Honestly not sure I can say much about about quality comparisons, but I can say in 2012 they had number one market share in terms of sales to corporate customers worldwide [Source: Gartner]. Fourth in the US, but still, I would hardly say only morons buy them.

Are you sure this is right? It has been a while since I took physics, but I tried to derive this. It would seem x = t, y = C - kt^2 which is definitely a parabola... What am I missing? I'm genuinely curious...

That's fair, although did you notice he's planning to give $100K each to three up and coming junior researchers each year? (I assume this means grad students/post-docs). Admittedly it's not the same as $3M, but still, I'm sure the average physics researcher at that level would really appreciate the money.

Just read it. Fair points, I wouldn't contend that the people of Japan are all running around in poverty. It's not an across the board awful country or something.

That said, your article basically says, yeah, GDP isn't great but look at all these other good things! My point is that their GDP isn't growing. They are in ludicrous amounts of debt. Their companies are losing their competitiveness (have you seen how much money Sony has been losing lately?). They are facing serious long term demographic challenges related to their population aging. Hell, they can barely keep the lights on! (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/japan-power-minister-idUST9E8EM02G20120425). Heck, we can trade articles, I think this makes my point quite clearly: http://www.economist.com/node/21556596.

It has been bad for them lately, and things are only going to get worse if (when) interest rates on their debt rise.

As for the ad hominem, I double majored in Mathematics and Economics at a top 10 school in the US; I graduated with high honors. I wrote my thesis on sovereign bonds. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about. Do you?

So, I was a little confused by your Japan example. I could be missing something, but it seems like you are saying they are a model China should try to imitate.

Japan is an economic joke! Their economy has been in recession or barely growing since the early nineties. They've basically stagnated for the last 20 years. Their government is so in debt (230% of GDP) that they make Greece (165%) and Spain (69%) look fiscally responsible! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt)

China should not aim to be like Japan.

Despite the complaining most people do about the crappiness of airlines, they don't back up their behavior. The reason US airlines are so crappy nowadays is because people shop almost exclusively on price. They just fire up orbitz or whatever and pick the cheapest. This will, of course, result in every airline cutting their services to bare bones levels like they are now so they can lower the price. People say they want nice, but won't put their money where their mouth is, so we have what we have now.

I guess its not 2 billion but check it out (Press release from DOE website): Department of Energy Offers $102 Million Conditional Commitment for Loan Guarantee to U.S. Geothermal, Inc. Oregon Project is First Geothermal Project to Receive Conditional Commitment link: http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/press/061010.pdf

I think these econophysicists are in error with regard to calling corporate bonds a bubble. A bubble is when prices are out of whack rather than based on some underlying fundamentals. But corporate bond yields were high for a reason. Major companies (Lehman, GM, etc) were going bankrupt left and right. Many companies were being downgraded by the rating agencies. It was the worst recession in 70 years. Of course bond yields were high. People were really worried about default. Now that many companies have started reporting improved earnings though, of course they are returning to normals and the "bubble" is going away. Anyway, the moral of the story is that corporate bonds were clearly not in a bubble.

Uhh seriously? Because this comment is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. I just graduated yesterday after four years at Berkeley. It's a huge campus and so not everyone is liberal, but its overwhelmingly very very far left wing. Both the professors and the students. And have you ever been to the co-ops? It seems for many of them the sixties never ended. I'm quite left of center, but I sometimes feel like a republican relative to many on the campus.

And the frat/sorority system isn't quite typical either. Sure there are some douchy frat boys and tanorexic sorority girls, but there are also many people who you wouldn't suspect to be in frats. I know one guy graduated to become a NASA engineer. I know a sorority girl who is working at Google next year. There are so many more examples it would be ridiculous to name them all.

And the protests? Last November there were protests against state budget cuts where a huge number of people showed up. Like maybe 5000? Not to mention the tree sitters, the hunger strikers, the unions, the riots this semester, the protesters who took over Wheeler, the popularity of the new Global Poverty minor etc etc etc.

I guess you can talk about the funding we get from corporations. The BP deal is a bit sketchy, but it's 500 million dollars, we need that money. I hardly think this makes Berkeley overwhelmingly right wing. And the whole John Yoo thing is a bit weird, and I'm not sure what should be done about that, but damn dude, UC Berkeley is amazingly liberal.

I thought the acronym was PIIGS, the S being for Spain which is also in a pretty deep hole.

Your comment is very misleading: Sales, General and Administrative is not merely marketing expenses. It includes, among other things, the salaries of everyone at the company (thus the word general) and numerous other expenses. Therefore it is not accurate to use SG&A as a substitute for marketing costs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SG%26A

Sounds interesting. I'm studying economics and my roommate is studying biology and has work experience in biofuels. Would you be able to send me your model/spreadsheet? If so my email is em_green at berkeley dot e d u. Thanks!

Of course its not, but ensuring that tax rates are Pareto Efficient sure is a legitimate goal of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficient

Not if the people are too afraid about losing their job to spend their tax cuts on a new car, computer, etc. which is how it is currently looking. Also, tax cuts will never be 100% efficient because not all of the cuts will be spent in a useful time frame. They take a couple of months to propagate their way through the govt bureaucracy and into peoples' bank accounts.

Interestingly enough, with reference to that 5% of GDP military spending is the fact the the US military spending is only 4% of GDP. Although this doesn't count the whole Iraq war debacle, the point is that while we do spend a large amount of money on military, our economy is so damn big that proportionally we're fine.