From TFS:

Umm... what? The main reason we use them so much is precisely because they are economical to run, at least as long as you don't consider any of the externalities involved. We use them because they are reliable and because we can (for now) ignore externalities so they are fiscally cheap. Plenty of problems with them but calling them uneconomical isn't really true except maybe on very long time scales.

I am curious how Denmark thinks they are going to fuel aircraft and large watercraft using only renewable energy sources. As far as I can tell those are engineering challenges we haven't really cracked yet.

And why does an advertising company need to rent an airfield? There are plenty of good deals to be had but that doesn't mean Google should be chasing them all.

And if it was such a bargain then one might fairly ask why no one beat Google to it? Not like it hasn't been there for the last 30 years.

Wrong! Market cap is a measure of EXPECTATIONS about the company's size, health and revenue generating potential. The key word there is expectation and that word makes all the difference in the world. Market cap is in no way shape or form tied directly to the performance of the company. It is a second order characteristic of a secondary market. It is quite literally the sum of a bunch of people betting on how good they think the future prospects of the company are much like betting on a horse race. It has NOTHING inherently to do with the performance of the company and market cap can be wildly out of line with the real world performance. (See Tesla Motors for an example of inflated stock price)

If you own just 100 shares that would be pointless. I'd either keep them or vote with my feet and sell them and let some other dummy take the risk. If I owned a substantial percentage of stock (5% plus) then I assure you that my voice would be heard.

Let me guess, you've never owned a company right? Because if you had you couldn't possibly say something so stupid unless you were trolling.

The shareholders own the company. All of it. Not just the dividends. If the management spends money irresponsibly then that is money that comes out of the hide of the shareholders. Sometimes people (such as yourself) forget this fact and the results are almost always bad for the company. The company isn't run for the benefit of management. The company is there first and foremost to bring a return to the shareholders.

100% incorrect. The shareholders OWN THE COMPANY. If 50%+1 shares of the company vote to do something they can do whatever they want so long as it is legal. If the shareholders cannot agree regarding what should be done then that is a separate issue. All the management reports to the board and the board reports to the shareholders. That is how it works.

The IRS cannot do anything about perfectly legal activities. While reprehensible I have very little doubt that Apple (and others like them) have an army of tax experts ensuring that everything they do is 100% legal and that the IRS cannot do a thing about it. The problem is in the tax laws have more loopholes than shotgunned swiss cheese. That is the fault of Congress and no one else.

I don't have a problem with your proposal in principle but I'm pretty sure the IRS doesn't have the authority to do what you propose either.

Umm, why in $diety's name do you need 230 tabs open? You cannot possibly use that many efficiently. It's a scientific fact that you cannot multitask worth anything (no one can). Hell you cannot even find a particular tab efficiently with that many open. That's one of the most baffling work "flows" I've ever heard of. Just because a few tabs are good doesn't mean a huge number is better.

Unless of course you want to address more than 4GB of memory.

Their market cap is irrelevant here. They are spending a billion dollars (over 60 years) of CASH on this transaction. Even for a company like Google that is not a trivial amount of money. If I was a shareholder I'd definitely want some sort of explanation regarding what the heck they are up to. They've got a good track record so benefit of the doubt would likely be granted but the reason for this isn't immediately obvious to most of us.

The biggest issue the shareholders *should* have is how/when this will impact future company profits. If there is a good reason for the investment (even an indirect one) then fine. But if the only explanation is that it is a place for management to park their toys then I'd be rightly pissed.

Maybe not over this specifically but if I'm a shareholder and I see a number of "investments" like this which aren't explained and I don't understand then I would be nuts not to reconsider whether it remains a good investment. I've seen plenty of companies get successful and then start throwing lots of money at stupid stuff just because they can. Google has had a good run but there is no guarantee that it will continue or that management won't drop the ball. Only an idiot invests their money in a company doing seemingly irresponsible things without explanation.

They may have a good explanation but I had exactly the same question. On first pass this seems like a very irresponsible investment. If I was a significant shareholder I would definitely want an explanation why they committed tens of millions of dollars to something so far outside their core business. Might be fine but an explanation is in order at least to the board and the shareholders.

Because a golf course clearly adds value to a company like Google. [/sarcasm]

I'm a little mystified by this. If I was a shareholder (I'm not) my eyebrows would have shot up hard over a purchase like this. They may have a perfectly logical explanation but whatever the reason for this transaction is needs to be explained to the board and probably the shareholders because at first glance this doesn't seem to be a responsible use of cash. "Because it's cool" isn't an adequate answer when you are committing nearly half a billion dollars over the next 50 years. Google makes their money on advertising so it's not immediately clear how this transaction furthers that business. I understand that some of what they do indirectly drives advertising traffic but an explanation is in order.

Unless you happen to be a dictator this is a pointless and futile point of view. You cannot and will not get everything you want and if you insist on never compromising then nothing will ever happen and your government will not serve the people. If something is critically important then by all means stand your ground but very few things really fall into that category. Just because YOU voted for someone doesn't mean that the leader has no obligation to the people who didn't vote for him. Getting 51% of the vote doesn't mean the view of the remaining 49% should be trampled.

The House. They knew damn well that many of those bills would be dead on arrival and they made no effort to meet in the middle. They voted something like 20 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act knowing the whole time that such a vote was at most pandering to their own supporters. It certainly wasn't any sort of effort to govern responsibly.

I'm not saying he should rule by fiat or anything of the sort but I understand the frustration the guy must feel. Would you be eager to go to congress when the republicans oppose everything he does regardless of the merits of the idea? Even when the item being debated was their idea. They don't even try to compromise, they just say no, especially if they are a tea party candidate. Used to be that the two sides could at least talk to each other. Now a republican has to pass an ideological purity test and cannot ever even seem to be compromising or he doesn't even win the primary in the next election. The republicans like to bitch about the Affordable Care Act but they don't ever propose any alternatives or improvements even though there is plenty that could be improved. Instead they just waste everyone's time in futile votes trying to remove health insurance from millions of people that couldn't previously afford it.

No argument but the Republicans record isn't really any better. That said, I still think the basic notion of regulating internet access is an idea with merit even if the ruling parties aren't exactly brilliant at it. Internet access is as important to modern life as telephone access was 30 years ago. It has become an integral part of our lives and the companies that provide it seem to need a bit more oversight than they presently have.

Because while the Democrats tend to screw up the regulations, the Republicans like to pretend that regulations are never good even when there is are clear abuses going on that markets cannot adequately address. Sometimes bad regulations are better than no regulations at all. (and vice-versa) I'm honestly uncomfortable with the amount of power that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, TWC etc have over our internet connectivity. They have effectively an almost unregulated monopoly over internet service and have shown little reluctance to abuse that position when it suits them.

Which means the republicans will oppose it regardless of the merit of the idea even if it was their idea in the first place.

For the record I think broadband should be regulated as utilities because they are utilities very similar to the electric company, gas company and phone company. Pretending that internet service is a luxury good is not a viewpoint which is compatible with the world we live in today.