South Korea accepts North Koreans. I don’t know all of the technically details but both Koreas subscribe that there is only one Korea which is temporarily split due to civil war. Think back to East / West Germany. Similar setup.
They have programs in place to help integrate them into society.- financial assistance, finding any relatives on the other side, cultural and job training, etc.
Fast forward 10 years. I'm a very recent college graduate with a BA in philosophy (because of seminary, which I recently left).
Question – did you take advance courses in logic? Did you enjoy it? If you answered yes to both then I would suggest finding something that would mold those skills – something more theoretical and abstract. Technical and practical gigs will pay the bills today but tend to stagnate fast.
Formal / Symbolic logic can have the same level of rigorous thought patterns as upper level math courses – and are highly prized skills in IT. The 2 best programmers I knew both had philosophy degrees. (one double majored in Mathematics, the other fell short by a few credits in getting a triple in math/physics.)
Maybe flat but not flatlining. That's RIM. Some facts.
Lenovo’s market share is growing in the beige box market.
The market for beige boxes is flat - i.e. with little to low growth. Partly due to market saturation in the developing market, partly because the emerging market is jumping straight to tables & smartphones.
The market for beige boxes is a commodity market. Sure, there is some difference – particularly in the lap top side, but not much. Mainly it about competing by being more efficient in manufacturing then your competitors – so think high volume with low margins.
Huawei is an opaque company. We are not sure who owns. We know there is a relationship with the Chinese military but we are not sure exactly what it is.
Lenovo, on the other hand, operators much more like a standard international company that just happens to be located in China. It has offices, engineers and factors in the US. I would assume a good chunk of RIMs offices would remain in Canada.
In short, it would be easier to establish that security was being done right with Lenovo then Huawei. I have concerns about China – let’s just make sure our fears or rational.
You are incorrect. RIM has positive cash flow, no debt, and significant capital assets and cash. RIM is far from dead and with their new offerings have continued opportunity to grow
I think your key word here is “opportunity”, because right now they are in a tail spin.
All of the keys stats you quote are declining in the past 2 years. They are selling fewer phones at a lower cost. Yes, they have secure phones. They could survive as a small niche player selling only to a select few – until somebody else decides to make one. Remember when Apple had 5% market share vs. WinTel? It struggled financially.
It doesn’t mean they can’t turn it around – but I can’t see an easy fix.
But that would be o.k. – because you would buy a Utahraptor and throw on a saddle and bridle – and you’ve got your transportation covered – and it’s powered by renewable energy resources.
If I were going to fund 1 program, which should I fund chickensaurus over resurrecting a Neanderthal, Woolly Mammoth, or a Tasmanian Tiger? I mean they are all valid – but please make your case on why you should go first.
Ummm – not exactly. If you read Ben Bernanke work, the current chairmen of the Fed, you know that they don’t believe that. They are trying to buy time.
It will point you towards “This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises” (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/51_This_Time_Is_Different.pdf - (I am throwing you towards the free article but the book is great as well).
Normally you bankrupt all of the firms in the industry – a painfully but fast solution. Financial crisis (i.e., the bank crisis) tend to be longer and deeper. Closing the banks down and you wipe out the depositors, the lenders, and the underlying linkages in the economic system. People hold onto assets for too long – they don’t want to dump them in fire sales.
Not real happy with the current solution but I can’t figure out a better one.
The tax money is not leaving America – it was never here in the first place. We are talking about profits earned overseas – the money is only taxed when it comes back to the US.
Let’s say a international company makes a 1 billion in profit in Europe. It is not outsourcing, it is not funky transfer pricing (see Ireland) – it’s Apple selling iPhones, it’s Google selling advertising, etc. They leave the cash overseas. So we drop the 1b from cash in the finical statements.
What are we doing? Basically just closing our eyes and pretending it’s not there? I mean management knows it there – but we as shareholders / owners don’t? What does that accomplish?
Most of the time 10% gives you access to the board - including naming people on the board.
I don't think it would be 16%/ That would be 1 1b investment in 7b equity - that would be lower range of MSFT investment and higher range of Dell's value. 25% would be more likely - 2b investment / 7b in equity gives me 28%.
Why do you by stock in a company? Or you a "Growth" person - looking for razzle dazzle? Or are you a value person - looking for a nice steady company to invest in.
Dell is currently a "value" company - are so are it's shareholders. Michel Dell wants to flip the company from value to growth - a risk a lot of the current shareholders don't want to take.
Apple and Steve Jobs - you know there is an advantage of returning to a company that was a listing ship and righting it. All of a sudden you are St. Jobs and you are allowed to do crazy stuff - and your "growth" shareholders will allow you to take more risks.
Mbkennel is right but is saying it confusingly - and he has a axe to grind.
To put it plainly Dell Inc. will borrow 15b. Initially it will be via banks. Shortly after that they will swap those bank loans for 10 year bonds - probably in the A to AA range.
Borrowing gives the Private Equity more bang for their buck. Assuming a 4 to 1 ratio (Dell is worth 20, they borrow 15 and invest 5) Their returns would quadruple less bond payments - which at 10 p.m. and not wanting to pull up a spreadsheet - I would guess would only triple their returns. Plus it generates a tax shield.
Of course jacking the company up on bonds does increase the chances of bankruptcy. A 4 to 1 ratio is not exactly high.
Those are the facts - Hopefully this put Mbkennel's rant into perspective.
Let me put forward a real life example – just to make sure I am not missing something.
Carbon capture (best guess) runs around $40 a ton. Insulating my roof costs $20 per carbon ton (in energy not otherwise produced at my local coal fired electrical plant).
Won’t a $30 pollution tax result in my putting more insulation in my roof – a rational allocation of resources which would result in the biggest change for the least dollar amount?
I have seen a lot of interesting maneuverers around alternative energy (wind, ethanol, natural gas vehicles) which are profitable from a tax perspective but not from an economic or green perspective. In my opinion, the more complex the regulations are to prevent abuses the more loopholes there are for abuses.
A flat $40 tax per ton of carbon on all industries (with some carbon offsets) would be a simple, fair method resistance to abuse.
Serious question for you – what do you think the right answer is? In my mind there are 2 choices.
You can try to model the future – recognize the limitations – and go from there. That is a poor map is better than no map at all. I think this is the right choice. Yes, after a few years the inputs break down – but at least you know what sensitivities your system has.
Or you can buy into Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s black swan theory – that a poor map leads to overconfidence and thus failure – and thus it is better off not to have a map.
Since it has no cost for fuel, I don't think we can compare it that way and get any real meaning.
It can be done. You simply take the (time) discount value of all cash flows.
Some tech has high upfront costs (solar cells), others have high fuel costs (Coal). All would have maintenance costs. External costs (soot from coal, C02 from fossil fuels) can be handled by a pollution tax. Peak vs. Base could be priced differently. Some wold have a long life - others a short.
Then run it though a Monte Carlo simulation and presto – you have your result - a return on project with confidence internals. Pick the one with the highest return.
You don’t raise horses for the protein – the protein is the result of “End of Life” / recycling / any other euphemism you want to use. And yes, decrepited horses do get sold for high end consumption. IIRC What kicked off the ban was a retired semi famous horses that was sent to France as stakes – and everybody (and by that I mean PETA) was horrified.
And yes, it is a small market but you don’t need a large one. But a small, well-functioning humane slaughter process then shooting the poor beast in the middle of the field.
IIRC, all horse processing plants in the US have been shut down. (They exported most of their product) It has been a disaster.
A lot of people who own horses are lower middle class families – they can afford the horse until it’s 15 years old (when the vet bills start up) or the economy crashes. They are few takes of these types of free horses and the local animal shelter is normally full.
In the past they were taken off the knackers. Now – well – where we live there were a rash of horses that were “set free” in the local state park. The rangers rounded them up and had to shoot them (yes, they did try to find homes from them – but see above).
Evidence suggests that Neanderthals were better hunters then Homo Sapiens. They could throw a spear longer and father then us.
The difference may have been soft skills. Neanderthals communities, IIRC, were around 30 members. Humans were around 300. Having larger communities meant a larger skill set (e.g. fishing when game was scarce), so a more heterogeneous set of skills to weather bad times.
They don’t. Ireland’s (and generally speaking European) profits wind up in Ireland. When Ireland’s profits are repatriated to the US then it’s taxed a second time at the US tax rate (less any foreign tax credit.)
Slashdot Mirror
South Korea accepts North Koreans. I don’t know all of the technically details but both Koreas subscribe that there is only one Korea which is temporarily split due to civil war. Think back to East / West Germany. Similar setup.
They have programs in place to help integrate them into society.- financial assistance, finding any relatives on the other side, cultural and job training, etc.
Fast forward 10 years. I'm a very recent college graduate with a BA in philosophy (because of seminary, which I recently left).
Question – did you take advance courses in logic? Did you enjoy it? If you answered yes to both then I would suggest finding something that would mold those skills – something more theoretical and abstract. Technical and practical gigs will pay the bills today but tend to stagnate fast.
Formal / Symbolic logic can have the same level of rigorous thought patterns as upper level math courses – and are highly prized skills in IT. The 2 best programmers I knew both had philosophy degrees. (one double majored in Mathematics, the other fell short by a few credits in getting a triple in math/physics.)
Maybe flat but not flatlining. That's RIM. Some facts.
Lenovo’s market share is growing in the beige box market.
The market for beige boxes is flat - i.e. with little to low growth. Partly due to market saturation in the developing market, partly because the emerging market is jumping straight to tables & smartphones.
The market for beige boxes is a commodity market. Sure, there is some difference – particularly in the lap top side, but not much. Mainly it about competing by being more efficient in manufacturing then your competitors – so think high volume with low margins.
Huawei is an opaque company. We are not sure who owns. We know there is a relationship with the Chinese military but we are not sure exactly what it is.
Lenovo, on the other hand, operators much more like a standard international company that just happens to be located in China. It has offices, engineers and factors in the US. I would assume a good chunk of RIMs offices would remain in Canada.
In short, it would be easier to establish that security was being done right with Lenovo then Huawei. I have concerns about China – let’s just make sure our fears or rational.
You are incorrect. RIM has positive cash flow, no debt, and significant capital assets and cash. RIM is far from dead and with their new offerings have continued opportunity to grow
I think your key word here is “opportunity”, because right now they are in a tail spin.
All of the keys stats you quote are declining in the past 2 years. They are selling fewer phones at a lower cost. Yes, they have secure phones. They could survive as a small niche player selling only to a select few – until somebody else decides to make one. Remember when Apple had 5% market share vs. WinTel? It struggled financially.
It doesn’t mean they can’t turn it around – but I can’t see an easy fix.
But that would be o.k. – because you would buy a Utahraptor and throw on a saddle and bridle – and you’ve got your transportation covered – and it’s powered by renewable energy resources.
Here’s a good rendition of the opening song:
http://www.dorktower.com/2011/03/30/dortk-tower-wednesday-march-30-2011/
And what the heck – not XKCD, but.
http://www.dorktower.com/2013/01/03/dinosaur-train-dork-tower-03-01-13/
If I were going to fund 1 program, which should I fund chickensaurus over resurrecting a Neanderthal, Woolly Mammoth, or a Tasmanian Tiger? I mean they are all valid – but please make your case on why you should go first.
Ummm – not exactly. If you read Ben Bernanke work, the current chairmen of the Fed, you know that they don’t believe that. They are trying to buy time.
It will point you towards “This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of
Financial Crises” (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/51_This_Time_Is_Different.pdf - (I am throwing you towards the free article but the book is great as well).
Normally you bankrupt all of the firms in the industry – a painfully but fast solution. Financial crisis (i.e., the bank crisis) tend to be longer and deeper. Closing the banks down and you wipe out the depositors, the lenders, and the underlying linkages in the economic system. People hold onto assets for too long – they don’t want to dump them in fire sales.
Not real happy with the current solution but I can’t figure out a better one.
These investments are tax – at the foreign rate. i.e. if company X holds cash in country Y they will pay country’s Y’s tax on interest income.
The tax money is not leaving America – it was never here in the first place. We are talking about profits earned overseas – the money is only taxed when it comes back to the US.
How would this work – and why is it any good?
Let’s say a international company makes a 1 billion in profit in Europe. It is not outsourcing, it is not funky transfer pricing (see Ireland) – it’s Apple selling iPhones, it’s Google selling advertising, etc. They leave the cash overseas. So we drop the 1b from cash in the finical statements.
What are we doing? Basically just closing our eyes and pretending it’s not there? I mean management knows it there – but we as shareholders / owners don’t? What does that accomplish?
Most of the time 10% gives you access to the board - including naming people on the board.
I don't think it would be 16%/ That would be 1 1b investment in 7b equity - that would be lower range of MSFT investment and higher range of Dell's value. 25% would be more likely - 2b investment / 7b in equity gives me 28%.
Why do you by stock in a company? Or you a "Growth" person - looking for razzle dazzle? Or are you a value person - looking for a nice steady company to invest in.
Dell is currently a "value" company - are so are it's shareholders. Michel Dell wants to flip the company from value to growth - a risk a lot of the current shareholders don't want to take.
Apple and Steve Jobs - you know there is an advantage of returning to a company that was a listing ship and righting it. All of a sudden you are St. Jobs and you are allowed to do crazy stuff - and your "growth" shareholders will allow you to take more risks.
Mbkennel is right but is saying it confusingly - and he has a axe to grind.
To put it plainly Dell Inc. will borrow 15b. Initially it will be via banks. Shortly after that they will swap those bank loans for 10 year bonds - probably in the A to AA range.
Borrowing gives the Private Equity more bang for their buck. Assuming a 4 to 1 ratio (Dell is worth 20, they borrow 15 and invest 5) Their returns would quadruple less bond payments - which at 10 p.m. and not wanting to pull up a spreadsheet - I would guess would only triple their returns. Plus it generates a tax shield.
Of course jacking the company up on bonds does increase the chances of bankruptcy. A 4 to 1 ratio is not exactly high.
Those are the facts - Hopefully this put Mbkennel's rant into perspective.
Let me put forward a real life example – just to make sure I am not missing something.
Carbon capture (best guess) runs around $40 a ton. Insulating my roof costs $20 per carbon ton (in energy not otherwise produced at my local coal fired electrical plant).
Won’t a $30 pollution tax result in my putting more insulation in my roof – a rational allocation of resources which would result in the biggest change for the least dollar amount?
I have seen a lot of interesting maneuverers around alternative energy (wind, ethanol, natural gas vehicles) which are profitable from a tax perspective but not from an economic or green perspective. In my opinion, the more complex the regulations are to prevent abuses the more loopholes there are for abuses.
A flat $40 tax per ton of carbon on all industries (with some carbon offsets) would be a simple, fair method resistance to abuse.
Serious question for you – what do you think the right answer is? In my mind there are 2 choices.
You can try to model the future – recognize the limitations – and go from there. That is a poor map is better than no map at all. I think this is the right choice. Yes, after a few years the inputs break down – but at least you know what sensitivities your system has.
Or you can buy into Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s black swan theory – that a poor map leads to overconfidence and thus failure – and thus it is better off not to have a map.
Since it has no cost for fuel, I don't think we can compare it that way and get any real meaning.
It can be done. You simply take the (time) discount value of all cash flows.
Some tech has high upfront costs (solar cells), others have high fuel costs (Coal). All would have maintenance costs. External costs (soot from coal, C02 from fossil fuels) can be handled by a pollution tax. Peak vs. Base could be priced differently. Some wold have a long life - others a short.
Then run it though a Monte Carlo simulation and presto – you have your result - a return on project with confidence internals. Pick the one with the highest return.
You don’t raise horses for the protein – the protein is the result of “End of Life” / recycling / any other euphemism you want to use. And yes, decrepited horses do get sold for high end consumption. IIRC What kicked off the ban was a retired semi famous horses that was sent to France as stakes – and everybody (and by that I mean PETA) was horrified.
And yes, it is a small market but you don’t need a large one. But a small, well-functioning humane slaughter process then shooting the poor beast in the middle of the field.
How would this even work? One bit for every byte?
(Use your own definition of bit – I like mine as Spanish gold – Others like them as 1s and Os.)
Soylent Green
IIRC, all horse processing plants in the US have been shut down. (They exported most of their product) It has been a disaster.
A lot of people who own horses are lower middle class families – they can afford the horse until it’s 15 years old (when the vet bills start up) or the economy crashes. They are few takes of these types of free horses and the local animal shelter is normally full.
In the past they were taken off the knackers. Now – well – where we live there were a rash of horses that were “set free” in the local state park. The rangers rounded them up and had to shoot them (yes, they did try to find homes from them – but see above).
Evidence suggests that Neanderthals were better hunters then Homo Sapiens. They could throw a spear longer and father then us.
The difference may have been soft skills. Neanderthals communities, IIRC, were around 30 members. Humans were around 300. Having larger communities meant a larger skill set (e.g. fishing when game was scarce), so a more heterogeneous set of skills to weather bad times.
hmmm - interesting - where are you getting that figure from?
They don’t. Ireland’s (and generally speaking European) profits wind up in Ireland. When Ireland’s profits are repatriated to the US then it’s taxed a second time at the US tax rate (less any foreign tax credit.)