This? Coming from an agency that could not harpoon a comet at point blank range? It is not like we are talking about rocket science here. No wait – we are – dammit!
On the margin side I am going to have to disagree with you. I assume you are talking about gross margin. Sure, Amazon's gross margin has been going up. The average S&P 500 company has a gross margin of 42%, which has been increasing. I would argue that operation margin would be better than gross margin. There AMZN is at 1% where the S&P is at 14.6%. AMZN's ROI has historically been one of the lowest in the S&P. They are operating a supper thin margins.
As for the R&D - I will have to consider that. At first glance I am a little surprise that the numbers that I am seeing. Personally, I would assume (well, guess) that most of those expenses are capitalized but it does give me food for thought.
I said productivity would go up, I never said the hours worked would go down. Some people like working long hours to own more toys – bigger houses, faster cars, and exotic vacations. However, in the last 50 years the people with the highest productivity are reporting that they are working longer hours and enjoying their life more. More work has become more interesting.
Secondly, you mean you can't think of any menial jobs other than warehouse jobs? Cleaning parks, walking dogs, and teacher's assistants are just a few that come to the top of my head. None of these require a college education. Personally, I am more optimistic about being able to retain people. But if push comes to shove I suspect society can find something more productive to do.
AMZN is not losing money because they are reinvesting back into their operations. That is not how accounting works. "Earnings" is a balance sheet operation; "Investment" is a balance sheet operation. Think about this way – If I invest $100m of profits in US Treasury Notes, how does that affect my earnings? If I invest $100m in property, plant, and equipment, how does that affect my profits? What if I paid out a dividend? It does not – in all cases one's profit is 100m.
The issue is that AMZN is trading profit margin for market share. Expanding quickly today to reap the profits of tomorrow – in theory.
Read up on Red Queen's Race Hypothesis. We are constantly running. If Amazon stops and thinks if they should implement these robots, somebody else will.
It is going to happen. It will increase productivity, and increased productivity is the only way to increase income, and thus it should be embraced. I am not saying that technology is some kind of magic wand that we can wave and magically everybody will be better. This will free people from mind numbing work and let them do something more productive. Technology is one of those "necessary but not sufficient by itself" type of thing. Society must change and adapt, and a right leaning libertarian I might even conceded that might mean changes in government policy. Still, if we want a better tomorrow things like this must happen.
I am always sad when people fear a better tomorrow.
You don't need to do that. The US uses domical to calculate taxes, the rest of the world use residence. This caused a gap witch the accountants plunged in. Fixing the US tax code so it is rational would solve the problem.
The issue is not "Irish Tax Shelters". Even without these Microsoft would still be losing money. You are closer on point on the IP theft. This is not so much as a tax, rather it is a fine for Microsoft dropping support for XP, the widely used but rarely paid for OS. Remember, taxes and the laws are not applied in a "neutral" fashion.
How are you getting to that conclusion? The title of the study is "A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops" The author's results are
"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries."
If he is, he has the weight of evidence supports him.
http://www.plosone.org/article... In short, after factoring in the higher costs of using GM seed, GMO crops help developing farms substantially. Even more so than the farmers in developed markets.
I will second that. Would it really be that hard to link to the primary source? Linking to an article is often helpful, but this article sounds like it is just regurgitating a press release.
I don't think Doctor Who is the model. While it spans ages, there is always the Doctor. While different actors play the Doctor, and each actor brings out a different aspect of the Doctor, it is always the Doctor. Done straight from the book, Hari Seldon and maybe some robots carry though all of the stories but they are never the center like the Doctor is. So if they are going to do the Foundation they are not going to do it straight from the books - some reworking must happen to handle the scope.
My serious though on this was to copy the model from Roots.
As for Black Adder, be careful with season 1 - it rough. The 2nd and 3rd season are much better - I would start with one of those.
It seems like there should be a signed release required.
I would disagree. Charged suspects and corrupt officials would never sign the release even if it might be in the public interest. I would agree with you that it should not be automatic but there should be some mechanism to release the video even if those videoed oppose it.
Your comment confuses me a little - what are you talking about? Yes, Doctor Who spans vast amounts of time but he has got a time traveling machine so that is o.k. Maybe you are talking about his companions? However, the Doctor has been a constant character thought the years.
On a more serious note, I was thinking of Black Adder as a better example.
It's not the translation of action that I am concerned about. It can be done. Books and movies have different strengths, and "action" is not the strong suit of books. HBO has done a good job. Personally, I think of Jackson's Lord of the Rings / Hobbit movies, where Jackson either extended or invented from scratch action scenes.
I am more concerned about scope. Each chapter in the Foundation saga is a vignette, a thin slice of time, separated by vast amounts of time. For each seasons they would almost have to fire the entire cast, strike all of the sets, etc. It would have the same problem as anthology shows like the Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt. There is a low correlation between a winning episode and a losing episode. Hit upon a great story line or a new great actor and you need to junk it for the next episode. The Twilight Zone was consistently good, but Tales from the Crypt was all over the place.
...though at least they do have pedals and you can power a crappy bike with human power.
This one too has pedals and looks like can move it along with human power. So by your definition, it is more like a "Eco-Electric" than a motorcycle. Can't wait for these things. I can lane split on the highways and still park in front of my downtown office without paying for parking.
FYI, I was using "scheduling" in a very broad sense. You allude to that in your post. 10 or 20 years ago when researching a big ticket purchase, one might hit 2 to 4 big box retailors. Now I can do that comparison online and see if the local store has it in stock. The number of big block stores are falling.
But there are also the subtle things. Less driving to grandma's house to get the latest gossip, that can be done by Facebook. People used to drive to the mall to hang out. Facebook. Now the malls are going empty. People used to wait in lines for the latest blockbuster movie only to be turned away because it sold out. Now they can buy their ticket in advance or, if they wait a few months, watch it at home. etc.
The taxes from fossil fuels could be earmarked for renewable energy subsidies, making them cheaper directly.
I am leerier about that – and I say that as somebody who supports a carbon tax.
Taxes are distortive, so try to keep them as few and as simple as you can. Governments do need a revenue stream and you want to counter the negative externalities of carbon fuel, but one should still stick to good taxation principles.
So I ask, why subsidize renewable energy sources? The ethanol fuel subsidy has been a disaster both from a finical and green viewpoint. What is the fair split between wind and solar? That being asked, I would argue neither is going help until we upgrade our power grid. And why not subsidize home insulation or mass transit? Trying to figure out what to subsidize and how much is a very hard and tricky question. Taking with one hand and giving with another is a very tricky balancing act. Government should not pick winners or losers. Which is why I suggested in a different thread that one should drop income taxes by the amount a carbon tax would raise. On a side note, I would support more money going into government sponsored basic R&D into renewable energy.
However, economically speaking, a tax on a product is the same as a subsidy to a competitor. So if you don't like the results, don't try to come up with an elaborate subsidy scheme for green energy – just raise the carbon tax.
First, the point that I was trying to make is that the type of car – in and by itself - does not necessarily change the amount of gas being consumed. People could buy a big car but make fewer trips, resulting in lower gas consumption. With more efficient cars, longer commutes are possible for the same amount of gas, so less efficient ex burbs flourish.
We should have a tax on fossil fuels which would make green energy cheaper...
How do you figure? How does higher gas make my solar panels more efficient? Maybe relativity cheaper, but going green will cost money. Personally, I think it is worth the cost but let's not pretend that it is going to be free.
Isn't strange that car retailers didn't demand to sell Teslas themselves, but instead aim at preventing Teslas from being sold? What is at play here?
No, nothing strange and it has nothing to do with being green. A large corporation is muscling its way into a business dominated by local family business. The family business don't like competition so they are fighting back. It is like asking what Apple has against Microsoft and why doesn't Apple well Window computers in their stores? (Personally, I am rooting for Tesla)
Not inaccessibly. I lean towards libertarianism and believe in global warming.
The answer is to cut the tax rate and impose a carbon tax. If structured correctly, the average individual wouldn't pay higher taxes. Unless, that is, they decided that they should start conserving energy.
2 minor nits. 1. Hummers are no long being made. 2. Most F-150s are sold as work trucks. Also, F-150 is one of the more efficient work trucks out there.
Maybe if there were talking about full size SUV sales in general they would have a point. With cheap gas, buying a gas guzzler makes more sense.
Of course, the number of miles Americans have been driving have been falling for the past 5 years. Partly this is due to the internet which allows people to schedule themselves more efficiently, making few trips.
I am an investor, be it equity (stock) or debt (bank loans). I invest in housing. Maybe new construction, maybe something already built. It should not matter. The deal goes south and the project goes bankrupt. Under current law, the house is resold and the cash gets divided up by the investors. Normally equity gets whipped out the debt holders get paid some fraction of the loan's worth – say between 80% to 20%
Are you saying that we should rewrite the laws so that bankrupt properties get handed over to the public, with the equity and debt holders getting nothing?
Or are you trying to say that IP is a special, inferior good. As an inferior good, we in society should actively discourage people from investing in R&D by giving IP a lower standard of protection?
I don't think that either of the choice you offer is rational. I have issues with IP. However, the correct answers is to raise the standard that parents are granted and/or shorten the lifespan of the IP.
Frist, I still think you are confusing Zelman (child company, maybe viable) with Moneual (parent company, fraud, massive bank loans, not viable.)
Second, why operations vs. financials matter. Here is an example. You buy an apartment building with a 10m loan. The building is fully leased with long term leases. It is not sitting on a toxic waste dump, is not filled with asbestos, etc. It generates enough cash to cover maintenance, management fees, taxes, etc. There is a problem. It does not generate enough cash to pay the 10m loan. Maybe it can only support a 8m loan. Look at Enron. They had many well run viable electric power plants that are still running today. They just needed to be separated from the massive fraudulent debt of the parent.
The project is a failure. Question – should you tear down the building? Probably not. The building is economically viable. The problem is that the price paid for the building was too high.
The rational course of action is to restructure to loan to 8m. (which kind of implies that the banks should size the building and push the current owners out.). Note, we are not making a judgment on how we got into debt. Bad judgment, over optimism, fraud, etc. We don't care. Assigning blame won't change how we get out.
Third, why exaggerate sales to get loans. Or to simplify your question, why commit fraud? Exaggerating sales is just a means to an end. Most accounting fraud starts off small with good intentions. One has a temporary short fall, there is a really good opportunity, normally I am so good a picking the ponies, etc. It's just going to be a few thousand. There is always a promise to make it up next week. Or the week after that. And after a few years and a few million dollars, people wonder where they went wrong.
The book is better, but here is a favorite of mine to explain why people commit fraud: Rogue Trader with Ewan McGregor as Nick Lesson http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...
Slashdot Mirror
This? Coming from an agency that could not harpoon a comet at point blank range? It is not like we are talking about rocket science here. No wait – we are – dammit!
On the margin side I am going to have to disagree with you. I assume you are talking about gross margin. Sure, Amazon's gross margin has been going up. The average S&P 500 company has a gross margin of 42%, which has been increasing. I would argue that operation margin would be better than gross margin. There AMZN is at 1% where the S&P is at 14.6%. AMZN's ROI has historically been one of the lowest in the S&P. They are operating a supper thin margins.
As for the R&D - I will have to consider that. At first glance I am a little surprise that the numbers that I am seeing. Personally, I would assume (well, guess) that most of those expenses are capitalized but it does give me food for thought.
You are missing my point in a couple of ways.
I said productivity would go up, I never said the hours worked would go down. Some people like working long hours to own more toys – bigger houses, faster cars, and exotic vacations. However, in the last 50 years the people with the highest productivity are reporting that they are working longer hours and enjoying their life more. More work has become more interesting.
Secondly, you mean you can't think of any menial jobs other than warehouse jobs? Cleaning parks, walking dogs, and teacher's assistants are just a few that come to the top of my head. None of these require a college education. Personally, I am more optimistic about being able to retain people. But if push comes to shove I suspect society can find something more productive to do.
AMZN is not losing money because they are reinvesting back into their operations. That is not how accounting works. "Earnings" is a balance sheet operation; "Investment" is a balance sheet operation. Think about this way – If I invest $100m of profits in US Treasury Notes, how does that affect my earnings? If I invest $100m in property, plant, and equipment, how does that affect my profits? What if I paid out a dividend? It does not – in all cases one's profit is 100m.
The issue is that AMZN is trading profit margin for market share. Expanding quickly today to reap the profits of tomorrow – in theory.
Read up on Red Queen's Race Hypothesis. We are constantly running. If Amazon stops and thinks if they should implement these robots, somebody else will.
It is going to happen. It will increase productivity, and increased productivity is the only way to increase income, and thus it should be embraced. I am not saying that technology is some kind of magic wand that we can wave and magically everybody will be better. This will free people from mind numbing work and let them do something more productive. Technology is one of those "necessary but not sufficient by itself" type of thing. Society must change and adapt, and a right leaning libertarian I might even conceded that might mean changes in government policy. Still, if we want a better tomorrow things like this must happen.
I am always sad when people fear a better tomorrow.
You don't need to do that. The US uses domical to calculate taxes, the rest of the world use residence. This caused a gap witch the accountants plunged in. Fixing the US tax code so it is rational would solve the problem.
The issue is not "Irish Tax Shelters". Even without these Microsoft would still be losing money. You are closer on point on the IP theft. This is not so much as a tax, rather it is a fine for Microsoft dropping support for XP, the widely used but rarely paid for OS. Remember, taxes and the laws are not applied in a "neutral" fashion.
How are you getting to that conclusion? The title of the study is "A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops" The author's results are
"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries."
If he is, he has the weight of evidence supports him.
http://www.plosone.org/article...
In short, after factoring in the higher costs of using GM seed, GMO crops help developing farms substantially. Even more so than the farmers in developed markets.
I will second that. Would it really be that hard to link to the primary source? Linking to an article is often helpful, but this article sounds like it is just regurgitating a press release.
I knew. I was being flippant back - kind off.
I don't think Doctor Who is the model. While it spans ages, there is always the Doctor. While different actors play the Doctor, and each actor brings out a different aspect of the Doctor, it is always the Doctor. Done straight from the book, Hari Seldon and maybe some robots carry though all of the stories but they are never the center like the Doctor is. So if they are going to do the Foundation they are not going to do it straight from the books - some reworking must happen to handle the scope.
My serious though on this was to copy the model from Roots.
As for Black Adder, be careful with season 1 - it rough. The 2nd and 3rd season are much better - I would start with one of those.
It seems like there should be a signed release required.
I would disagree. Charged suspects and corrupt officials would never sign the release even if it might be in the public interest. I would agree with you that it should not be automatic but there should be some mechanism to release the video even if those videoed oppose it.
Your comment confuses me a little - what are you talking about? Yes, Doctor Who spans vast amounts of time but he has got a time traveling machine so that is o.k. Maybe you are talking about his companions? However, the Doctor has been a constant character thought the years.
On a more serious note, I was thinking of Black Adder as a better example.
It's not the translation of action that I am concerned about. It can be done. Books and movies have different strengths, and "action" is not the strong suit of books. HBO has done a good job. Personally, I think of Jackson's Lord of the Rings / Hobbit movies, where Jackson either extended or invented from scratch action scenes.
I am more concerned about scope. Each chapter in the Foundation saga is a vignette, a thin slice of time, separated by vast amounts of time. For each seasons they would almost have to fire the entire cast, strike all of the sets, etc. It would have the same problem as anthology shows like the Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt. There is a low correlation between a winning episode and a losing episode. Hit upon a great story line or a new great actor and you need to junk it for the next episode. The Twilight Zone was consistently good, but Tales from the Crypt was all over the place.
...though at least they do have pedals and you can power a crappy bike with human power.
This one too has pedals and looks like can move it along with human power. So by your definition, it is more like a "Eco-Electric" than a motorcycle. Can't wait for these things. I can lane split on the highways and still park in front of my downtown office without paying for parking.
Here is your study:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...
FYI, I was using "scheduling" in a very broad sense. You allude to that in your post. 10 or 20 years ago when researching a big ticket purchase, one might hit 2 to 4 big box retailors. Now I can do that comparison online and see if the local store has it in stock. The number of big block stores are falling.
But there are also the subtle things. Less driving to grandma's house to get the latest gossip, that can be done by Facebook. People used to drive to the mall to hang out. Facebook. Now the malls are going empty. People used to wait in lines for the latest blockbuster movie only to be turned away because it sold out. Now they can buy their ticket in advance or, if they wait a few months, watch it at home. etc.
The taxes from fossil fuels could be earmarked for renewable energy subsidies, making them cheaper directly.
I am leerier about that – and I say that as somebody who supports a carbon tax.
Taxes are distortive, so try to keep them as few and as simple as you can. Governments do need a revenue stream and you want to counter the negative externalities of carbon fuel, but one should still stick to good taxation principles.
So I ask, why subsidize renewable energy sources? The ethanol fuel subsidy has been a disaster both from a finical and green viewpoint. What is the fair split between wind and solar? That being asked, I would argue neither is going help until we upgrade our power grid. And why not subsidize home insulation or mass transit? Trying to figure out what to subsidize and how much is a very hard and tricky question. Taking with one hand and giving with another is a very tricky balancing act. Government should not pick winners or losers. Which is why I suggested in a different thread that one should drop income taxes by the amount a carbon tax would raise. On a side note, I would support more money going into government sponsored basic R&D into renewable energy.
However, economically speaking, a tax on a product is the same as a subsidy to a competitor. So if you don't like the results, don't try to come up with an elaborate subsidy scheme for green energy – just raise the carbon tax.
You seem to be striking quite wide of my mark.
First, the point that I was trying to make is that the type of car – in and by itself - does not necessarily change the amount of gas being consumed. People could buy a big car but make fewer trips, resulting in lower gas consumption. With more efficient cars, longer commutes are possible for the same amount of gas, so less efficient ex burbs flourish.
We should have a tax on fossil fuels which would make green energy cheaper...
How do you figure? How does higher gas make my solar panels more efficient? Maybe relativity cheaper, but going green will cost money. Personally, I think it is worth the cost but let's not pretend that it is going to be free.
Isn't strange that car retailers didn't demand to sell Teslas themselves, but instead aim at preventing Teslas from being sold? What is at play here?
No, nothing strange and it has nothing to do with being green. A large corporation is muscling its way into a business dominated by local family business. The family business don't like competition so they are fighting back. It is like asking what Apple has against Microsoft and why doesn't Apple well Window computers in their stores? (Personally, I am rooting for Tesla)
Not inaccessibly. I lean towards libertarianism and believe in global warming.
The answer is to cut the tax rate and impose a carbon tax. If structured correctly, the average individual wouldn't pay higher taxes. Unless, that is, they decided that they should start conserving energy.
2 minor nits.
1. Hummers are no long being made.
2. Most F-150s are sold as work trucks. Also, F-150 is one of the more efficient work trucks out there.
Agreed.
Maybe if there were talking about full size SUV sales in general they would have a point. With cheap gas, buying a gas guzzler makes more sense.
Of course, the number of miles Americans have been driving have been falling for the past 5 years. Partly this is due to the internet which allows people to schedule themselves more efficiently, making few trips.
I am a little confused.
I am an investor, be it equity (stock) or debt (bank loans). I invest in housing. Maybe new construction, maybe something already built. It should not matter. The deal goes south and the project goes bankrupt. Under current law, the house is resold and the cash gets divided up by the investors. Normally equity gets whipped out the debt holders get paid some fraction of the loan's worth – say between 80% to 20%
Are you saying that we should rewrite the laws so that bankrupt properties get handed over to the public, with the equity and debt holders getting nothing?
Or are you trying to say that IP is a special, inferior good. As an inferior good, we in society should actively discourage people from investing in R&D by giving IP a lower standard of protection?
I don't think that either of the choice you offer is rational. I have issues with IP. However, the correct answers is to raise the standard that parents are granted and/or shorten the lifespan of the IP.
Let us break this question into 3 parts.
Frist, I still think you are confusing Zelman (child company, maybe viable) with Moneual (parent company, fraud, massive bank loans, not viable.)
Second, why operations vs. financials matter. Here is an example. You buy an apartment building with a 10m loan. The building is fully leased with long term leases. It is not sitting on a toxic waste dump, is not filled with asbestos, etc. It generates enough cash to cover maintenance, management fees, taxes, etc. There is a problem. It does not generate enough cash to pay the 10m loan. Maybe it can only support a 8m loan. Look at Enron. They had many well run viable electric power plants that are still running today. They just needed to be separated from the massive fraudulent debt of the parent.
The project is a failure. Question – should you tear down the building? Probably not. The building is economically viable. The problem is that the price paid for the building was too high.
The rational course of action is to restructure to loan to 8m. (which kind of implies that the banks should size the building and push the current owners out.). Note, we are not making a judgment on how we got into debt. Bad judgment, over optimism, fraud, etc. We don't care. Assigning blame won't change how we get out.
Third, why exaggerate sales to get loans. Or to simplify your question, why commit fraud? Exaggerating sales is just a means to an end. Most accounting fraud starts off small with good intentions. One has a temporary short fall, there is a really good opportunity, normally I am so good a picking the ponies, etc. It's just going to be a few thousand. There is always a promise to make it up next week. Or the week after that. And after a few years and a few million dollars, people wonder where they went wrong.
The book is better, but here is a favorite of mine to explain why people commit fraud: Rogue Trader with Ewan McGregor as Nick Lesson
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...
Zelman is a public company and I assume has a vigorous outside auditor.
Moneual, which committed the fraud, is not a public company. I would assume that their audit standards are lower.
Of course, even public companies can commit financial shenanigans.
http://www.amazon.com/Financia...
This has nothing to do with Zelman selling $10 CPU coolers. No acquisitions of fraud against Zelman yet.
This is about Moneual and the fraud they committed. Moneual just happens to own 90% of Zelman.