What are you talking about? Everyone blames mismanagement for CC's demise. It has been an ongoing story in the press for years now.
Here's a quote from a Feb 10th story, for one out of many many examples: "I think everyone is in agreement that Circuit City was mismanaged into bankruptcy."
Yes, everyone does agree that.
I know it's fun to jump on the "no one blames company execs!!!" bandwagon, but you could pick a better example than CC. Like, for example, any other company.
What a stupid letter. The author complains about crowds in their store. How do you think they got there? Perhaps it had something to do with their company advertising amazing liquidation deals.
And then the customers take time out of their day to travel to CC to get these amazing liquidation deals, and there are none.
So they get pissed, asking where the great deals are.
Please indicate the point where you consider this to be a departure from completely rational behavior.
Perhaps blaming the customer instead of mismanagement is part of the reason you're going out of business.
> I feel bad for their employees as this is not a good time to be looking > for a job at all, and probably doubly bad looking for a retail job, but > I do not feel bad for Circuit City. They were a crap business, and > that's the whole idea in a capitalist market: You run a crap business, > you fail and are replaced by someone better. Best Buy is by no means > perfect, but they are better than CC.
Thank you! The above is put so well. Yes, it is definitely sad for the minority who are directly adversely affected by this by losing their jobs. After all, it's most likely that most of the individuals being laid off had no measurable effect on the downfall of CC (it was almost certainly the mismanagement of the few), and yet they feel the resulting pain.
But, as sad as it is, it is important to recognize that we cannot forgo the benefit to the majority (namely, an inefficient, mismanaged company handing their market share over to a more efficient company) in order to shelter the few. This *is* a bad economy, yes. However, there are bright spots, even in retail. Wal-mart and Meijer are doing well, for example. Would working at these places be dream jobs for former CC employees? Probably not. But working at CC probably wasn't either.
Even if they had NO options in retail, they would still have to work somewhere. No person has only one skill. (And I shouldn't have to tell that to anyone here at/., where we've got amateur lawyers, doctors, politicians, and god knows what else). They may have a really tough year, and those who are working will certainly have a tough year paying all the unemployment benefits for these people, but we will all be better off 5 years from now after everyone has re-tooled and re-aligned with the market.
The theory is not compassionate to the individual trampled by the market. But I think you can feel for these individuals, empathize with them, help them through private charity... and more importantly still realize that we're making the hard but right decision to operate our economy like this.
> Hence even losing a lousy retailer is still a loss for the consumer.
I think you've been huffing the bailout fumes a little too much.
This is what is supposed to happen when you have a mismanaged company. The company goes under. Yes, for a time being there is less competition. But if there is a market opportunity that Circuit City filled, do you think that simply disappears when they disappear? It doesn't work like that.
If there is room for another competitor in the market, a new one will enter, or an existing one will expand. And it will only succeed where Circuit City failed if it is more efficient and better managed than Circuit City.
Best Buy cannot drive up prices without creating an even stronger market opportunity for a competitor, making it even easier for them to enter the market.
> The head of the lab said the rescindment of Bush era policy was a great > relief because they no longer had to maintain an expensive and artificial > wall between their efforts.
You didn't finish that sentence. Or else what? They were running parallel labs because they wanted federal funding. If you don't want the federal government to dictate science, how about we stop pushing all of our science-earmarked tax dollars up to the federal government? Crazy idea, I know, but if f'ing backwards Kansas wants to ban its state funding of stem cell research, more power to them. Research will just go to other states, and Kansas will be further left behind. (And this makes it less likely that Kansas will do so.)
This is the whole problem with the all-or-nothing dictatorial federal funding system. There is very little motivation to keep the government from imparting its moral will.
There's a reason we were once a country of united states, instead of a single state with arbitrary and meaningless geographical borders.
Keynesian theory suggests that private sector decisions can be non-optimal. I don't see how a move out of a government-controlled spectrum by a government-sponsored program fits into that.
I see a lot of crap in this "stimulus package" that is just an excuse to spend money the government thinks needs to be spent for any variety of reasons.
No, sorry, that is not "good enough" for my medical information. You are comparing against a data breach that currently requires physical access and for which we have centuries of preventative and reactive security techniques. There is very little accountability for electronic data breaches. Everyone just sort of shrugs and says "these things happen." If someone breaks into a medical office, that is not at all the response.
There is nothing socialist about health care reform. What is socialist is some of the suggestions on how it should be reformed. And the problem is that sometimes politicians say "health care reform" when they want to avoid using the words "universal public health care". If these politicians didn't muddy the semantic waters, everyone could agree that some kind of reform is necessary.
Obviously, CO is incorrect. But I do get annoyed when people assume the federal government is more capable than a state government. That's half the problem with this country anymore...
You pay for phone service, and you pay the phone company to lay cable out to your new building. I don't see what you are saying should change in order for the analogy to hold...
That's like saying that not having a speed limit on this 1 road has led to many deaths. It's sort of true, but the fact that every other road has a speed limit pushes people who want to speed onto that one road.
That's the problem with government regulation. It works if the government is always 1 step ahead of the market. But the government is never 1 step ahead of anything, let alone people who have huge financial motivation to find loopholes in regulation.
I wasn't being dense. As I said in my comment, it was a genuine question. I think being around/. too long and being baited too many times has affected your ability to have normal discourse.
> What I would prefer, is if the Pipes were open pipes. The Recovery package > should have included money to buy up all of the laid fiber/cable and open > it up to competition.
Great call. If there's one group of people who need a hand in this economic downturn, it's the ISP execs.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you serious? Were you paying attention AT ALL during the last 8 years?
What are you talking about? Everyone blames mismanagement for CC's demise. It has been an ongoing story in the press for years now.
Here's a quote from a Feb 10th story, for one out of many many examples:
"I think everyone is in agreement that Circuit City was mismanaged into bankruptcy."
Yes, everyone does agree that.
I know it's fun to jump on the "no one blames company execs!!!" bandwagon, but you could pick a better example than CC. Like, for example, any other company.
What a stupid letter. The author complains about crowds in their store. How do you think they got there? Perhaps it had something to do with their company advertising amazing liquidation deals.
And then the customers take time out of their day to travel to CC to get these amazing liquidation deals, and there are none.
So they get pissed, asking where the great deals are.
Please indicate the point where you consider this to be a departure from completely rational behavior.
Perhaps blaming the customer instead of mismanagement is part of the reason you're going out of business.
> I feel bad for their employees as this is not a good time to be looking
> for a job at all, and probably doubly bad looking for a retail job, but
> I do not feel bad for Circuit City. They were a crap business, and
> that's the whole idea in a capitalist market: You run a crap business,
> you fail and are replaced by someone better. Best Buy is by no means
> perfect, but they are better than CC.
Thank you! The above is put so well. Yes, it is definitely sad for the minority who are directly adversely affected by this by losing their jobs. After all, it's most likely that most of the individuals being laid off had no measurable effect on the downfall of CC (it was almost certainly the mismanagement of the few), and yet they feel the resulting pain.
But, as sad as it is, it is important to recognize that we cannot forgo the benefit to the majority (namely, an inefficient, mismanaged company handing their market share over to a more efficient company) in order to shelter the few. This *is* a bad economy, yes. However, there are bright spots, even in retail. Wal-mart and Meijer are doing well, for example. Would working at these places be dream jobs for former CC employees? Probably not. But working at CC probably wasn't either.
Even if they had NO options in retail, they would still have to work somewhere. No person has only one skill. (And I shouldn't have to tell that to anyone here at /., where we've got amateur lawyers, doctors, politicians, and god knows what else). They may have a really tough year, and those who are working will certainly have a tough year paying all the unemployment benefits for these people, but we will all be better off 5 years from now after everyone has re-tooled and re-aligned with the market.
The theory is not compassionate to the individual trampled by the market. But I think you can feel for these individuals, empathize with them, help them through private charity... and more importantly still realize that we're making the hard but right decision to operate our economy like this.
> Hence even losing a lousy retailer is still a loss for the consumer.
I think you've been huffing the bailout fumes a little too much.
This is what is supposed to happen when you have a mismanaged company. The company goes under. Yes, for a time being there is less competition. But if there is a market opportunity that Circuit City filled, do you think that simply disappears when they disappear? It doesn't work like that.
If there is room for another competitor in the market, a new one will enter, or an existing one will expand. And it will only succeed where Circuit City failed if it is more efficient and better managed than Circuit City.
Best Buy cannot drive up prices without creating an even stronger market opportunity for a competitor, making it even easier for them to enter the market.
You are right in this meaning of 'direction', but correlations do have direction.
Blind luck. We need the federal government to stop influencing scientific research directions.
> The head of the lab said the rescindment of Bush era policy was a great
> relief because they no longer had to maintain an expensive and artificial
> wall between their efforts.
You didn't finish that sentence. Or else what? They were running parallel labs because they wanted federal funding. If you don't want the federal government to dictate science, how about we stop pushing all of our science-earmarked tax dollars up to the federal government? Crazy idea, I know, but if f'ing backwards Kansas wants to ban its state funding of stem cell research, more power to them. Research will just go to other states, and Kansas will be further left behind. (And this makes it less likely that Kansas will do so.)
This is the whole problem with the all-or-nothing dictatorial federal funding system. There is very little motivation to keep the government from imparting its moral will.
There's a reason we were once a country of united states, instead of a single state with arbitrary and meaningless geographical borders.
Keynesian theory suggests that private sector decisions can be non-optimal. I don't see how a move out of a government-controlled spectrum by a government-sponsored program fits into that.
I see a lot of crap in this "stimulus package" that is just an excuse to spend money the government thinks needs to be spent for any variety of reasons.
How can you admit productivity gains from Firebug, yet ignore productivity gains given by integrated development environments?
So, can someone explain what the DTV coupon program's funding has to do with stimulating the economy?
No, sorry, that is not "good enough" for my medical information. You are comparing against a data breach that currently requires physical access and for which we have centuries of preventative and reactive security techniques. There is very little accountability for electronic data breaches. Everyone just sort of shrugs and says "these things happen." If someone breaks into a medical office, that is not at all the response.
There is nothing socialist about health care reform. What is socialist is some of the suggestions on how it should be reformed. And the problem is that sometimes politicians say "health care reform" when they want to avoid using the words "universal public health care". If these politicians didn't muddy the semantic waters, everyone could agree that some kind of reform is necessary.
> I turn up, he treats me, I go away without... paying a penny.
EPIC FAIL
Obviously, CO is incorrect. But I do get annoyed when people assume the federal government is more capable than a state government. That's half the problem with this country anymore...
You pay for phone service, and you pay the phone company to lay cable out to your new building. I don't see what you are saying should change in order for the analogy to hold...
That's like saying that not having a speed limit on this 1 road has led to many deaths. It's sort of true, but the fact that every other road has a speed limit pushes people who want to speed onto that one road.
That's the problem with government regulation. It works if the government is always 1 step ahead of the market. But the government is never 1 step ahead of anything, let alone people who have huge financial motivation to find loopholes in regulation.
I wasn't being dense. As I said in my comment, it was a genuine question. I think being around /. too long and being baited too many times has affected your ability to have normal discourse.
You're right. I meant the telecommunication company execs.
> Other common reasons for trains being late are overcrowding and suicide.
Incorrect correlation direction.
> What I would prefer, is if the Pipes were open pipes. The Recovery package
> should have included money to buy up all of the laid fiber/cable and open
> it up to competition.
Great call. If there's one group of people who need a hand in this economic downturn, it's the ISP execs.
Why is Internet like electricity rather than television? All you did was assert that Internet should be a utility. You didn't explain why.
This is a genuine question: how does net neutrality encourage competition?
> Do you live under a rock, or have you not noticed an economic depression
> lately that is caused by total lack of regulation?
Are you suggesting that the financial markets are/were totally unregulated?
Thanks for following up; good info