You are looking at stock market returns, but failing to consider monetary influences - valuation of the USD to EU and Yen and etc - as well as total returns - EU vs S&P500 or even TotStkMkt.
One sees patterns even in the dark, just as one self-justifies one's biases by seeing improvement from pitiful to underperforming as being a better economy.
No one with any gravitas actually agrees as to the recession statement you gave, for example.
The market cares nothing about ideology, nor does the economy. This is the lesson that many have failed to understand.
Again, as I explained, and any decent Econ 200 level book will, it depends on where you are in the supply demand curve.
You said the consumer bears the full passed-thru cost. This is incorrect. Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they don't. Sometimes they are penalized - think of gas prices where the oligopoly passes thru immeadiate costs of price signal increases, but holds off on passing thru any price signal decreases.
All of this is dependent on quantity and status of suppliers and consumers.
In a perfect capitalist society, we have many millions of producers and many millions of consumers. We do not live in such a market. Failure to realize the limitation of economic models is why most people laugh at Laffer Curve devotees, who seem incapable of understanding the shifting nature - non-static - of the supply and demand curves, which are impacted by time, product and supply cycles, distribution inefficiences, artificial subsidies and penalties, and so on.
As an economic choice, having the limited number of suppliers (manufacturers) pay for recycling and disposal brings the true cost of the economic decision to the deciders, and allows the market to function at peak efficiency.
This is why the US economy so severely underperforms during the Bush cycle - a lack of comprehension of economies of scale, of decision points, of where the market levers are focussed.
And hence, having Apple bear the signal cost of the pollution impacts is a wise choice.
What would be a better choice would be if all manufacturers, in all countries, did so, making a level competitive playing field, where capitalism functions at optimal efficiency.
You know, I've heard that excuse from day one in Econ 100, all the way thru Econ 400 level courses, usually from people who don't actually have a real understanding of how markets actually function, what the preconditions for a market are, or why it's wrong.
Pollution exists. The fact that prior economists have been unwilling - or at best, unable - to properly account for it, merely shows their lack of skill and comprehension.
Consumers in fact don't tend to pay all the costs, depending on inflection points on the supply demand curve (and the Laffer curve is a joke, by the way), and it is normally more efficient in a market to impose such costs on a manufacturer or supplier than on a consumer.
Let's just do a word exercise. Basic Econ. Let's say you want to alter packaging wastage. Your view suggests we should impose it at the consumer level, whereas my more efficient and productive view says let's address it with all producers.
Since there are hundreds of millions of consumers, and only a handful of producers, my view is correct.
This is what Green GDP is all about. Using the invisible hand of the marketplace to measure goods and bads. Not just goods.
We can either use a market system like Germany and Denmark do, where all manufacturers have to pay true costs for pollution and recycling, and in-source it, or we can pretend that PCs are pollution free.
But, image is important. Just ask BP PLC, with their Beyond Petroleum slogan, after all the disasters with pipelines, refineries, and other ecological bad things.
So, maybe Jobs should ask himself: "What can I do to make it better that is fairly easy."
One thing is power consumption - and on this score, the Mac Mini with a flat LCD monitor is pretty good.
Another thing is less packaging - or making it recylable.
Yet another idea is to do what they already do and take back old Apple products and recycle them.
But the new 700k players only buy a few titles a year, is that "bad news" or is it "good news"?
Realize that the new casual gamers are... casual gamers.
They only buy games once in a while.
They only play games sometimes - and for brief periods.
They don't start WoW Care Bear guilds like me. Or upload their Sim families to MySims.
They don't play every segment of Star Wars - from Episode 0.1 to Episode 6.5 - over and over, using different characters, with and without cheats enabled.
They might play a light saber game with the Wii a few times, but they'll never reach Elite Status as a Jedi - at least, not without cheats.
Because they can get away with charging you for it.
In most first world countries, you can get 8-10 Gbps for about one-quarter what we pay here.
But, also, we still have no adapted our long distance rates, and you have to realize the firms that provide these services lose money on parts of the business while making money on the other parts.
This is also why drugs and medical care costs twice as much here as in Canada.
Sure, in fact, when I was a kid in 6th grade we had the country's biggest pot bust when they arrested someone with a backpack full of BC Bud in Kaslo, BC (population 1000).
Actually, though, I believe the US produces almost as much, but we're slackers here in America.
But the Internet, as a series of tubes used to sell wood, was designed to withstand a nuclear holocaust, and last time I checked the main problems that Iraq has in terms of the internet is not the actual wiring per se, but a distinct lack of power plants and continual power sources.
If we had just shipped Aramco-backed (aka Saudis, the people paying for Americans to be shot) solar cells and UPS systems to Iraq, we would have created more Net usage than with this approach.
Sometimes low tech is the way to go.
My dad gets the Net from a house he built in Vermont on his tree farm, using solar power to charge car batteries and run a laptop with. Cheaper than running power lines through his 42 acre tree farm. And I was serious about my brother writing the insurance law - he's an international lawyer based in NYC. I wasn't serious about the tubes or the selling wood part... my family does sell wood.
Slashdot Mirror
I stand by my statement.
Even The Economist and Wall Street Journal agree, and they're right wing.
The reality is what it is.
Just as economics is what it is.
Wait a second, they're talking about RECYCLING computers? I didn't know people throws them away. Maybe I'm just too much of a geek.
...
I know.
I still have an Apple II+ with monitor and 5.25 floppies in my garage, as well as a Mac SE 2DD with ext 40 SCSI2 drive
This is an incorrect statement.
You are looking at stock market returns, but failing to consider monetary influences - valuation of the USD to EU and Yen and etc - as well as total returns - EU vs S&P500 or even TotStkMkt.
One sees patterns even in the dark, just as one self-justifies one's biases by seeing improvement from pitiful to underperforming as being a better economy.
No one with any gravitas actually agrees as to the recession statement you gave, for example.
The market cares nothing about ideology, nor does the economy. This is the lesson that many have failed to understand.
Again, as I explained, and any decent Econ 200 level book will, it depends on where you are in the supply demand curve.
You said the consumer bears the full passed-thru cost. This is incorrect. Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they don't. Sometimes they are penalized - think of gas prices where the oligopoly passes thru immeadiate costs of price signal increases, but holds off on passing thru any price signal decreases.
All of this is dependent on quantity and status of suppliers and consumers.
In a perfect capitalist society, we have many millions of producers and many millions of consumers. We do not live in such a market. Failure to realize the limitation of economic models is why most people laugh at Laffer Curve devotees, who seem incapable of understanding the shifting nature - non-static - of the supply and demand curves, which are impacted by time, product and supply cycles, distribution inefficiences, artificial subsidies and penalties, and so on.
As an economic choice, having the limited number of suppliers (manufacturers) pay for recycling and disposal brings the true cost of the economic decision to the deciders, and allows the market to function at peak efficiency.
This is why the US economy so severely underperforms during the Bush cycle - a lack of comprehension of economies of scale, of decision points, of where the market levers are focussed.
And hence, having Apple bear the signal cost of the pollution impacts is a wise choice.
What would be a better choice would be if all manufacturers, in all countries, did so, making a level competitive playing field, where capitalism functions at optimal efficiency.
That is reality.
You know, I've heard that excuse from day one in Econ 100, all the way thru Econ 400 level courses, usually from people who don't actually have a real understanding of how markets actually function, what the preconditions for a market are, or why it's wrong.
Pollution exists. The fact that prior economists have been unwilling - or at best, unable - to properly account for it, merely shows their lack of skill and comprehension.
Consumers in fact don't tend to pay all the costs, depending on inflection points on the supply demand curve (and the Laffer curve is a joke, by the way), and it is normally more efficient in a market to impose such costs on a manufacturer or supplier than on a consumer.
Let's just do a word exercise. Basic Econ. Let's say you want to alter packaging wastage. Your view suggests we should impose it at the consumer level, whereas my more efficient and productive view says let's address it with all producers.
Since there are hundreds of millions of consumers, and only a handful of producers, my view is correct.
This is what Green GDP is all about. Using the invisible hand of the marketplace to measure goods and bads. Not just goods.
And if they accede to those demands, what's next?
Less pollution.
and Apple is not the only one.
We can either use a market system like Germany and Denmark do, where all manufacturers have to pay true costs for pollution and recycling, and in-source it, or we can pretend that PCs are pollution free.
But, image is important. Just ask BP PLC, with their Beyond Petroleum slogan, after all the disasters with pipelines, refineries, and other ecological bad things.
So, maybe Jobs should ask himself: "What can I do to make it better that is fairly easy."
One thing is power consumption - and on this score, the Mac Mini with a flat LCD monitor is pretty good.
Another thing is less packaging - or making it recylable.
Yet another idea is to do what they already do and take back old Apple products and recycle them.
I just didn't know that our lip-reading overlords would be having the deaf hold down the masses yearning to be free from the tyranny we live under.
... that will take them a while to figure out ...
Good thing I talk in ancient Aramaic with some Swahili words thrown in
But the new 700k players only buy a few titles a year, is that "bad news" or is it "good news"?
... casual gamers.
Realize that the new casual gamers are
They only buy games once in a while.
They only play games sometimes - and for brief periods.
They don't start WoW Care Bear guilds like me. Or upload their Sim families to MySims.
They don't play every segment of Star Wars - from Episode 0.1 to Episode 6.5 - over and over, using different characters, with and without cheats enabled.
They might play a light saber game with the Wii a few times, but they'll never reach Elite Status as a Jedi - at least, not without cheats.
Has the same basic effect.
Gravity continues to exist.
Interactive playlists continue to play.
lusers continue to go into law because they can't grok computers.
Because they can get away with charging you for it.
In most first world countries, you can get 8-10 Gbps for about one-quarter what we pay here.
But, also, we still have no adapted our long distance rates, and you have to realize the firms that provide these services lose money on parts of the business while making money on the other parts.
This is also why drugs and medical care costs twice as much here as in Canada.
Doesn't mean the industry wants to find a solution.
They say one thing.
And spend money lobbying for another.
And I suppose the reason this was in Nintendo magazine, was that they won't be porting to the Wii?
Wrong.
You should watch the online shareholder's meetings of the various companies in Japan, you might learn something.
Don't forget GTA: Emerald City (aka Seattle)
FF XIII is being ported to the Wii and xBox360 right now, so that's an extra year.
Then they port it to the handhelds for the next gen of handhelds.
Then they have it as a free download on the next gen after that.
I can see 10 years.
would seem right on target to anyone in Nigeria.
Or the USA.
Sure, in fact, when I was a kid in 6th grade we had the country's biggest pot bust when they arrested someone with a backpack full of BC Bud in Kaslo, BC (population 1000).
Actually, though, I believe the US produces almost as much, but we're slackers here in America.
Most countries aside of the US and possibly UK, India and Japan, are net importers of content.
Canada is a net exporter. In fact, if it wasn't for music exports, Canada would have to rely on it's primary cash crop (which is green and leafy).
Charged one time per company or working group.
Then no license fee.
If MSFT doesn't like it, it can abandon Win sales in the EU.
Or live with ever growing fines.
And the year was 1980.
...
In fact, I wrote the whole thing myself, back when I was a game designer.
Sounds like someone owes me a lot of money
I use WebPine instead. PINE is more useful for when connections are intermittent, however.
No, we use that for parrot perches
Why yes, a virtual Beowulf cluster!
...
But, first, we could argue over whether they would work better with BSD or Linux
But the Internet, as a series of tubes used to sell wood, was designed to withstand a nuclear holocaust, and last time I checked the main problems that Iraq has in terms of the internet is not the actual wiring per se, but a distinct lack of power plants and continual power sources.
... my family does sell wood.
If we had just shipped Aramco-backed (aka Saudis, the people paying for Americans to be shot) solar cells and UPS systems to Iraq, we would have created more Net usage than with this approach.
Sometimes low tech is the way to go.
My dad gets the Net from a house he built in Vermont on his tree farm, using solar power to charge car batteries and run a laptop with. Cheaper than running power lines through his 42 acre tree farm. And I was serious about my brother writing the insurance law - he's an international lawyer based in NYC. I wasn't serious about the tubes or the selling wood part
I'd rather just get them a Mac.