Originally Posted By 182 This was a great interview and discussion on the intricacies of finance if you can watch all 3 videos <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews/415035/playlist_tds_extended_edward_conard/414979?xrs=share_copy" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/ex...are_copy</a>
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones This whole extended interview thing is basically one big knock against television. We don't have to time to even interview this guy properly, so go watch it on the Internet. How about I go watch it on the Internet in the first place and now tune to Comedy Central? Why adhere to the schedule anymore? On Comedy Central, just do the show as long as it takes to do it right. God I hate television.
Originally Posted By mawnck Because the sponsors pay for their commercial to run in a certain timeslot in a certain show, and that gets disrupted when you go messing with the scheduled end times. Obviously such disruptions are allowed to happen, but only for major news events or other Very Profitable Programming. Interviews have always been edited for television to fit the time slot, in exactly the same way the Daily Show does it. They just didn't make a big deal out of it before because they had no way of showing you the whole thing. Now they do, and I think that's pretty cool. Also, note the name of the channel. You're complaining about a comedy channel not covering the news well enough. (Insert Fox News joke here.) If you hate television, I have good news. Television as we've known it since the 1950s is going to be dead as a doornail, just as soon as our internet infrastructure gets to where it can replace it. Already a surprising percentage of people in their 20s and younger don't even own a television. So feel free to watch it online. Assuming your cable company ISP doesn't find a way to stop you. ;-)
Originally Posted By ecdc What mawnck said. I'm already looking into ditching satellite and going all streaming. Two things stop me: Bandwidth restrictions and convenience. I'd probably be fine with Comcast's 250GB restriction, but I love me some HD streaming. As for convenience, too many times I've found myself on the end of a tech snafu, or more frequently, labrynthene Hollywood rules to "protect them" that end up with consumers so frustrated they hit up a BitTorrent website. Hollywood will get dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century whether they like it or not.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I'm already looking into ditching satellite and going all streaming. Two things stop me: Bandwidth restrictions and convenience.<< Just a little reminder ... when figuring all of this out, don't forget about that old fashioned thingy called an antenna. Now that's HD streaming at the right price! I haven't had cable or satellite in years, although I admit that not being a sports fan makes it a lot easier.
Originally Posted By ecdc I had an antenna for a while. Works great! And like you, not being a sports fan does help. It was pretty much for the Oscars and Emmys and Presidential speeches and the like. Even those things are starting to be streamed online, but they aren't up to par just yet.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 As for the interview itself, Conrad is essentially indulging in the old saw "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s." Luckily, Stewart caught most of that and (politely) dissected it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Mawnck, Comcast doesn't have the 250Gb restriction any more. If you go over 300Gb now then you pay a little for the extra bandwidth. They don't cut you off, though.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Luckily, Stewart caught most of that and (politely) dissected it." I felt that Stewart relied mostly on emotional arguments. The middle-class, as far as home ownership goes, has it easy in the U.S. You can walk away from your home, declare bankruptcy, and in seven years it's off your record. The interviewee made a good point about Canada and how they will go after you forever for that mortgage payment. That's partially why their banking system was protected in that sense. The interviewee stumbled in one place that I could see. Stewart made a good but flawed argument about the innovations coming out of Japan. I think the author should have said, "Having less risk and reward doesn't necessarily mean you don't ever get those innovations, but you might get less of them." Stewart's Japan argument was also incorrect in the sense that what we see coming out of Japan is their exports. That's where the rewards are. They make these electronics and they can sell them to us. Who is Nintendo's biggest market? It ain't Japan. Nintendo sold double the Wiis in the United States than it did in Japan. That is probably a function of population more than anything else, but it's reality. Their domestic economy, on the other hand, isn't as great. I actually wrote a paper on this and other facets of Japan's economy, but this link sort of explains most of it. <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/30/the_japan_syndrome?page=full" target="_blank">http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a...age=full</a> "An unfortunate side effect of export- and investment-driven growth is that it strangles the consumer. But that's kind of the point: The entire exercise depends on suppressing consumers as their cheap labor fuels exports. In Japan's case, the same undervalued yen that supported exports sapped consumers' purchasing power while yields on their savings were kept artificially low to fund cheap loans to corporations and government. And the shrunken share of economic spoils that did end up in the hands of consumers had no outlet but the heavily protected domestic market with its hopelessly inefficient and shockingly overpriced goods and services. When American humorist Dave Barry traveled to Japan in 1991, he was stunned to find department stores selling $75 melons. The result was a horribly lopsided economy." And that sort of makes the guy's point. Without the risky U.S. market to sell their wares in, Japan's electronics giants would probably not be as innovative. We drove that innovation by being people who like to spend their money on electronic toys.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The middle-class, as far as home ownership goes, has it easy in the U.S. You can walk away from your home, declare bankruptcy, and in seven years it's off your record." Wrong. It's now ten years for a Chapter 7, which is the only way you can walk from a mortgage, and even then, it's likely still there unless the bankrupt person makes an affirmative effort to delete it from credit reports. And even after that, lenders can still find it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Huh? That we like electronic toys has nothing to do with his bogus arguments on risk and why private equity should essentially be allowed to do whatever it wants. Watch the TED Conference video by a private equity guy explaining why they are NOT job creators if you want to see the real story. Private equity plays a role, but it's not what Mr. Self-justification would have you believe. And yeah, the US bought twice as many Wiis. We have 3 times the population. Do the math.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "And yeah, the US bought twice as many Wiis. We have 3 times the population." And I said that. It's still the reality that we represent a bigger market for the Japanese than Japan's dysfunctional domestic economy, and we love to spend, spend, spend. There's no doubt that a guy like Steve Jobs is driven by creative juices, but it's a fantasy to say he was not thinking about being financially successful as well. If he could not capture the fruits of his own labor, he would have been less likely to do everything that he did. After all, Apple outsourced to China not for creative reasons but solely because of the bottom line. And the United States is more likely than any other nation to yield men like that. People respond to incentives. They always have and always will.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "And I said that." You said it, and then dismissed it as though it were irrelevant. But it's not. "And the United States is more likely than any other nation to yield men like that. " Jobs was not a private equity guy. And you're falling for Conrad's attempt to conflate the two. He's trying to say that if we raise taxes (back to 90's levels) and reimpose some sensible regulations that we won't create more Jobs's (or jobs). This is instantly refuted by.. Jobs himself, who rose at a time when those higher rates and stricter regulations were in place. The past decade, when we had lower rates and looser regulations, produced less job growth, even before the collapse. Don't be fooled.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>People respond to incentives. They always have and always will.<< A fundamental oversimplification of human nature, and the base root of conservative stupidity.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Raising taxes from 36% to 39% is not going to have a big effect on the economy, but its effect will likely only be noticeable by economists and their little models. By the way, Steve Jobs produced jobs in other countries because, well, he responds to incentives.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Also, per capita measurements are often important in making comparisons, but it does not matter to Sony or Nintendo what the per capita sales figures of PlayStations and Wiis are in the United States. All that matters to them is that the U.S. represents a much bigger market to sell game consoles in than Japan, an aging people who historically save money. Conversely, while Microsoft's Xbox has a presence in Japan, it is minuscule and they do not care much. Not breaking into Japan is not going to make or break their game console division. The Japanese do not want three game consoles. Americans on the other hand? They are spenders. They want all three. They want the handhelds. Every single one of their kids must have a separate Nintendo DS, PSP and iPhone. Much of the world depends on us to spend.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Raising taxes from 36% to 39% is not going to have a big effect on the economy, but its effect will likely only be noticeable by economists and their little models. > It helps close the budget deficit. Eventually, everyone's tax rates will have to go back to the 90's rates to REALLY close the deficit, but there's a case to be made for continuing the lower rates for people who are hurting. Continuing them for people who have only gotten richer even during the downturn - nope. The point is that those 90's rates were not onerous in any way, despite what Republicans claim. They were not a drag on the economy, AND we weren't swimming in red ink. For all the gnashing of teeth about the seemingly "intractable" deficit problem and the "need" to cut cut cut, the fact remains that if we simply a). Reset the tax rates to the 90's rates (for everyone) and b). set the Pentagon budget back to 2000 levels as well (when they weren't exactly starving for cash), that closes most of the gap right there. <By the way, Steve Jobs produced jobs in other countries because, well, he responds to incentives.> No one's arguing that people don't. It's a question of degree and where you draw the lines, not a black and white eitheer/or. What you're falling for is Conrad's insistence that because people respond to incentives, therefore the ultra-rich must get further breaks and fewer regulations. Yet when we had higher tax rates and stricter regulations... THAT's when Jobs emerged.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Americans on the other hand? They are spenders. > Ironically, this is the point the TED speaker was making. Consumer demand drives our economy, not private equity. He made the point that he may make 100 times as much money as Joe Blow, but he doesn't buy 100 times as much stuff as Joe Blow, and can't legitimately be considered a "job creator."
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Steve Jobs so responded to incentives that he told Obama that he was headed for a one-term presidency due to policies unfriendly to businesses. Jobs was very much anti-union, saying that the teachers unions would need to be broken up before serious education reform could be done. If this was the man Apple portrayed him as, then I would have very much been a Steve Jobs fan while he was alive. "Ironically, this is the point the TED speaker was making. " Then perhaps we agree on these specific things and at that point, I would not know what we are arguing about. "Eventually, everyone's tax rates will have to go back to the 90's rates to REALLY close the deficit" Not just closing the deficit, but creating a surplus so we can pay down this debt which, as the CBO notes, will cripple our economy in the future if Congress keeps being Congress. This will require not just tax hikes, but a drop in spending. Those two things will have a negative effect on the economy in the short-run, however.
