Well, I don't really like trying to play "pick the top" price. It's as dangerous as trying to predict the bottom, I think. But, I'm 100% sure that if somebody buys the IPO right when it becomes available to the public, it'll already be so absurdly high, that eventually, when it tanks, a lot of profit will be made. Maybe not as much as waiting until the dumb public runs the price up higher, though.
"If you're a shareholder in a company that causes everyone in a small town to get cancer because they're dumping pollutants in the water supply, your investment will drop in value when the class action suit gets certified and the company is looking at billions of dollars in payouts. "
That generally doesn't effect the shareholder, because the shareholder generally isn't getting significant dividends. It doesn't even have to necessarily effect the shareholder at all, because, if for some other reason, people decide to en masse buy that company's stock, then it's entirely possible (happens every day) that the stock price will rise. Even so, if the stock isn't sold, there's no actual loss.
Compare that to an individual who does the same thing... They're sued into bankruptcy and/or locked up in a "federal pound me in the ass prison".
The corporate system is, unfortunately, inherently broken.
High market capitalization doesn't mean anything other than people are interested in owning a piece of this company. It doesn't mean that the company is successful, or even profitable. It's a common fallacy (some would argue, THE common fallacy) that stock price has anything to do with the underlying company's intrinsic worth.
It's the same problem that sacked the mortgage market. The system is set up so that the bits of a company, called stock (or the mortgage) are entirely unconnected to the supposed underlying item of value, which is the company itself (building, property). With the stock market, people don't expect company dividends (anymore), and, even more bizarre, the supposed owners of the company aren't liable for any company crimes. Market capitalization is as meaningful as Twitter trends are.
That being said, it's interesting from a purely social point of view.
"How many cycles will a flywheel driving starter motor / solenoid setup last?"
Considering that the starter is always the first thing I have to replace, even on Hondas and Toyotas, I'd be really hesitant to get a car with this "feature" in it.
It works great for cable TV... People pay a ton of money every month for lots of advertising and crappy content that's usually available elsewhere for free.
I agree. The thing is, by the time it takes for a single company to become that large, either the owners sell out, or more unscrupulous family members take over. A single business can maintain integrity (while growing) only as long as that one owner can live. Ben & Jerry's was an incredible, and incredibly profitable company until they sold out to the massive international conglomerate, Unilever. The same can be said of lots of companies.
Compared to local stores. We're not quite at the point where it's Major International Conglomerate Online or Major International Conglomerate Big Box.
For cameras, I go to my local camera shops. The people know what they're talking about, and the prices are fair. For hard drives, I'll go to my local retailer. Their prices are fair, and it's a painless experience.
In most cases, you have to expand. If you don't, then somebody will get bigger, faster, with more money, and muscle you out. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of the best small businesses can maintain without growing.
My feelings aren't hurt. As an avowed geek, I've *never* had a reason to shop in a Best Buy. I can get all of the geek stuff I need at my local retailers who yes, do have useful staff who help me make decisions, and no, don't assume that I'm a thief and check my receipt 10 feet away from the cash register.
I don't care if you shop there or not. The trend in retailing is consumers are becoming dumber and are continuing to lower their standards. That's a fact, and there's nothing I, or anybody else, can do about it. But you did lump Best Buy in as one of the "best stores" that win, and that's just silly.
Some of us still care about our local communities. Not all of us are willing to sell out our community so that we can save an extra nickel. But thanks to people like you, retail stores may very well someday be gone altogether.
Best Buy qualifies as one of the "best stores" in your mind? Seriously? Brain dead staff, and somebody checking your receipt at the door? Those are some amazingly low standards you have!
I don't donate to Wikipedia. I won't donate to Wikipedia. They are spending $9.8 MM/year to pay 58 people. That's an *average* of $168K/person. That's simply absurd. I'm not "donating" to an organization so that their management can live like royalty. If they were truly interested in their mission, there's no reason to pay themselves such outrageous salaries.
"It doesn't come down to this at all. They could write to their democratically elected representatives, they could write to newspapers, they could organize rallies, or contribute to blogs, or start a visasucks.com style site, or hand out flyers, or vote for any propositions which punish Amazon or run counter to its interests. "
The soldiers work FOR the US government. The problem IS the US government. Comparing soldiers to Anonymous is a bit like comparing SS Troops to Anne Frank.
That's like saying a serial murder isn't all that bad, because he only killed 20 people, as opposed to another guy, who killed *30* people.
Those are some pretty low standards, you're proposing. I guess that as long as we don't have gunfire in the streets, we shouldn't worry about it, because we're not as bad off as others, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Instead, spend half as much on a good refurbished laptop, and be able to do everything you want to do at half the price.
Well, I don't really like trying to play "pick the top" price. It's as dangerous as trying to predict the bottom, I think. But, I'm 100% sure that if somebody buys the IPO right when it becomes available to the public, it'll already be so absurdly high, that eventually, when it tanks, a lot of profit will be made. Maybe not as much as waiting until the dumb public runs the price up higher, though.
"What are the chances that this 'leaked' report is designed to pump up the stock, and therefore Goldman's profit?"
I think that the chances are so good, that I'll be shorting Facebook immediately after the IPO!
"If you're a shareholder in a company that causes everyone in a small town to get cancer because they're dumping pollutants in the water supply, your investment will drop in value when the class action suit gets certified and the company is looking at billions of dollars in payouts. "
That generally doesn't effect the shareholder, because the shareholder generally isn't getting significant dividends. It doesn't even have to necessarily effect the shareholder at all, because, if for some other reason, people decide to en masse buy that company's stock, then it's entirely possible (happens every day) that the stock price will rise. Even so, if the stock isn't sold, there's no actual loss.
Compare that to an individual who does the same thing... They're sued into bankruptcy and/or locked up in a "federal pound me in the ass prison".
The corporate system is, unfortunately, inherently broken.
High market capitalization doesn't mean anything other than people are interested in owning a piece of this company. It doesn't mean that the company is successful, or even profitable. It's a common fallacy (some would argue, THE common fallacy) that stock price has anything to do with the underlying company's intrinsic worth.
It's the same problem that sacked the mortgage market. The system is set up so that the bits of a company, called stock (or the mortgage) are entirely unconnected to the supposed underlying item of value, which is the company itself (building, property). With the stock market, people don't expect company dividends (anymore), and, even more bizarre, the supposed owners of the company aren't liable for any company crimes. Market capitalization is as meaningful as Twitter trends are.
That being said, it's interesting from a purely social point of view.
"How many cycles will a flywheel driving starter motor / solenoid setup last?"
Considering that the starter is always the first thing I have to replace, even on Hondas and Toyotas, I'd be really hesitant to get a car with this "feature" in it.
It works great for cable TV... People pay a ton of money every month for lots of advertising and crappy content that's usually available elsewhere for free.
"Will the PS3 search your network? stream content from a computer?"
Yes and yes.
The PS3 is about 90% of the way there, and it's incredibly simple to use.
That makes sense. Sounds like a decent trade off.
Jesus, I'd hate to live where you live. Sounds like a miserable place. Best of luck!
I agree. The thing is, by the time it takes for a single company to become that large, either the owners sell out, or more unscrupulous family members take over. A single business can maintain integrity (while growing) only as long as that one owner can live. Ben & Jerry's was an incredible, and incredibly profitable company until they sold out to the massive international conglomerate, Unilever. The same can be said of lots of companies.
Compared to what?
Compared to local stores. We're not quite at the point where it's Major International Conglomerate Online or Major International Conglomerate Big Box.
For cameras, I go to my local camera shops. The people know what they're talking about, and the prices are fair. For hard drives, I'll go to my local retailer. Their prices are fair, and it's a painless experience.
In most cases, you have to expand. If you don't, then somebody will get bigger, faster, with more money, and muscle you out. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of the best small businesses can maintain without growing.
This post put a huge smile on my face.
My feelings aren't hurt. As an avowed geek, I've *never* had a reason to shop in a Best Buy. I can get all of the geek stuff I need at my local retailers who yes, do have useful staff who help me make decisions, and no, don't assume that I'm a thief and check my receipt 10 feet away from the cash register.
I don't care if you shop there or not. The trend in retailing is consumers are becoming dumber and are continuing to lower their standards. That's a fact, and there's nothing I, or anybody else, can do about it. But you did lump Best Buy in as one of the "best stores" that win, and that's just silly.
Some of us still care about our local communities. Not all of us are willing to sell out our community so that we can save an extra nickel. But thanks to people like you, retail stores may very well someday be gone altogether.
"The best stores win. And crappy stores lose"
Best Buy qualifies as one of the "best stores" in your mind? Seriously? Brain dead staff, and somebody checking your receipt at the door? Those are some amazingly low standards you have!
Yup. $9.8 million just for salaries for 58 people.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf The entire budget is $20.4 million.
I don't donate to Wikipedia. I won't donate to Wikipedia. They are spending $9.8 MM/year to pay 58 people. That's an *average* of $168K/person. That's simply absurd. I'm not "donating" to an organization so that their management can live like royalty. If they were truly interested in their mission, there's no reason to pay themselves such outrageous salaries.
I think fax spamming would be trivial.
It *is* trivial. It happens any day. Ask anyone with a fax machine.
"It doesn't come down to this at all. They could write to their democratically elected representatives, they could write to newspapers, they could organize rallies, or contribute to blogs, or start a visasucks.com style site, or hand out flyers, or vote for any propositions which punish Amazon or run counter to its interests. "
Are you joking?
The soldiers work FOR the US government. The problem IS the US government. Comparing soldiers to Anonymous is a bit like comparing SS Troops to Anne Frank.
It's not hyperbolic. What else can be done, short of revolution?
That's like saying a serial murder isn't all that bad, because he only killed 20 people, as opposed to another guy, who killed *30* people.
Those are some pretty low standards, you're proposing. I guess that as long as we don't have gunfire in the streets, we shouldn't worry about it, because we're not as bad off as others, right?