There are plenty studies showing strong correlation between economic freedom and GDP (even between US states)
That "study" is BS. Just look at the errors, the higher the variables, the higher the variance between the model and the actual data. You can't confidently draw correlation conclusions with heteroskedasticity. The only thing this "study" shows is that the authors lack a good understanding of econometrics.
Comcast has a Debt/Equity ratio of 67... so in theory 67% of their value is not theirs to spend, as creditors are going to want their money back. Now looking at Google's Debt/Equity ratio.... huh. It looks like Google doesn't owe anyone any money.
Notwithstanding that you're probably talking about the Debt/Total Assets ratio (a Debt/Equity ration of 67 would mean that 98.5% (or 67/68) of their financing comes from debt), you cannot compare two companies operating in different sectors by looking at such ratios. Having a higher financial leverage doesn't mean a company is good or badly run, it depends of many factors such as the industry they're in, the nature of their assets, the stability of their income streams etc...
Not owing anyone any money can also be a sign of a badly run company, as it could go against the principle of maximizing shareholder wealth (debt funding is cheaper).
Basically, what grandparent says stands... You're basically comparing apples and oranges.
On an issue as important as whether to expend tax money to keep incompetent management in place in failed banks, it's pretty damned sad that Obama and McCain weren't on opposite sides of the question.
-jcr
You're sad that none of the Presidential candidates wanted to play Russian roulette with the American/World economy?
You know, maybe you should learn a little about capital markets before making ideological judgments on issues.
Parent is an obvious troll!
Well, it runs at 5.7X the original speed right?
So 5.7X CD-Rom drive runs at 570% the speed of the original drive.
Where is my math wrong?
Indeed, 50% of the original performance means that performance was multiplied by 5.7. But it's a 470% increase....
In your original post you spoke of a 570% increase, which would give a multiplier of 6.7.
To make it a bit clearer, in your first post, had you used a 5% increase... you would have DIVIDED performance by 20 using your method!
Get it?
What other wisdom have you gained from your time sequestered with various RPGs?
That video games are a pretty bad place to gain wisdom from?
Many government stockpiles of Tamiflu from the last pandemic that according to the "experts" was dead set going to "wipe us out" (lol) are expiring right now.
The H5N1 strain has a current mortality rate of 63.27% according to the WHO. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_and_infection_of_H5N1#Mortality_rate)
The A/H1N1 has, of course, a mortality rate close to the seasonal flu, but that is not the point. The point is that we humans have no antibodies against this strain, this means that if it were to mutate and become more virulent, it could have disastrous effects.
OK, the WHO and media may have overreacted, but what we are seeing now (a small pandemic with few fatalities) is exactly how the Spanish flu pandemic began... You really think the WHO should take the chance and not blow his out of proportions?
Hey, that's a great idea! But I think we should call the strips "ribbons"...sounds way more sophisticated that way.
Oh come on, no one would be stupid enough to fall for that!
OMG, that looks exactly like my wifi router back home! and my gf is working from home today!
noes!
It's ok... now you'll finally fit in with the
The data on your machine is worth anywhere from about as much as the hardware, up to 1000+ times as much as the hardware, depending on how much cash you have in your bank account.
Aha! I knew my windows was worthless!
Who said anything about a "free" market?
Even in regulated markets, monopolies kill innovation and drive prices up. This has absolutely nothing to do with the free market ideology.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market, used that monopoly to gain monopoly position in the browser market (although they have lost that position over the last couple of years) and a dominant position in the office software market.
Let's see what happened in these three markets.
First of all, the OS. It took MS over 6 years to bring out a new OS. 6 years! Until Windows 95/98, the OS sector was one of the fastest moving sectors around, with plenty of innovation coming out every year, but when MS got to their monopoly position, they have been basically stagnating. Now that Mac OS X and Linux start eating some market share, the development cycle fell from 6 to 3 years!
So, they used that market to get a monopoly in the browsers' market. What happened once they got it? Nothing for 6 years! It was only until Mozilla got a decent market share that Microsoft restarted the development of IE again. And look what happens now, MS will release IE 8 soon, only 3 years after IE 7. Not only this, but since the absolute dominance of IE has declined, we get innovation after innovation in the browsers. Safari, Chrome, Opera and Firefox are all good alternatives that almost monthly release a new faster than ever version racing each other to be the most standards compliant and the fastest.
Office? Again, it was only when Google or Open Office started threatening their market dominance that MS again felt the need to innovate (ribbons, xml file format, Office Live, etc...).
But back to economic theory (I am after all, an economist), innovation creates value, more value means more people can enjoy a decent salary like you said. More people would enjoy a decent salary had Microsoft not taken over those markets because it slowed down the process of value creation! It is exactly BECAUSE an absolutely free market doesn't work efficiently that it should be regulated. Regulation is necessary because left alone, free markets are NOT innovation-optimal. This lack of innovation is what makes communism impossible and why the free market cannot be fully efficient at the same time.
And yes Microsoft force their product onto me (well maybe not me, but the immense majority of PC buyers). Yes you can say public schools are forced onto us, but that is because a private school system is a very bad way to educate the next generation of innovators.
Microsoft doesn't restrict who can program for good reasons (they'd be bankrupt in no time), just like there are good reasons to not allow anyone to be a lawyer or a doctor.
And the taxation bit, well, I have no idea why it is even brought up.
Anyways, innovation is doing more with the same, it is how a society solves the eternal problem of limited resources. Innovation is what should make our kids' world a better world than ours. Having a society that is optimal for innovation is what economics is all about! How our society is able to evolve the best is very complex and filled with needed regulation, but the goal of innovation is crystal clear.
I believe it's time for you to open an economics books before you draw microeconomic conclusions.
So on slashdot someone advocating monopolies to drive technological innovation gets modded +4 Insightful?
(Pssst: Competition is the main driver of innovation in a market system, you should be thankful we have _any_ innovation coming from Microsoft instead of cheering for them)
I'm not an economist, but it's easy to see when something like this isn't working out.
I am, and your comment made absolutely no sense...
But the fact of the matter is, the US economy is on a race to collapse, called inflation.
The US had an annualized inflation rate of 0,09% in December 2008 and hasn't had an inflation rate above 4% since 1991. What exactly are you talking about?
Maybe if overpaid workers and grossly overpaid management aren't raising the prices of products, they'd sell better overseas. Granted the auto-industry is too easy a dead horse to kick at the moment.
BMW, VW, Mercedes all produce their cars in high-wage countries. The problem with GM is that they make cheap shitty cars in the US. No one wants their cars AND they are expensive to manufacture... Not exactly what I call a brilliant business model. If anything, wages in the US should _increase_, because American workers are highly qualified.
Some countries, whether or not it's ultimately good for their economy, forces inflation down. Forces cost of goods down. Forces wage down. Forces their currency's worth down. And keeps all the wealth in the government (and elite few), and in an ideal world, manage the money for the best of the country better than spreading to everyone in the country who'd squander it on luxury and living beyond their realistic means.
To lower inflation you increase the interest rate... which decreases its exchange rate (and hence INCREASE its value). You can't both artificially keep your currency low AND keep inflation low. (Unless you use price-fixing, but that always backfires anyways, so that can only work in the short term).
Think about it, does it really make sense that you're making $50k a year, and paying $4.50 for milk and in 2000 making $33k you were paying $3.00
Euh, yeah it does, not only because you have 8 more years of experience and should be paid accordingly, but also because the real growth (growth - inflation) is positive, and therefore goods should be cheaper to buy on average.
You want an easy example of economies collapsing due to artificially created currency, look at MMORPG. In Everquest, items are bought and sold by the millions. It's not the same force driving inflation but it's the same result of inflation. Although if you want a real life example, Zimbabwae. While you purchase your month's grocery by a hundred dollars, they're doing it in millions.
The creation of money is governed by supply and demand of loans, there is nothing artificial about it. Comparing the US to Zimbabwe is not very credible, I'm sorry.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
