Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Pension funds also play a role (Score 1) 231

Mmm, I see the problem. I was thinking of the defined contribution style pension where, on retirement, you sell your holdings and buy an annuity with the proceeds, which then pays out a fixed sum for life. Someone managing such a fund is expected by their investors to take a long term view -- and isn't responsible for monthly payments to those who have already retired. If what you have is a single fund for both current and future retirees, then those currently drawing a pension may end up with a louder voice than those who are still working, although in principle they shouldn't.

Comment Re:Pension funds also play a role (Score 5, Insightful) 231

That seems a little exaggerated. A pension fund has investors who are 30, 40, 50 years old and have many decades before they retire. Those investors want capital appreciation and for there to still be a high quality company to pay out dividends once they retire. Even a retiree aged 70 could live for many more years. The pension funds could certainly take a long term view. The trouble is that nobody really knows what that means. There isn't an easily quotable metric for it as there is for dividends or EBITDA.

Comment Re:Solving the wrong problems (Score 1, Informative) 174

Yeah, because THE GOVERNMENT BUILT THOSE HOMES.

The Canadian government used to build housing because of COURSE builders want to make a profit, and there's no profit in providing homes for the poor. When the austerity budgets hit in the 90s, the funding to build those homes went away. The responsibility for building homes has been pushed off onto provincial and municipal governments. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunda...

Stop giving the capitalists more money to do this stuff. They never will. They don't want to. If it's profitable for people to be homeless (and it is; our current system requires the constant reminder that you could be homeless to scare you into accepting even the worst jobs) then it doesn't matter if the regulations are relaxed or there's innovation funds. None of those homes go to the poor.

Even when you put conditions on a development--like the developer has to build some low-cost housing as well--they'll build the luxury condos first, then sell the part of the development that was supposed to go to low cost housing and it never gets built.

Comment Fix (Score 4, Interesting) 91

I have a 100% fix for the last mile problem.

Local Utility Company, that owns and maintains fiber.

All fiber brought back to a COLO facility where Vendors offer their services to the local utility customers, directly AT the COLO facility. Choice to the Consumer. The COLO and Fiber are maintained with fees extracted as part of the rental agreement between the vendors and the local Utility CO.

A consumer purchases service from the vendor(s) of their choice directly, based on their desires and needs. No Government needs to be involved. Increase Options creates competition.

Its a wonder smart people haven't figured out that Government Franchise Agreements has stagnated the status quo into doing nothing.

Comment Re:Law of unintended consequences (Score 1) 202

You want a conspiracy theory? Here's one for ya -

Have you noticed how things seem to have started falling apart about the time they banned Tetraethyllead?
It's almost like stopping suppressing IQs gave enough people just enough extra mental horsepower to spin idiot conspiracy theories but not enough to see the obvious logical fallacies involved.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Working...