Contributor since: 2009
@danf Military spending will be cut. But that is more than likely is going to be things like 9/11 spending and contractor spending. DC is a bit overbuilt with fat salaries and "security contracts". I wouldn't mind big cuts there to be honest--or in government salaries. Re Afghanistan it depends on what you mean by the word "abandon".
I appreciate that. Thank you!
Thank you!
The price points for the x86 and RISC units will converge over time with high end x86 being smaller and smaller pieces of the market. If they don't win in RISC, they are out.
Not sure what you are seeing in terms of progress Intel is making. I don't see anything like that.
@Julian Ivan-Alexander.
Actually, I write about what I invest in and am curious about.
Well, it actually is not clear at all whether the exclusivity deal extends to a 10 inch device. It depends on the wording and I doubt that either sides lawyers. More than likely it's general enough to be a problem for either side.
I do agree though that it will more than likely be announced on multiple carriers although availability dates may be impacted by that agreement. It's not public what the actual agreement says regarding "other potentially related devices". I've asked around for years now.
Wifi. If it is not a mobile device it really doesn't need anything else.
It can't be. But if it's too large to fit in a pocket, is it really mobile?
Well no, it just needs to be something I can fit in my pocket and can take with me. It doesn't technically have to "fold" --but they need a way to make it mobile.
James- I'm not assuming they are warehousing spectrum. Since the spectrum cap was removed they've been rather practices in buying up huge chunks to keep others out. Do some research on the last 5 auctions--who bought and what they are doing with that spectrum now.
I agree on Video taking the most bandwidth but that is a pretty consensus idea.
The government already meddle's in the space by:
1) setting MPG standards far lower than in Europe and Japan based on lobbying by US car makers. Look how that turned out.
2) Setting a gax much lower than elsewhere -- that causes over consumption relative to other country. Granted Europe and Japan both have better public transportation than in the US which is a greater alternative.
On Dec 05 10:57 PM dividend_growth wrote:
> With NG as cheap as it is now, the market can take care of itself.
> There is no need for more government meddling here. According to
> EIA, new NG electricity generating capacity already dwarfs everything
> else.
Well I myself have never railed against any subsidy for anything produced domestically as long as it is produced here.
On Dec 04 12:57 PM Daxtatter wrote:
> One thing I always found curious is that conservatives, who rail
> against subsidies for renewables, support subsidies for nuclear and
> natural gas vehicles (yes, nuclear is subsidized under Bush's energy
> bill).
> Anywho, while I do think CNG has a place in some areas for certain
> purposes, particularly in NG producing regions and areas with local
> air quality problems, making it a cornerstone of our light vehicle
> transportation isn't a great idea. First, such an increase in demand
> for NG would put enormous strain on our existing NG infrastructure,
> and in many parts of the country CNG isn't really much cheaper if
> the full fuel tax that gasoline is charged was charged on it. Second,
> NG is already going to see huge demand spikes in the future because
> with higher emissions standards and cap and trade, new coal is basically
> out of the question. Most new electricity capacity is wind and NG
> (which actually compliment each other quite nicely), and that trend
> is only going to become more prevalent.
Not correct. Not if the bulk of the money is going into short term, not long term securities. i.e. very short duration treasury securties.
If banks stop putting their money in shorter duration--the curve will flatten to reflect the mediocre growth we are probably going to get. i.e. the curve will be less steep and reflect the bond markets actual view of economic prospects. Not the very postitive V curve recovery the steepest curve in 25 years would suggest.
On Dec 13 09:42 AM chap08 wrote:
> "It would be an interesting exercise to impute the price of treasuries
> if you took out all the capital going to the government and put it
> into the private sector instead.
> 1) Government borrowing rates would be higher
> 2) Spreads would be more narrow
> 3) The yield curve would not be as steep."
> Say again? If govt borrowing rates were higher, the yield curve would
> be EVEN MORE, not less, steep. Short term rates will always be largely
> determined by the Fed Funds (it will be close to zero either way).
> If longer term Treasury yields are higher, then you've got yourself
> a steeper yield curve. Plus - if there was any commercial lending
> taking place, inflation expectations would be higher and this would
> also be reflected in a steeper yield curve until the Fed decided
> to raise rates.

Hi Ed,
I hear what you are saying but in the US--even if you have private insurance you can still have your claim denied.
I think the system the US has now really can't be called a free market and is "socialized". The amount you put in terms of premiums does not correspond to the amount you get out in benefits. Especially if you don't have insurance at all. i.e. It's socialist already. My point is--move either to the Swiss approach for a more leaner system or go for the 100% public option. No matter what, someone will be making cost benefit decisions like those that you described, either the government or insurance cos.
Thanks for the comment.
On Oct 17 01:33 PM ed233 wrote:
> I live in Canada. I dare say Canadians would if polled vote in the
> majority for a private insurance program as opposed to a single payer
> Medicare system. Let me give you something to think about. Most of
> Americans I believe are approaching retirement age. Likewise it is
> the same in Canada. A few years ago, I reached 65 years of age. I
> was actively engaged in the construction business, self employed.
> I performed a lot of physical work which caused severe pain with
> my rotator cuff. A scan confirmed that I truly suffered damage. I
> also like to play golf but this has become very difficult given my
> type of physical deficiency. I approached my doctor about having
> an operation which would allow me to function more efficiently and
> continue with my golf . My doctor told me that Medicare wouldn't
> approve of this because I'm too old. He suggested using a Medicare
> approved drug to camouflage my pain. When you think about this you
> have to weigh the common sense of such a solution. How much would
> drugs cost over my expected life span? I thought to myself that if
> I have to go that route I'll simply put up with the pain or discontinue
> playing golf. When Mr.Obama gets his sort of universal(staged in)
> health care into place, that's the type of thing you'll confront
> not to mention excessive delays. This my dilemma going forward, what
> happens if I need a more expensive operation(life saving) should
> I reach the ripe old age of 80 years? An old gentlemen was recently
> turned out of his subsidized apartment and shortly thereafter died
> homeless on the streets of Toronto recently. That's what socialism
> means in my country. Nobody ever wants medical coverage denied to
> anybody. But given my circumstances I'll choose a private plan any
> day that isn't too outrageous as far as premiums are concerned as
> opposed to our Canadian Medicare system given the opportunity. But
> they will not let me opt out. If you don't want the same predicament
> you might consider writing to your local representative to express
> your views before it's too late. Failure could lead you to be saddled
> with an eventual bankrupt payer system that suggests it treats all
> people equally. But, of course, if you're a celebrity, famous sports
> person or a politician there are always exceptions. LOL Looking after
> your money.
I agree that some people "overuse" health care. They either have a government plan or a "gold plated" plan that encourages over consumption.
However--I do think the government has to have some sort of subsidy to make sure all citizens have both 1) preventative care and 2) emergency stabilizaton care?
Why? Because we require it by law anyway. Even if you are not a citizen the courts require emergency care and sometimes a bit more than that if you show up at a hospital. You either have to get rid of that law, or you need to subsidize preventive care? It's a measure of practicality since it ends up costing the government a lot less in the long run if everyone has basic preventative care.
Hope that makes sense.
On Oct 14 04:39 PM Gedankonomist wrote:
> "As someone who has greatly benefited from the “free market” and
> innovation, I’m a strong advocate of the free market example set
> by Switzerland."
> Well, it's not really a "free market" when the government subsidizes
> it.
> The reason why "healthcare" is so expensive in the US is because
> people over-use it. A rise in demand holding supply constant creates
> an increase in price. Why is the demand high? Because if the insurance
> provider (and/or gov't) "pays" for it, then people don't worry about
> paying for it when they use it. But you do pay for it, sooner or
> later. It's the same principle behind credit cards.
> You want to lower "healthcare" costs in the US? Start by getting
> the government out of it. Uncle Sam is like the movie character
> "Beetlejuice." You don't want his help.
I have looked at a lot of data and I have not seen those numbers. If you could point me to your source data, that would be great. Most of the numbers of % of GDP spent on health care for France and the UK are relatively consistent and public so I'd appreciate seeing different data.
thanks for the comment.
On Oct 14 08:59 AM chap08 wrote:
> "On the other end of the spectrum, you have the purely socialized
> system in the UK and France with spending at about 8% of GDP"
> This is wrong and points to a flaw in your argument. In both the
> UK and France, there is extensive use of private health insurance.
> In the UK this is about 18% of the total and in France 22% of the
> total. They both have "hybrid" health systems and both end up spending
> massively less than us on healthcare.
> The US system is a farce, but that's not because it's a hybrid.

I agree with your point that almost any system is better than what we have now. If we took virtually any health care system from any democracy, it would more than likely be better than what we have now. Especially from a cost perspective.
On Oct 14 08:14 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:
> The simple fact is, if businesses didn't shoulder a lot if not most
> of the cost there would have been health care reform a long time
> ago. Healthcare costs in the US are astronomical, inefficient, filled
> with bureaucracy, with tons of people who are not medical expects
> feeding off of the system from insurance companies, HMO's, and lawyers.
> It is shameful that the best medical professionals have to watch
> as their patients are subjected to a system that is injurious to
> everyone.
> It is almost safe to say that any system is better than the one we
> have today. The author's belief that the hybrid system is at fault
> is largely true. Our doctors and medical staff are subjected to legal
> suits, forced free labor under long hors and stressful conditions,
> and some are underpaid and saddled with ridiculous education bills
> while the medical insurance companies and lawyers find any and all
> ways to deny medical coverage and operations to those that need them.
> Scrapping the existing system hurts medical practitioners a lot less
> (if at all) than the leeches connected to medical services. That's
> why a majority of doctors are rooting for heath system reform.<br/>
> Personally, I tend to follow the doctor's reccomendations. It's usually
> in my best interest.
The key thing guys---is I thing the IPod Touch and Tablet will be positioned as portable computers. So a separate product launch and upgrade from the music players. Leaves room for new event.
No the point of the sentence is that in a few years AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile will all be using the same technology standard. Namely LTE.
And as far as it not being sternly worded--they launched an investigation and you shouldn't be too shocked if there are some major changes in regulation. And if you read my list of prediction list, an anti trust investigation was one of them.
Thanks for the comment.
On Aug 02 12:25 PM Don Bowey wrote:
> That is NOT a "sternly worded letter," it's a straightforward request
> for information. Firsthand, I know what a sternly worded letter
> from the FCC looks like. Your entire blogish article is wrought
> with attitude and little of value.
> Many of your fanciful thoughts deserve corrective comment, but I'll
> just settle on one: "With T-Mobile, AT&amp;T and Verizon all on
> the same network, there will be more competition as the same devices
> leverage the same air interface." They are NOT all on the same network.
> You apparently understand nothing about cellular service. Spend
> some time googling.
Hi Alan. I think the problem may be--if they cop to that 10%--the other 90% will ask for the same deal. In short, I think this is an unwise fight that is bad for Schwab.
Hi Robert-Interesting viewpoint that health services by some intrinsic nature were not marketable goods.
How does this argument have merit given many European government have private health care companies. For example, in Switzerland where people spend 11% of GDP on health care they population there can buy insurance from a system of over 85 insurers. Europe and Canada provide a good example of systems with varying mixes of prriate and public that we can use to redesign our own system. If you believe that health care is not a marketable good you better tell Switzerland.
As far Paul Krugman, I would argue he is so partisan in his economics his views have to be discounted as a political polemic rather than economics.
Interesting comment although we disagree. Thanks.
On Jul 28 11:37 PM Robert0713 wrote:
> You really need to read some basic economics. Try Krugman's column
> in the Times a couple of days ago. Health care is systematically
> not a marketable good. Period. Full stop. Get some intelligence.
> And stop reading Ayn Rand. That will rot your brain.