immigration a lot is because conservatism is inherently against immigration. Conservatives are generally against change and immigration brings on a lot of change; liberals generally favour change so immigration is part of the ideology.
This is not to say that people on either side don't deviate. However, from an ideological point of view, the left has always been immigration-friendly for hundreads of years. The whole right wing should be against immigration but it hasn't happened because (in my opinion) capitalists control the right. Capitalists are in favour of immigration, even though their conservative ideology will lean against it, because of demographic reasons. The fertility rates in most Western countries are too low and in order to prevent the economy from contracting, capitalists favour immigration (to replace aging workers). If that were not the case, I'm sure all the right wing parties (such as the Republican Party) would be against immigration.
Abraham Lincoln, as well as guys like Thomas Jefferson, WOULD be fascists by modern views (although note that the times were different back then). Lincoln clearly believed that blacks (and I guess non-whites in general) were inferior to whites. So yes, if someone were to hold Lincoln's exact views right now, they would be racists and also likely fascists.
"What makes you so willing to think that the Vdare folks are inclined to become mass killers?"
Fascism doesn't mean an ideology where people are mass killers. You can easily have a fascist system without much violence (early Nazism was like this--remember that the Nazis largely started their mass killings after they couldn't expel the "inferior people"). As you point out, any totalitarian system can kill people. Fascism has nothing to do with violence. Instead, it is more accurate to consider it as a system where something, usually a trait like ethnicity or religion, but it can also be nationality, chivalry, or stuff like that, is used to classify people into a hierarchy. What seperates fascism from most other systems is that some people are considered to be superior with some being inferior under fascist systems. Examples include whites being superior to native Americans; Aryans superior to non-Aryans; Indonesians superior to ethnic Chinese; men superior to women; and so on.
So, I'm not saying the VDare contributors are going to be mass killers, no more than you or I. All I'm saying is that they are mostly fascist. They may end up killing people or they may not--but that's beside the point. These guys base most of their opinions on white supremist ideology, and as long as they stay that way, they are fascists in my eyes...
I'm not Indian but those guys would be religious fundamentalists. They may end up being fascists but so far they are not there...
BTW, India never pointed nukes at USA; they don't have any nukes that can reach USA...