United Tech Bids $2.6B for Diebold 129
zhang1983 writes "United Technologies, parent company of jet engine-maker Pratt & Whitney, Otis elevator and Sikorsky Aircraft, said it made the unsolicited offer to Diebold for $2.63 billion on Friday after trying to negotiate a deal for two years.
United Technologies said the company announced the offer Sunday night because executives believe their offer is "so compelling we thought shareholders should know about it.""
Profit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the voting machines have had problems, all the news has been about that portion of their company, especially in an election year.
Now, if all their machines had started spewing out $20s at a certain time of day at some point last year, then we would be talking about the atm machines.
Many companies are known (or infamous) for a small subset of their business. Diebold is no exception, especially when they have been all over Slashdot for their voting machines for the last few years. So, of course those who read Slashdot are going to talk about that. A banking board will likely be talking about the atms.
Is it just me? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sikorsky Aircraft? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really think Diebold is controlled by a foreign power currently, but it seems like a rather high risk to take - combined with a rather low chance of finding out if it were to happen.
Re:Sikorsky Aircraft? (Score:2, Insightful)
Pentagon Voting Machines (Score:5, Insightful)
Not while their products are closed systems, able to be rigged in secret, anyway.
Re:It's probably not about Premier Elections Syste (Score:3, Insightful)
NASA: More of the same. Dump cash into space research and suddenly you have non-tube transistors, heat shielding, capri sun packets, CO2 buffers, some toy that uses heated iron to break CO2 down into carbon deposits (scrape this off) and oxygen (breath this). Mind you the R&D labs doing this are spitting out all kinds of technology
FTC: Not exactly the President's job. Controls the lending industry's rates. Higher rates, fewer people able to afford to borrow. Lower rates, border liners can now afford the $700/mo instead of $1100/mo mortgages (this would make or break me; my buffer isn't comfortable on the last $300 there...).
Lower taxes on businesses, dump money into government spending, creates some jobs now, gets things rolling. In 5-10 years the whole economy might reflex, if you hit it hard enough. Something rolling out of control may need taxing or regulation to slow it (dot-com bust?). It's not just the President, and it's not something you turn on and off; the effects of your executive decisions will still be just starting to trickle in at the end of your term.
I'm no economist. The left side of my brain is 100% active and the right side is practically dead. I'm working on fixing that. Just, stuff like this makes a painful amount of plain sense. If you lower taxes by 5% and don't lower spending and the businesses are hiring more employees and contractors and there's 10% more money floating around, you just raised government income tax revenues by 5% overall... and made the economy more active in the process. If you lower taxes by 5% and there's 3% more money floating around, you might have a little budgeting problem....
I'm just sick of people going "look depression look bush's fault look he hasn't fixed it in 2 years look it's still getting worse" damnit people shut up. The president can destroy the budget in 2 months; but if he comes into an awesome economy and it collapses 2 months into his term it's far, far from his fault. Unless he jacks taxes up to double what they currently are, that'll do it; but at this point you're playing Truck Dismount with economics.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Confusion (Score:2, Insightful)
The position of control over a whole country's election system is
far more valuable than the revenue of the business. Why do you think
that the voting machine business being less valuable on the bottom line
makes it a less important part of the company's portfolio?
Re:Yeah but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Diebold bought their way into the election biz (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Confusion (Score:-1, Insightful)
It is definitely worth remembering that Diebold builds millions of ATMs - especially when it's being argued that paper receipts can't be produced for voting.. because they manage it just fine for ATMs.
Re:It's probably not about Premier Elections Syste (Score:3, Insightful)