beech_35

What Went Wrong with California, New York, and New Jersey?

> Seven of the 10 highest property tax counties in America are located in New Jersey.

I used to live in one of them. $12,000 a year in property taxes alone. Some of my neighbors paid much more, up to $17,000 a year on a four bedroom home. Not a palace or anything. Several counties away another friend pays $77,000 (Summit). No, he's not a millionaire or anything. Yes that's only property taxes. Yes, I know you don't believe it.

Nearly ALL of my business clients have left NJ over the past 20 years or so, gone to other states, to Brazil or China, or just gone, leaving McDonald's and a few extremely high-profit pharmaceutical companies who make drugs for people who eat too much McDonald's. NJ's tax treatment of its citizens is bad enough but their business policies are worse. It imposes regulations on every conceivable activity. The state has driven business out while it treats its taxpayers like ATMs. California has gotten the spotlight recently, but NJ is close behind. It's a completely out of control government run amok. The residents who haven't fled the state have been caught sleeping.

New Jersey passed a law in 2005 that imposed a punitive capital gains tax on residents who sold their home without buying another in NJ. Despite that NJ has had a net loss of residents in recent years. Get out before they build a wall.

Do You Believe Banks Are Recovering? (Part 2)

> He was either the most incompetent Federal Reserve Chairman in history, or he was in the back pocket of the banking cartel.

Oh, the irony. Greenspan et al. isn't in the Fed's "back pocket". The Fed IS a banking cartel, James!

Alan Greenspan was an outspoken opponent of central banks and an advocate of the gold standard. Read his essay in Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

Once appointed to the Fed, he wisely decided to shut up.

Starve the Economic Beast, Part 3

> "If you decide to buy a car, don’t buy a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle. The government controls these entities. Don’t finance your car through GMAC. By denying the government beast its revenue stream, it will slowly die."

I refuse to support failed car makers, failed banks, or any other failed commercial enterprise. GM and Chrysler have utterly failed to compete in a global market. They've had three decades - an eternity in the brutally competitive business world - to adapt to and compete with foreign car makers. Three decades, and they've failed to produce a viable product that can sustain their business model. I do not intend to denigrate the many thousands of competent, hard working Americans employed by the car makers, but face it: their companies have failed them. Management has failed them with a combination of arrogance and ineptitude, incompetent marketing, and typical B-school attention on short-term success that guarantees CEO performance bonuses, but to the detriment of long-term viability and the subsequent loss of thousands of jobs.

Japanese car makers rose to success through uncompromising attention to quality, marvelous engineering, and brilliant marketing. The car I drive is seventeen years old, with nearly 200,000 miles, and never had any major problem. It has a sticker on the door pillar that says "Made in USA". It's a Honda. If I ever need to buy another car, I assure you it won't be a Mexican or Canadian built "American car". Today, China, Korea, and even India are diligently developing cars to compete with Japan. Their engineers are brilliant and their marketing efforts are energetic. Like Japan, their initial products have been almost laughable in execution. Like Japan, that will change in time. What is motivating Detroit to compete with them, when they're gorging themselves at the public trough?

In the history of the United States, literally millions of businesses have failed for one reason or another. Unlike GM or Chrysler, they didn't come crying to the US taxpayer for a handout. Their recourse was found in the bankruptcy code. It enables businesses with a successful plan to either emerge leaner and more competitive, or to be liquidated with the proceeds distributed among various creditors. Please tell me, when GM and Chrysler could no longer find a bank anywhere in the world to lend them any more money to remain viable, why was Congress then so eager to take BILLIONS out of my pocket and yours, completely short-circuiting the centuries-old bankruptcy code, only to have GM seek that route anyway? What does Congress know about building cars that no one else seems to know? What has our society gained, other than for the inept CEOs of large, obsolete, failed companies to realize that there is no risk in continuing their failed business plans. None at all, if the lender of last resort becomes the taxpayer, just as it has been with commercial banks since the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Yes, starve the failed businesses, starve the inept lenders, but you're attacking the wrong target: the real villain here is Congress. If no one buys GM or Chrysler, if no more qualified borrowers seek loans from commercial banks, Congress will simply give them more and more of your money to prop up businesses whose needs can't be sustained by the market. If no one buys the 40 mile range Chevy Volt or whatever insane product they develop, Congress will pass legislation that will effectively force you to, through trade barriers, incredibly punitive gas taxes, crushing regulations, or all of these.

Starve Congress. In November, 2010, fire the bastards. Fire all those who voted for the bank bailouts, the car bailouts, the porkulus, socialized medicine, cap-and-tax, "climate change", all of which are effectively selling your children and grandchildren into economic slavery and misery. The beast taking your freedom is Congress. Kill it.

Please: Let the market work. Let failed banks die. Let failed businesses restructure, become acquired by others, or disappear from the landscape so that successful ones can prosper. Our economy is very, very sick. It needs to purge itself of the toxins within it. Instead, Congress and the President are prescribing more and more painkillers that will only prolong the misery and do nothing to cure the disease.

Capitalism works - if you let it. Economic FREEDOM will ensure that we recover from this insane mess. Congress, by ensuring the general public is the final guarantor of credit to failed businesses, has removed an essential pillar of economic freedom - the element of risk that balances the rewards of capitalism. Without it, failure of the United States as a going concern becomes likely.

Hewlett-Packard: Not Just Another Computer Company

I'm not so certain. HPQ has tied its computing future to a dying platform that's not doing well adding to its customer base. Fiorina and now Hurd have gutted entire departments. Experienced talent is long gone, leaving those who can't go anywhere else and question what their experience is worth anyway. HP's computers are doing OK compared to others, but profit margins are slim and under constant pressure to become even slimmer.

As for their other product line mentioned... printers? You're joking, right? HP is no longer recognized for well-engineered products that last for years, preferring to focus on the short term success of cheap disposable junk. They have a lot of competition in that market, leaving consumers to bear the cost of "high-margined recurring profits from the sale of ink." How much are you willing to bet on their loyalty? Decide for yourself: Is HPQ a computer company or an ink vendor?

If HP is to thrive in the long term, they would do well to return to the vision held by its founders - produce high quality, well-engineered products that command a premium and earn them a loyal customer base. There's a huge void in that area today. Unless and until they return to that mission, they'll just languish. Right now, they best they can hope for is to be just another cheap disposable box vendor. Who needs another one of them?

No Rest for the Economy's Wicked Parties

War is peace: Iraq combat troops to be replaced with an "advisory and assistance brigade" - Fox News 2/27/09

Freedom is slavery: Unregulated capitalism caused the economic crisis - Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org

Ignorance is strength: Self-evident. What led to the rise of each party's Presidential nominee, if not ignorance of the problems we face, and the methods they proposed to address them?

There is hope for an economically bankrupt society, but none for a morally bankrupt one. God help us.

Apple Makes Its Way to an In-House Design Team

> there is an
> economy of scale that Apple will not be able to beat and would be
> etter off economically to buy from an outside source.

That may be true for the present but I'm not convinced it's a good plan going forward. It will require a major investment for which they aren't likely to see a return very soon, but Apple's been building a cash hoard for many years.

To build an in-house source for ASICs would be consistent with their history of desiring control over all aspects of their product development. Total control over product development is in Apple's DNA, so is their desire for total control of a product's market. This control serves to guarantee dominance over their competitors. They don't want to be held hostage to uncertainties related to outside sources - remember their huge investments in NAND memory starting a couple years ago? The next logical step is to pursue independence from vendors of ASICs, for which it has built a healthy cash reserve. Many uses for it have been proposed, such as dividend distribution or acquisition of another business as it did with PA Semi, but what would be the most appropriate use for those funds to secure the company's future, and consistent with its history? The question kind of answers itself when if think about it.

Apple is primarily a hardware manufacturer and its profits come primarily from computer products. Remember that Apple made its own chips in the past, only to abandon that effort as others did it more cost effectively while Apple struggled to survive. That's no longer the case.

U.S. Markets: Keep on Rockin' in the Free World

Awesome read. Very sobering material.

There is one faint hope for survival of our nation and our culture - an complete and total repudiation of the insanity our elected leaders have brought upon our society. Out of control, irresponsible spending by Congress and parties on both sides have mortgaged our children's future and squandered our labor and intellectual capital. What have these geniuses proposed as the cure to the economic misery we're facing? More of the same. I truly believe Paulson, Geitner and their ilk have no clue how real wealth is generated and how to government can best promote economic prosperity. Why do we keep reelecting these idiots?

Something is wrong when the Treasury Secretary can't understand his own income tax. Something is wrong when Congress exempts itself from the crushing regulations it continues to impose upon taxpayers and businesses, yet rewards itself with guaranteed pensions and benefits. Something is wrong when my child's gym teacher earns more than twice as much, and works half as many hours as a degreed professional working in the private sector AND is entitled to a guaranteed, inflation-adjusted pension upon retirement. Something is wrong when American companies have to go to China to escape burdensome regulations that hinder their economic success, and something is very, very wrong when the greatest country the world has ever known can't nominate better candidates for President than these clowns.

We need a massive revolution at the voting booth, lest we face a revolution of a sort too horrible to contemplate. November 2010 will be the turning point. If we don't identify, promote, and elect lawmakers who understand our very survival is at stake, the US will fall as surely as Rome.

How Soon Can Apple's Market Cap Surpass Microsoft's?

On Apr 24 12:53 PM Constable Odo wrote:

> cheap is going to severely limit Apple's growth to about 15%
> to 20% of the U.S. market.
Considering the U.S. market share leader is HPQ at 16%, I'd be delighted with that figure.

How Soon Can Apple's Market Cap Surpass Microsoft's?

On Apr 24 09:45 AM BobSmith wrote:

> There are Mac viruses to worry about.

Let me count them... zero! There are no Mac viruses. None. Count them yourself. Perhaps you should re-read that article:

> www.foxnews.com/story/...

"The iBotnet, a "Trojan horse" program, has appeared in *pirated copies* of Apple's productivity suite iWork 09"

First: A trojan is not a virus. They're completely different. A trojan is malicious software wrapped in the guise of something legitimate. Then, you're saying I should "worry about" malicious software from something you've ILLEGALLY DOWNLOADED, right? Illegally downloaded software is by definition illegitimate, so it's a stretch to even call this a trojan.

Any ten year old can write malware, call it something like "iLife 09 full install.dmg", and share it over a peer-to-peer network. If you're stupid enough to download and install it by providing your account name and password, then you've got more to worry about than viruses.

Let me repeat: there are no Mac viruses. Period. I run no - repeat NO - antivirus software, and yes, I am invulnerable. Have been for going on ten years now.

Invulnerable. It's a great feeling.

As far as cost of ownership is concerned... which platform is more expensive over a five year period? I suggest you look beyond the ridiculously low "teaser" prices of most PCs and find out yourself.

How Soon Can Apple's Market Cap Surpass Microsoft's?

Apple is well positioned to capitalize on a sea change in the personal computing market. Young people entering the business world today in the future were brought up on the iPod and iPhone and can't imagine a world without these great products. They're much more amenable to embracing the Mac platform than their predecessors, and they'll be the ones making purchase decisions, managing IT departments, and allocating budgets. Not only has the Windows platform become associated with stodgy, crash-prone, virus-infested misery, the aggregate amount of capital businesses have thrown toward Microsoft's failed productivity promises must be staggering. Continuing to throw money down that cost center hole is irresponsible and can no longer be tolerated.

Consider this simple question: do you know of anyone that migrated from a Microsoft platform to Apple who's regretted the decision?

I don't think Microsoft is going to go away completely - it has far more business segments than its sinking Windows flagship - but it's become the 21st century equivalent of IBM in the 80's: big, bloated, and unable to adapt nimbly to to the constant challenges from innovative competitors.

As far as market capitalization is concerned, when or if AAPL's exceeds MSFT's doesn't matter. Clearly one of these companies has far greater growth potential today than the other. So from an investor's standpoint, which presents a better investment decision?

Apple Sales Look Healthy

No discounting in a down market speaks volumes about their product draw. Educational discounts have always been available, but they're on the order of 5%.

The iPhone ought to be thought of as an exquisitely engineered, fully functional computer that happens to have a phone. There are no comparable products from any other company so Apple is enjoying a well-justified monopoly. What meaningful competition does Apple really have with any of its products?

Please: to make a noun plural, add an s. No apostrophe. Grammatical errors diminish your message.

Why Apple Belongs in Every Portfolio

Flawed numbers but the idea is spot on. Investors are only starting to realize what consumers have known for nearly two decades: Apple has proven itself as a time-tested producer of innovative consumer gear with no equal. They've flooded the world with white earbuds and found their stride in the most successful mobile phone the world has ever known. For a decade now they've continued to hone an advanced line of computers while leaving the rest of the industry in the dust, searching for ways to make the same old tired technology cheaper.

It was only a short time ago they were ridiculed for holding only about two percent of the computer market. They are closing in on (and some estimates put it over) ten percent. A five-fold increase. Care to guess what market share it would take for them to be the biggest computer maker in the world? Only about sixteen percent, the market share held by HPQ with Dell a distant second. Pretty impressive when you appreciate the likelihood that Apple's products enjoy a significantly greater profit margin than any Windows box maker.

Look beyond the consumer market, where Apple has visibly established a strong foothold. The PC market has long been dominated by businesses who force IT support-intensive Windows products on their employees, most of whom would choose Macs if given a chance. Who will drive this market in the future? Legions of youngsters who grew up with iPods and are now buying iPhones by the millions are entering the business world and will reject the failed increased office productivity promises that Microsoft has been peddling for far too long. Microsoft has become synonymous with staid, aging, crash-prone and virus-infested software. The very Windows metaphor itself is tired. The world will soon look back on MSFT having reached the pinnacle of its success with Windows XP.

For entertainment's sake, I keep a library of many dimwitted pundit articles who have written about Apple's demise for years. To wit:

Apple should license its operating system - just like MSFT
The iMac is doomed for its lack of a floppy disk (who remembers floppy disks?)
Apple retail stores will fail just like Gateway's (who remembers Gateway?)
Apple's iPod is an iFlop
Apple should "pull the plug" on its iPhone

...and anything John Dvorak has ever said.

To paraphrase an early Rolling Stone's review of a little known New Jersey musician: I have seen computing's future, and its name is AAPL.

Microsoft vs. Apple: Monopolist vs. Innovator

Hmm... The dominant OS for the servers that run the internet is FreeBSD and other Unix-like open source kernels. OS X is built on these kernels. OS X Server has been around for years. It runs on all its computers including its server grade hardware, Xserve. I'm not concerned :-)


On Mar 31 02:39 PM RLLH wrote:

> What will happen when and
> if it must support non Apple products?

Microsoft vs. Apple: Monopolist vs. Innovator

On Mar 31 03:07 PM SiliconValleyJoe wrote:

> Not sure what is meant by "supporting non Apple products". ...
> Apple does not make routers. Apple works with other WiFi stations.

Actually, Apple does make routers: The Airport Extreme, Express, and Time Capsule. Each are capable of performing the functions of routers, switches, and bridges. They all work with other wired and wireless devices from any manufacturer that complies with network standards.

Any Apple computer can share its drives, network connections, and printers with any other computer. You can also install any operating system you like, and as many as you like. Apple's computers are the epitome of interoperability.

Microsoft vs. Apple: Monopolist vs. Innovator

"A Mac normally costs twice as much as a PC with similar processing power." This is a false and horribly outdated statement. There is no difference in price between an Apple and similarly equipped Windows PC. None. Apple simply does not build stripped computers - they all have built-in wired and wireless networking, a variety of connection ports, webcams, generous memory and hard disk capacity. They all come with iLife, a product with no Windows counterpart. Safari is the world's fastest, secure, and standards compliant browser. You can run any number of other browsers too, while MSIE represents the biggest virus vector there has ever been. They require no virus protection or removal software - I've never used any and most Apple users don't either.

OS X is a mature and rock-solid operating system, while Vista has been an abject failure. Now MSFT wants us to ignore this and all its previous failed promises and run out to buy Windows 7? Apparently, they are counting on 88% of the market being really, really ignorant. Perhaps they are.

Apple's products also last longer. When you factor replacement cost, Apple computers become much cheaper than any Windows PC. Not only does any significant release of Windows usually require an investment in new hardware while OS X doesn't, Apple's build quality is legendary. I have several laptops, the oldest of which is seven years old and still runs Apple's latest version of OS X, comfortably. None of my Apple computers - NONE, since 1985, has ever broken. Ever. All I've done is added memory and upgraded their hard disk drives. Compare this with my two year old HP/Compaq NC6400, which has been sent back to the factory twice and now has a failing display.

Conclusion: Apple is better, cheaper, easier to use, and easier to own. To spend $599 on a Windows computer is to throw away $599.