Politics Column

"There is nothing good about dozens of people's dying everyday" continued ...

2006-03-23T16:20:00.000-08:00

I wrote yesterday that "There is nothing good about dozens of people's dying everyday" and it is rather ridiculous to say that things are going well in Iraq given the fact. Countdown with Keith Olbermann had a story about this, and I'd like to make a reference to the story and I'd like to add my own comments on that.

Bush vs. the media about War in Iraq
'Countdown' investigates the administration's newest blame game

The Bush Administration is frustrated with the media’s negative outlook on the War in Iraq and has made it known to them. However, the media isn’t staying silent in this blame game.

Richard Wolffe, “Newsweek” magazine's White House correspondent joined Keith Olbermann on 'Countdown' to discuss the Bush Administration’s newest attack on the media.

Click here to read the rest of the story.

Here's an important comment made by Richard Wolffe.

No matter how often they do their flying in and flying out and talking to troops down on the ground there, it's much, much harder living in Iraq. So that's the first point.

Having visited several countries, I must say that there is a tremendous difference between what is reported in the media and what you actually see in a different country. Furthermore, having lived in two different countries, I can say that living in the country is totally different from visiting the country. Given that, if those who have been living there for the last two, three years say that it is a dangerous place to be in, then that is what they mean.

Another important comment made by Richard Wolffe.

The second point is, what are people thinking here? Of course, the media focuses on bad news, on death and violence. First of all, this is a war, which has been hugely expensive in terms of blood and treasure. And secondly, that's the way life is. It's not a bias of the media. If it was a bias, then why has cable news talked about murders? Why don't they have whole shows that talk about childbirth?

Iraq is in the middle of warfare, and it is a simple fact; subsequently, it is absurd to say that people living there are happy or like it there compared to the peaceful time during the late 90s.

Olympic Games and World Baseball Classic

2006-03-23T15:54:00.000-08:00

It was not widely reported but US did not win more models than all other countries, nor did US win more gold medals than all other countries in this year's Olympic Games. World Baseball Classic was played this month, and US did not win there, either, despite the fact that Team USA had number of top MLB players including Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter and Roger Clemens. These are just sports events, but I think that Team USA's defeat in these two major events highlight today's state of the nation, USA.

There is nothing good about dozens of people's dying everyday

2006-03-23T01:00:00.000-08:00

Some (American) commentators say that things are going well in Iraq, but, well, frankly speaking, it is absolutely ridiculous to say that. Dozens of people are dying there everyday, and it is a hard statistic; it is undisputable. That is horrifying, and it is simply incomprehensible and impossible to say that things are going well in Iraq.

Antitrust and the government intervention

2006-03-23T00:28:00.000-08:00

Many appear to strongly resist any government intervention because it is against free market and they believe that free market alone will solve various social problems. Putting the debate about whether free market will ultimately solve various social problems or not aside, we need to recognize that so many things in our society have been heavily subsidized already. Governments all over the world created roads. US government initially funded the development of the internet. Neither TV nor radio would have been adapted without the government subsidy. That is not to say that the government intervention is a must and that the government should always intervene. However, it seems that many forget that the government intervention is a pre-condition, i.e., something that took place already. Discussion about antitrust often captures this; "Company ABC123 does not have to comply with the government's request because it is anti-free market. They do not have to behave in a certain way for the government to break up the trust. Etc., etc., etc." Many appear to have forgotten that these companies in question were able to get to where they are today because of the government intervention such as the enforcement of antitrust laws. It is rather silly to argue that it was ok for these companies in question to receive the great benefit of antitrust laws, yet it is not ok for the government to enforce the same laws on them today.

Not many understand antitrust, nor do they embrace it

2006-03-22T22:43:00.000-08:00

Kinderstart sues Google over lower page ranking

Reuters
Saturday, March 18, 2006; 9:09 PM

SAN FRANCISCO, March 18 (Reuters) - A parental advice Internet site has sued Google Inc. , charging it unfairly deprived the company of customers by downgrading its search-result ranking without reason or warning.

The civil lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California, on Friday by KinderStart.com seeks financial damages along with information on how Google ranks Internet sites when users conduct a Web-based search.

Google could not immediately be reached for comment but the company aggressively defends the secrecy of its patented search ranking system and asserts its right to adapt it to give customers what it determines to be the best results.

Click here to read the rest of the story

After I briefly looked into this, I found that KinderStart.com does not have a very strong case; more specifically, it appears that Google was pretty informative about reasons why KinderStart.com was removed from Google's index, though there was no direct communication between KinderStart.com and Google (up to now). Those who work in the sub industry of search (engine) industry like Google called "Search Engine Optimization" industry discussed about this on various discussion boards, and I checked these discussions:

Kinderstart files suit against google
Google sued over rankings (penalty)

I agree that KinderStart.com does not have a very strong case in this particular case, but I was (unpleasantly) surprised that many people think that Google can do whatever they want using their data. 90% of internet users use search engines like Google to look for a web page when they get on the internet. It is estimated that Google has roughly 50% of market share in the internet search. This means that Google has enough power to fundamentally change the behavior of those who participate in commercial activities that Google plays a major part in. Subsequently, it is theoretically possible that Google creates a trust to take advantage. This is illegal in all developed countries, as it is an anticompetitive behavior. It is completely untrue that Google can (legally) do whatever they want to do.

Anticompetitive behavior is hurting every business sector; anticompetitive behavior is not only hurting businesses, but it is hurting consumers. Businesses and consumers need to understand this.

Understanding the modern United States politics and economy

2006-03-14T00:36:00.000-08:00

Eric Schlosser wrote the book "Fast Food Nation" a couple of years ago, and the book has enlightened American consumers and consumers in many developed countries (affected by US). He has been giving speeches at universities and private conferences since then. The book and his message primarily focus on today's US food industry; however, the message really captures the modern United States politics and economy. It's not just about food. It's not just about health crisis. It's much more than that. His lecture and interview audio and video are publicly available on the web, so if you lack patience to read his book, I highly recommend that you listen to or watch his speech online. It's quite educational.

Beef import is not a political issue, but it is a health issue

2006-03-14T00:24:00.000-08:00

Number of countries including Japan and South Korea have stopped importing beef from US about a year ago, and they have not opened the market since then. Some people apparently believe that this is a political issue, but this is really a health issue. Beef production in US has changed radically for the last 20 years or so, and it has created number of health problems. It is actually surprising that it has taken so long for beef importers to stop importing beef from US.

politalx Store UK Open

2006-03-06T17:45:00.000-08:00

politalx Store Open

2006-03-06T17:34:00.000-08:00

I opened politalx Store several days ago. The store sells books, magazines, DVD and VHS in politics. The store include the followings categories:

Politics Books
Politics : Freedom & Security
Politics : Ideologies
Politics : International
Politics : Others
Law Books
Law : Administrative Law
Law : Business
Law : Constitutional Law
Law : Criminal Law
Law : English Law
Law : Family & Health Law
Law : Intellectual Property
Law : International Law
Law : Law Practice
Law : Legal Education
Law : Legal History
Law : One-L
Law : Perspectives on Law
Law : Practical Guides
Law : Procedures & Litigation
Law : Series
Law : Specialties
Law : Taxation
Law : Others
Magazines
Law Journals
Political Science Journals
Magazines : Others
Related Books
Crime & Criminals
Government
Related Products
DVD Politics
VHS Politics

When I make a reference to book, magazine or documentary movie, I will find the product in the store, and will link it from here so that you can read the extensive review of the product.

Boycotting of a Russia-hosted G8 summit would not solve any problem

2006-02-05T03:44:00.000-08:00

McCain urges Iran sanctions, outside UN if needed

MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John McCain, a top member of President George W. Bush's Republican Party, urged the world on Saturday to impose economic and other sanctions on Iran, bypassing the United Nations if needed.

...

No Council action, including sanctions, will be considered before a conclusive IAEA investigative report due next month.

McCain said Iran would be a key test of U.S.-Russia ties. Without singling out policies, he criticized the government of President Vladimir Putin for a lack of democracy and mooted a boycott of a Russia-hosted G8 summit this year.

"Under Mr Putin, Russia today is neither a democracy nor an economic power. I seriously question whether G8 leaders should attend the G8 summit," McCain said.

Source - Reuters (Click here to read the rest of the story.)

It is very possible that Russia may not be going to a right direction politically; however, boycotting of a summit would not solve any problem. It can make him, President Bush or both look good to some people in US locally, but it is nothing but a political stunt. Discussing difficult problems can be rather frustrating, and it also seems unproductive, but it is absolutely necessary. Boycotting discussion or even suggesting it is short-sighted.

One of major problems of today's legal system

2006-02-05T03:22:00.000-08:00

I have been studying laws in a certain area for a reason recently, and, as I study laws, I cannot help but realize one of major problems of today's legal system. The legal system is structured so that it is always highly recommended that you hire an attorney no matter what personal legal work you do for yourself and no matter what legal work you do for your small business. Laws in US are heavily influenced by English common laws. The name "common laws" implies that laws apply to anyone equally AND they are not something that you need to pay money for; laws should not a commodity. Those of you who have to or had to do any legal work realize that you want to hire a good attorney if you can afford. If your budget allows, you would probably want to pay a substantial amount of money to the attorney. Why is that? Because that would enable you to use laws for your benefit. I personally enjoy studying laws, and I believe that many of you enjoy, too. However, even then, the same principle applies. The more money you spend, the more useful laws become to you. This is one of major problems of today's legal system.

Does the presidential campaign contribution help Ken Lay to get away with what he did?

2006-02-05T02:58:00.000-08:00

Ken Lay's Audacious Ignorance

Even if one of America's worst ex-CEOs beats the rap -- and he just might -- history's verdict will be harsh

The only remaining question of great consequence about Enron is whether its prime movers, Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling, will go to prison for their part in its transformation from icon of New Age corporate cool to synonym for Bubble Era greed and deceit. As the pair go on trial on Jan. 30 in Houston, it will be important to keep in mind that the jury's decision will serve only to fix criminal culpability. Even if Lay and Skilling are acquitted, the trial holds zero hope of redemption for Enron's Big Two. History's verdict is already in, and it is harsh: As two of the most inept executives in business history, Lay and Skilling are heavily to blame for the demise of a company that once employed 31,000 people and had a stock market value of $35 billion but which survives today in shriveled form under the protection of the bankruptcy code.

Source - Business Week (click here to read the rest of the story.)

A lot of people are talking about whether Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling will be founded guilty or not (and subsequently will be sent to prison), but I am personally interested in how Ken Lay's contribution to the 2000 US presidential campaign will affect the outcome of the trail. It is a well-known fact that Ken Lay was the biggest contributor of the campaign(and that led to de-regulation of energy price right after George W. Bush became the president). I wonder if it can still save him today; more specifically, can he get away with what he did because of the contribution he made back in 2000?

Wall Street's view on economy is not exactly the most accurate view on economy

2005-12-28T22:48:00.000-08:00

I wrote that I like Kudlow & Company TV programs and podcast, but one thing repeated in TV programs and podcast is rather troublesome to me. When "economy" is discussed, Larry Kudlow and guests in his shows basically discuss economy of the upper class, not middle class or lower class. In fact, Wall Street generally does not see "economy" as economy of the middle class or lower class; it seems that Wall Street's "economy" is economy of the upper class. This is troublesome because Wall Street's view on economy is often accepted as the view on economy nationally.

Number of US scientists (who were born and educated in US) win Nobel Prize every year; however, if there are more winners than last year, US Department of Education does not announce that US education has improved. If there are less, US Department of Education does not announce, either. What US Department of Education and other education organizations discuss is how well average Americans read. They discuss how well they can do math and how well they can read a book and understand its content. They are looking at right places. When actors and actresses manage to maintain clean and smooth skin, US Department of Health does not praise Americans' health. When American athletes win more gold medals in Olympic Games than in the last Olympic Games, US Department of Health does not say that Americans are becoming more athletic or improving speed and agility, which makes perfect sense.

The way in which "economy" is interpreted in US has a problem.

Distribution of capital has a very serious problem

2005-12-27T18:13:00.000-08:00

I run a number of websites, and it is my business. Problems happen occasionally, so I call up the company that provides me services to run these websites (i.e., web hosting service). I have been working on some problem recently, and I have been working with technicians at the company, but there was a miscommunication between us, so I called them today. To make a long story short, the conversation was neither pleasant to me nor to the technician that I spoke with. We had a couple of issues, but here is what was happening behind our conversion. The company wants to charge me $150 per hour to provide me a certain service; the company says that they would need 3 hours, so they want to charge $450 for the task. If you make $150 per hour and work for 40 hours a week, you would make about 300k a year, so I think it fair to say that it is rather expensive. I was not pleasant to hear that I would need to pay $150 per hour. There was also some miscommunication, so it made me even more unpleasant (I got a similar service for free in the past from the same company, but I would be charged this time if I want to get their service). My guess is that I am not the only one; there are plenty of unhappy consumers. I imagine that the technician that I spoke with speak with many unhappy consumers everyday, which makes him unhappy. What makes the situation ever worse is that there is very little that consumers get from the work (so called consulting service) that costs $150 per hour. Furthermore, the technician that I spoke with or other technicians do not get $150 per hour, so it does not make them happy, nor does it give a good reason to them to do their work well. Subsequently, consumers are even unhappier because they need to speak with technicians who are unhappy and not motivated to do good work. This is a terrible cycle (What's interesting is that I happily paid for $150 per hour to an attorney the other day; though it is the same price, since she works independently and gets to keep the most of the fee, she provides a good service, which makes up for my hesitation to pay a high price for the legal service). Senior technicians (they are often called system administrators) would do the actual work, since they are more experienced, but they do not get to keep the most of $450, either (Consequently, they are not greatly motivated, nor do they provide great service). So, who gets to keep the big chunk of the fee? Management, the company. Now, I understand that the business needs to have a structure and a large company needs to have a hierarchy; only companies with a certain size can provide certain services, so the structure and hierarchy become necessary. The fee needs to be distributed among the company, so it ends up being priced rather high. HOWEVER, is it really justified? Does it really make sense? Customers (including myself) are unhappy because the quality of service is not there. Those who speak with customers are not happy because they are not properly compensated, nor are they motivated (and this creates a terrible cycle of making both parties even unhappier). Consumers lose a lot of money while neither those who speak to them nor those who do the actual work make a lot of money. Somehow, those who are far away from the real action get to accumulate wealth. Isn't there a problem here? Isn't it possible that distribution of capital has a very serious problem?

Kudlow & Company podcast

2005-12-26T17:47:00.000-08:00

I mentioned about Kudlow & Company, the TV show on CNBC, but I found that Larry Kudlow has Kudlow & Company podcast as well. He apparently has not set up a website for this yet, so all shows (files) are hosted at podcast.net. This is where Kudlow & Company podcast is hosted;
http://www.podcast.net/show/26269.

Watanabe Web Publishing, LLC

2005-12-25T22:56:00.000-08:00

politalX is actually one of several sites that I own; I have developed all sites as a consultant, but I have recently decided to incorporate and let the new company own all sites (to be more precise, the company will be incorporated in January 2006 for a couple of different reasons). The company's name is Watanabe Web Publishing, LLC. politalX does not have "About Us" page, so I decided to mention about it in this column. If and when I add "About Us" page in politalX, I will mention about it formerly.

(Company website, Watanabe Web Publishing, LLC, was set up on Christmas Day; kind of Christmas present to myself :) .)

I like Kudlow & Company

2005-12-24T12:36:00.000-08:00

I'm not too crazy about TV programs. As a matter of fact, I do not have TV (i.e., cable), though I watch clips from various programs on the internet. However, I must say that I really like Kudlow & Company. I don't necessarily agree with Lawrence Kudlow or guests at the show, but the followings are some of things that I like:

1. Numbers don't lie. One of problems that many news programs share is that they essentially tell us their perspective, their interpretation without presenting hard statistics. When politics is discussed in Kudlow & Company, the show presents statistics partly because the show is about finance and economy after all. This gives us a chance to evaluate Lawrence Kudlow and other guests' opinions. This is very important; we, the audience, need to have objectivity and the show allows us to have objectivity.

2. We cannot separate politics and economy when we discuss either topic. This is rather obvious, but interestingly most TV programs do not discuss both simultaneously. They often discuss politics only or economy only. This does not allow us to have a good overview of the issue discussed. Kudlow & Company gives us a better idea of what is truly happening in politics and economy because the show discusses both topics simultaneously.

3. Lawrence Kudlow is articulate and he makes it clear where he comes from. It would be nice if the new program can have a clear objectivity, but it is practically impossible; in fact, I don't think that there is any news program that has a clear objectivity. If that is the case, we want to know what the program stands for. Lawrence Kudlow makes it clear where he comes from and what he stands for. This allows us to understand views and opinions expressed in the show clearly.

Premise of the government

2005-12-21T23:39:00.000-08:00

The following is from Senate Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on The PATRIOT Act.

That's why as it's come time to reauthorize this law, we've been working in a bipartisan way to do both - to show the American people that we can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil liberties. To show the American people that the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it can. What we have been trying to achieve, under the leadership of a bipartisan group of Senators, is some accountability in this process - to get answers and see evidence where there is suspicion.

The (US) government/state represents a power structure (and any government/state represents a power structure just to clarify), and the power is generally a violent one. Subsequently, it is the government's nature to want to issue warrants and execute searches. This is not cynicism, but it is simply an institutional analysis of the government. It is very important for legislators and citizens to understand this premise of the government first and foremost.

Since when, did capitalism become stealing from others or some kind of scam?

2005-12-21T23:10:00.000-08:00

What is capitalism?

Capitalism

In common usage, the word capitalism means an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and in which the investment of capital and the production, distribution and prices of commodities, goods and services are determined mainly in a free market. Also, profit is permissible (some consider it essential to a definition) and wage or salary may be paid for labour.

Source - Wikipedia

What are problems of capitalism?

Unequal distribution of wealth and income

It is reasonable to expect that some disparity in wealth and income among individuals would exist in a capitalist system as this is determined through market forces rather than by centralized governmental authority. Some view a significant disparity and concentration of wealth to be problem and that such is endemic to capitalism, while others do not have such egalitarian concerns. Some opponents of capitalism assert that there should be no inequality in wealth and earnings among individuals commensurate to their inheritance, skills, abilities or efforts. Defenders of capitalism respond that since free market capitalism distributes wealth and earnings among individuals commensurate to their inheritance, skills, abilities and efforts, it provides inherent incentives for human beings to hone their skills, improve their abilities, and make strong efforts to meet the needs of each other, incentives that are missing or significantly less present in any other type of economic/political system.

Click here to read about other problems of capitalism

Whether capitalism can create a heaven on earth is debatable. There are numerous criticisms, and many problems are pointed out. It is probably too naïve to say that capitalism is a perfect system. However, since when, did capitalism become stealing from others or some kind of scam? There are many problems in today's financial sector, and the sector sometimes almost looks like that it is designed to steal from others. Isn't there misunderstanding of capitalism or it is only an example of the fact that 23 million adults in U.S. can't read, so many of those in the financial sector simply do not understand what capitalism means and they actually believe that they are following the principle of capitalism while they steal and run scam?

(Am I upset about something today...?)

One of problems of 401k

2005-12-21T22:49:00.000-08:00

A lot of companies are finding ways to cut pensions; a lot of companies are also planning to stop offering pensions to employees. They often offer 401k to employees, but there is a problem in the current scheme of 401k, and it is one of problems that exist in the financial sector today; if you study, then you can understand, but mechanisms are complex, and thus, problems in the financial sector hurts many of those who trust 401k.

When the company trades its stocks in stock market, the company often sets up its default 401k so that employees actually buy the company stocks while they contribute to 401k. Employees can (and should) change their 401k plans so that their plans are much more diversified, but since a lot of companies' 401k default plans directly contribute to those companies, many employees just set up their 401k plans like that. I'd risk saying that investing in a single stock (company) is a losing proposition. There are always exceptions, but generally speaking, you cannot win in a long term. However, 401k is something that you need to win in a long term because it will be your retirement fund.

The reason why companies want their employees to invest in their companies through 401k is very simple. They want more money; it cannot be explained any simpler than that. However, as I already mentioned, investing in a single stock (company) is a losing proposition while many are following the proposition. Enron is a prime example. Employees had 401k plans, but the default plan invested in Enron; the company went bankrupt and its stock became worth nothing. At that moment did 401k plan, which was supposed to be a retirement fund, a replacement of pension, become worthless. Enron will not be the last.

This is one of many reasons why privatized healthcare does not work

2005-12-21T21:29:00.000-08:00

Drug plans more confusing for nursing home residents
Prescription plans are hard to navigate and staff members can't choose for them

Medicare's new prescription drug benefit is about to start, and nursing home operators have had to become instant experts on the program, helping residents sort through a maze of choices.

More than 1.4 million people in nursing homes are among the 42 million Medicare beneficiaries who will be eligible to choose plans that would pay part of their prescription medication costs beginning Jan. 1. The new benefit represents the biggest expansion of the federal health program for the elderly and disabled since Medicare was created 40 years ago.

Many people in nursing homes aren't capable of wading through the drug benefit's mind-bendingly complicated rules and making informed decisions.

Source - San Francisco Chronicle

Healthcare is not something that you need to speak with your account in order to take an action. Healthcare is not something that you need to check the balance in your account or check your credit card status (how much credit card debt you have and how much more you can spend using your credit card) in order to go see a doctor because you do not feel well. Healthcare is not something that you need to look up some chart to see what is available to you and what is not. Medicare is a government program, but it is a result of that US privatizes healthcare; privatization of healthcare has only made healthcare in U.S. complex and confusing. This is one of many reasons why privatized healthcare does not work.

Problems in Wall Street are visible yet difficult to understand

2005-12-21T11:53:00.000-08:00

Eliot Spitzer has been doing great service to us, but he can do so because he himself has been an investor and he understands how bankers and fund managers work and make money. He also understands how to communicate with them. While you believe that he has been helping out everyone in the society, you have to spend a fair amount of time and put effort to understand what he does. One of problems that he has been tackling is misallocation and redistribution of capital, but it is not something that you can understand easily (I tried to point out one of problems a couple of days ago, but I am not so sure if I was able to articulate my point). The point is that kind of problems that Eliot Spitzer has been tackling are very serious problems and they affect everyone in the society, but they are also problems that you cannot easily identify (it is not like murder or rape which you immediately recognize its problem and its crime without any analysis). This is probably one of bigger problems today, not lack of transparency in criminal justice, but great difficulty to observe the transparency and understand underlining problems. Problems in Wall Street are visible yet difficult to understand, while these problems affect everyone in the society. Unless, if not the majority, a fair number of people in U.S., understand these problems, it is difficult to solve these problems in the society, and to make a fair number of people in U.S. understand these problems is a great challenge.

New York city has one of better designs as a city

2005-12-20T23:11:00.000-08:00

I am not too crazy about talking or writing about terrorism and how our communities are prepared for it (for variety of reasons), but I want to say a few things about New York city on the subject since not many people are talking about it or writing about it.

Update 35: NYC Enters Second Day of Transit Strike

Millions of New Yorkers trudged to work Wednesday in another bone-chilling commute without subways and buses as a transit strike entered its second day, wearing both patience and shoe leather thin.

With contract talks still stalled, a judge fined the Transport Workers Union $1 million for each day of the strike, and lawyers were due back in court Wednesday.

The sanction was levied against workers for violating a state law that bars public employees from striking. The union said it would immediately appeal, calling the penalty excessive.

Source - Forbes

It is too bad that New York has entered the second day of strike, but it seems that much of the city is functioning without subway or bus; in fact, I just received email from a friend of mine in New York and she works at an office in Wall Street (and email had nothing to do with strike). Katrina proved that many communities in U.S. are not prepared for various disasters including natural disasters, but New York is coping with one of disasters, disabled mass transit as of right now. On one hand, the strike has been causing damages including economic damages; on the other hand, the strike has been proving that New York city has one of better designs as a city.

There is (almost) nothing wrong with making money, but ...

2005-12-20T14:50:00.000-08:00

Google offers very interesting services and has great potential of generating more revenue and making much bigger profit. Google News has not been monetized yet, though it is probably the most popular or second most popular news site on the internet (Yahoo News and Google News are probably #1 and #2). Google Images has not been monetized yet; Google Images does not run ads like Google Search and Froogle. Google earth is a very interesting product, and it has not been monetized yet. Google has a lot of potential. That said, stock is traded at $279.99 today (August 18th) and the company's market cap is $77.77 billion, while its revenue is $4.48 billion. Market cap is bigger than revenue times 17. Market evaluates Google too high in my opinion, and I wouldn't buy Google.

Source - investmentInTech.com

The stock is traded at $429.74 today and the company's market cap is $127.01 billion, while its revenue is $5.25 billion. Market cap is bigger than revenue times 24, and the stock price went up $150.00, roughly 50% just for the last 4 months. The price was too high 4 months ago, but it has gone up much higher. Why is the stock traded at such a high price? Many analysts and brokers say that the stock is basically priced with the presumption that Google, the company will be worth $127.01 billion several years from now. However, how would we react if we hear the following pitch. "I have a website and its revenue is $10,000.00. The website's profit is roughly $3,000.00, but the website will keep growing its revenue and profit dramatically for the next several years, so I price the website at $240,000.00. It's a good value." We'd think that this sounds crazy. Pricing is just ridiculous and the promise of the website's growing dramatically for the next several years is nothing short of scam or fraud. However, the pricing is basically the same as that of Google stock's pricing. That's how high the stock is priced. Executives and core members (venture capitalists and major investment banks) have already cached in, so they already made tons of money; they made money because of the funny Google story that so many people believe in today and the story has brought the stock price to $429.74.

There is (almost) nothing wrong with making money in America, which is a capitalism society. However, Google executives and core members (venture capitalists and major investment banks) made so much money while they created the illusion that the company is worth $127.01 billion. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right, but does it guarantee the rights to create an illusionary story that will never ever happen and make profit from it while the story telling essentially allows story tellers to take money from others? There is something wrong with this.

I picked Google, but the fact of the matter is that so many stocks are priced like this today, i.e., they are priced for expected values of companies several years from now. The fact of the matter is that most companies will not be as valuable as what the market values them today. If you understand that, there is a way to money, but if not, you are destined to lose money; it is quite difficult to believe that the market that functions like this serves our society. There is something wrong with this.

Our society pays bare minimum to get by to those whom we rely our lives on

2005-12-20T10:49:00.000-08:00

NYC commuters coping with transit strike

DEC. 20 12:56 P.M. ET Subways and buses ground to a halt Tuesday morning as transit workers walked off the job at the height of the holiday shopping and tourist season, forcing millions of riders to find new ways to get around.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had said the strike would cost the city as much as $400 million a day, joined the throngs of people crossing the Brooklyn Bridge as he walked from a Brooklyn emergency headquarters to City Hall.

"It's a form of terrorism, if you ask me," said Maria Negron, who walked across the bridge. "I hope they go back to work."

Click here to read the rest of the story

Those who drive buses and operate trains in New York are on strike today. They had been discussing about the possibility of strike since the beginning of December. December also happens to be the bonus season, and this is when many traders in New York (Wall Street) get bonuses.

Wall Street's bonus bonanza

At least $20bn is due to be handed out this week, taking the annual pay of some individuals above $10m.

Most 30-year-old traders can expect more than $500,000 extra in December's pay packet, according to insiders.

"It's all very hush hush", says Rich Blake, senior editor of Trader Monthly.

"But most guys are going to have the best year ever".

Click here to read the rest of the story

I am personally in great favor of people making as much money as they can. I do not think that there is anything inherently wrong about making a lot of money. However, those who trade stocks do not exactly provide basic needs to others; most people do not rely on traders everyday to make their living. Bus drivers and train operators, on the other hand, provide very basics needs to people in New York. Every New Yorker relies on them. Nonetheless, bus drivers and train operators only make above minimum wage, while (many) traders make millions of dollars. Our society pays bare minimum to get by to those whom we rely our lives on and pay millions of dollars and often much more to those who look at charts and trade stocks. Is there something wrong with the picture?