quasimojo

10 ms·

91.
by quasimojo 18y ago
doesn't change the vector of this attack one bit: weak password
92.
by quasimojo 18y ago
where does the treasury and fed get the money? THEY PRINT IT a 1982 law lets treasury notes be redeemed with CREATED accounts, as in one of the partner banks of the reserve simply creates a new account by punching in the digits, and they as
93.
by quasimojo 18y ago
the 3.3 - 1.9 = 1.4% difference is precisely reflected in the oil bubble. now that oil is backing down, this number will also fall
94.
by quasimojo 18y ago
because they are part of an integrated economy. where will google's advertizers find their ad budgets in a stagnant economy? boeing is no different. would these firms be as adversely impacted as wamu? no. but everyone suffers.
95.
by quasimojo 18y ago
agreed. and WAMU will not be saved. they are just another retail bank.
96.
by quasimojo 18y ago
but if this $85b prevents the markets from crashing it won't. this loan doesn't unwind the terrible decisions aig (and others) made, nor the hedges they tied to those decisions, and the hedges they tied to those hedges, and the hedges the
97.
by quasimojo 18y ago
Without dividends, owning it is almost certain to be a losing proposition. look up short selling, options. if a stock price is MOVING, you can profit dividends are the only way to make money if the share price is static
98.
by quasimojo 18y ago
Unless Google pays dividends at some point (which Silicon Valley companies usually do not do), then yes, it's stock is worthless. as worthless as any other paper currency. indeed google stock has performed well against the US dollar (you
99.
by quasimojo 18y ago
But, it seems to me that if owning stock makes no sense if there are no dividends Then owning stock makes no sense anyway. you can say the same for dollar bills. what is a dollar's INTRINSIC value? zero. its just a piece of paper
100.
by quasimojo 18y ago
you are just moving the argument. are the dollars you get paid in dividends intrinsically valuable? no. people could value dollars to zero at any time. you are just replacing one piece of paper with another.
101.
by quasimojo 18y ago
well with laptop prices in 2009 likely to be under $600 for numerous choices of decent hardware, the notion of adding another $150 to the price just to boot the thing is no longer competitve. the pc vendors should just throw weight behind u
102.
by quasimojo 18y ago
i wish the big universities would kill these publishers come on, harvard and stanford have like ten quadrillion dollar endowments and they get muscled by a thirty person publishing house in ohio?? i know the profs want to get paid. just pay
103.
by quasimojo 18y ago
That wasn't my point. It's easier for small economy to grow at a higher rate. i know and i basically agree...my point is that the Fed has not demonstrably proven to grow the economy, manage the currency, or control inflation better than
104.
by quasimojo 18y ago
Cheap credit is the heroin of democracies amen, it will be only too late that people realize that those who print the currency run the show, and thats the Fed...who by the way are not accountable to voters in any meaningful way
105.
by quasimojo 18y ago
The question is not one of doing better, but of inevitability; for a company's stock to be worth anything, it has to pay profits out to the stockholder so google is worthless? the point of owning a share is to make money from your ownersh
106.
by quasimojo 18y ago
It probably couldn't have grown as fast as it did, but it certainly could get to it's current size. no, because banks don't even do this kind of lending anymore. to grow google organically would have taken decades. in that time they would
107.
by quasimojo 18y ago
Not really a fair comparison - the U.S. economy was smaller pre-fed its totally valid. the economy has only shrunk temporarily on a small number of occasions. the economy is more or less always growing, so it is always smaller in the past
108.
by quasimojo 18y ago
well what he is also famous for is the prediction years ago (when he was hanging out with the objectivist pseudo-intellectuals) that a kondratieff winter (bad downside in the economy) could be nullified by very low rates. he did his best to
109.
by quasimojo 18y ago
what isn't haskell for? i've been throwing it at everything from fastcgi programs to scrapers to scripting to systems stuff maybe the one place it isn't well suited is in the realm of throw-away quickies. haskell code takes longer to write.
110.
by quasimojo 18y ago
cramer was right that an emergency rate cut was needed, and i say this as someone who thinks low rates created this entire mess. at the time he has his tantrum, the market needed a massive cushion regardless of the consequences. the problem
111.
by quasimojo 18y ago
wrong. most boomers are still in fixed retirements. some of those pension fund managers got suckered into subprime, but not many
112.
by quasimojo 18y ago
okay explain to me how a company like google could have been privately funded to its current level. you think a bank is going to write a check for $800 million to buy servers? go ask a C-level exec at wells fargo
113.
by quasimojo 18y ago
i am probably more bearish than anyone here, but there is no evidence that dividend-bearing stocks do better over any meaningful timeframe
114.
by quasimojo 18y ago
It's true that there are inevitable conflicts of interest regarding risk tolerance. lets ask ourselves WHY the bankers took such risks because they just wanted to have fun? get real how do you make money as a banker when the Fed has lower
115.
by quasimojo 18y ago
GREENSPAN GREENSPAN GREENSPAN who do you think put the US on a "low low low rates" regime? who do you think CREATED THE DOTCOM BUBBLE and the HOUSING BUBBLE? not CEOs, GREENSPAN and bernanke is just playing the hand he was dealt the problem
116.
by quasimojo 18y ago
but the webmasters have to know gnip exists. the webmasters need to know how to turn the switch to publish a feed delta, or even write this themselves with google or ysearch, you just publish and wait for the crawler to find you the zero-ef