Lobbyists already made the case for them, that's why they're law. If you want to get rid of them, you have to quit voting in the same corrupt politicians who are more than willing to spend money we don't have to make the socialists happy.
unlike you, I'm pretty sure that parties exploit any opportunity they get to gain advantage.
What makes you think I don't believe parties will exploit any opportunity they get? I didn't say that. What I said was electronic voting has a great chance of fraud and the potential for abuse. It makes me wonder if you even read my comments. I'm all in favor of having a discussion on the topic, but please refrain from putting words in my mouth or jumping to conclusions.
Election fraud and vote fraud occur rather often around the world, with paper ballots. Electronic voting simply has a higher margin of fraud. As for being easier, that doesn't make it better, it just shows laziness and impatience.
I've seen a couple documents recently that make a compelling argument both for and against it having taken place in the Primaries. As I stated, I'm not convinced this has happened, but the plausibility of it is enough that I don't feel comfortable with an electronic voting system.
What we're seeing is the beginning of a market correction that will adjust the price to a real world value. The underwriters can only support it's value in the market for so long before they are no longer able to keep the artificial value where it's at.
At $38, Facebook's price-to-earnings ratio was more than four times Google's. Google's posting revenue and profit than were 10 times higher than Facebook. Google also had a long term strategic plan for the money they raised from their IPO. As far as I know Facebook had no public plan for the use of the funds raised during the IPO, it seemed more like a get rich plan for the people (and banks) who held stock.
Long term I'm sure Facebook will rebound in the market, but it's going to be months before the actual price of the stock has been determined by the market and we know for sure.
You can see time they've stepped in. During that flat line you can see they've stepped in 5 or 6 times in just 20 minutes.
Whether an IPO is successful or not should not be judged by whether a day 1 speculator may a killing. Where the price goes in the coming months will define whether or not the IPO was successful.
That's very true. We're only looking at one day. We need to remember that as we're all discussing this. The next 30-60 days are going to give us a much better picture of how well the stock was valued when it went live on the market.
It needs to close at around $43 or $44 for the IPO to not be considered a failure.
Some might say that money is wasted, but a great many technical advances were made in our quest to put a man on the moon.
Many people don't realize that we use those advances in everyday life. Tires, footwear and communication systems have all been drastically improved from what we learned on that quest. Those are just a few obvious changes, the first two are ones most people wouldn't even think about and there are hundreds of others. Will finding life on Mars change life here, yes. How? I don't know, but the big picture is so big that none of us are going to really see it until happens (if it happens?).
You're also making the assumption that when we have outsourced we've been totally ignorant of what work they've done to accomplish the goal. When in reality we've often worked side by side with them working on the same project, following the same road map. Hiring someone to help doesn't mean handing the entire project off and have them do it for you, it means hiring someone to work with you (or at least it should). The point is that you have to treat them just like someone on the team who is sitting in the office next to you (it also means having a wife who doesn't get upset because you have a middle of the night conference call).