SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (22510)1/1/2004 11:49:46 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793677
 
Interesting computer story from "The Corner." I agree with the advice of the guy at the end of it.

CRI DE COMPUTER [Peter Robinson ]
As I type this I am, as I have been for time on end, on hold, the phone balanced between my shoulder and my head, with a crick developing in my neck that's beginning to throb.

I suppose I should have known better. I went to Costco, and, thinking that by spending more rather than less money I'd be saving myself problems, bought the most expensive HP Pavilion computer that was on offer, a gorgeous system (or so I thought), with a gigantic monitor and an Pentium 4 processor running at 3.0 MHz. Spent a day-and-a-half setting up the machine and loading it up with our software. Yesterday, tug on sleeve.

"Dad, the computer isn't working."

"What do you mean? It's brand new."

"I know. But it still isn't working."

The problem? The kids' favorite game, Warcraft III, refused to boot up. I monekeyed with the computer for a couple of hours, involving my brother in all this by putting the poor man, who knows a lot more about computers than yours truly, on speakerphone, and keeping him there. All that we managed to achieve was the strange state of affairs in which, if you attempted to play Warcraft immediately after rebooting the computer, you do so between two and six times, but never again, instead getting an error message informing you that no CD was in the CD tray, even though there most certainly was.

Then I spent an hour on the telephone with technical support at Blizzard Entertainment, which makes Warcraft, and which is $40 to the better after my purchase of same. The techie had me download this and that patch, none of which work, and finally told me the problem lay in my having old drivers for my DVD-ROM and DVD+RW. The solution? Get in touch with HP. Which I did, instantly getting through to technical support, which is no particular surprise, since by now it was one in the morning. The HP techie listened to my woes for only a moment or two before suggesting that I take the machine back to Costco to have it replaced. Since I'd spent hour on hour setting the machine up in the first place, I went to bed last night feeling a strange combination of anger and fury.

Deciding to give HP one last try this morning, I called 1-800-HP-INVENT. After remaining on hold for 20 minutes, I finally got through to a technician who listened to my trouble, then said he'd transfer me to yet another technician. Ten seconds later, the line went dead. I called HP yet again. Yet again I remained on hold for a good long time. Yet again I got through to a technician, and this one actually sounded especially well-spoken, sympathetic, and determined to help. Five minutes into our conversation, the line went dead.

So here I sit, good readers. My brand-new, putatively slick-as-could-be HP computer has so far cost many, many hundreds of dollars of my extremely hard-earned money and almost two days of my life--two days in which I should have been playing with my kids, making notes on my next book, and, yes, watching Mrs. Miniver.

If anybody at HP technical support reads this happy Corner, would he kindly let Carly Fiornia know that the next time she gives an interview to Forbes or Fortune in which she blithely claims to be turning HP around, at least one of her customers will merely emit a bitter laugh.

Cri de Computer, Cont’d. [Peter Robinson]
Not long ago Carly Fiorina, chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard, merged HP with Compaq, dramatically expanding HP’s presence in the market for computers used in homes and small businesses. At the time, I thought the move made sense: If you’re going to be in a business, you might as well grab as much of the market as you can. But after working my way through the more than five dozen emails that I received yesterday, I’m beginning to wonder why Fiorna bothered.

One email, I should immediately note, came from Rosemary Shanahan, a “customer advocate” at HP headquarters here in Northern California. Accepting her invitation to give her a call, I quickly learned that Rosemary is

a) articulate and enormously charming, just the right sort of person to place in customer relations,

b) an admirer of Ronald Reagan (she had just finished Reagan: A Life In Letters, Rosemary explained, and intended to turn next to my own book, How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life, all of which I of course took as further evidence of point a)

c) determined to find someone at HP who can solve my problem. “We’ll bring this to a satisfactory conclusion,” Rosemary said. “That’s my promise.”

Rosemary has now assigned my problem to a case worker, from whom, she tells me, I can expect to hear tomorrow or early next week. Whereas the first person in the HP system with whom I spoke--a technician at a call center situated, to judge from the technician’s accent and the bad telephone connection, in India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh--listened to me describe what was wrong with my brand new computer for no more than two minutes before recommending that I exchange it, in Rosemary Shanahan I have found someone with enough loyalty to HP to want to fix the problem.

I’ve also learned that HP is full of such loyal employees. One sent me an email asking me to go easy on Carly Fiorina, arguing that she had inherited the company at a difficult time. Another sent emailed to apologize--apologize, mind you--for all the time I’d wasted working my way through HP’s system for customer support. (When I wrote yesterday’s posting, you may recall, I was on hold. When an HP operator finally answered, she explained that the company was overhauling its telephone lines. Then she cheerfully transferred me to a technician, whereupon, for the third time in a row, I found myself disconnected.) But why is HP in the computer business at all?

Whereas Apple designs and manufactures all its own components, I learned yesterday, HP, like Gateway and Dell, purchases its components from a variety of suppliers--my DVD-ROM drive, for example, was built by Samsung, my DVD+RW drive by Phillips. Managing this process--making certain that the dozens of components in each computer work well with each other and with the thousands of pieces of software with which they might be used--represents an enormously complicated business problem. Providing technical support for tens of thousands of customers represents a second such problem. Dell and Gateway have always been organized specifically to handle these problems. HP, a much older company, has instead had to learn how to handle these problems while continuing to handle the problems in its many other businesses. On the evidence of my inbox, HP has never even come close to succeeding.
Before I retired, one of my jobs in the Army was managing/developing/fielding a training simulation system. I was a $10mil customer of HP. And the customer service I got was no better than what you got.

I bought two [HP} Pavilions one year. They make excellent doorstops or boat anchors.

Trust me on this. I do PC support for a living and have worked on all brands of PC's. Take the HP back to Costco. Get a full refund. Get online and order a DELL.

I am a software engineer…and my job has exposed me to a wide variety of systems….If you want to stick to a name brand PC buy Dell or Gateway or if money is burning a hole in your pocket, Sony. If you want to go cheap, buy a system put together by Fry's…or one of those little independent computer stores. That way if something doesn't work, you can take it over there and yell at them in person. Just stay away from HP.
Which brings us back to my original question. Although her company seems to have been doing a mediocre job at best of selling mass-market PCs, Carly Fiorina went to great lengths to increase HPs commitment to the business, merging HP with Compaq. As my brother put it, “They were doing a lousy job in a terrible business--the margins on PCs are razor thin--so Fiorina decided she wanted more?”

I’ll let you know how things go with my HP case worker. And if the delightful Rosemary Shanahan can put me in touch with someone who can make sense of HP’s business strategy, I’ll let you know that, too.
nationalreview.com



To: KLP who wrote (22510)1/2/2004 12:40:07 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793677
 
I never miss a column by Postrel.

January 1, 2004 New York Times
ECONOMIC SCENE
Avoiding Previous Blunders
By VIRGINIA POSTREL

THOSE who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. To that old saw, an economist might reply, "If only it were so easy." Then every country could be rich.

Alas, the process of economic development is hard to repeat. The great mystery is why. In recent years, economists have returned to their field's oldest question: What accounts for the wealth of nations?

"The real question now that everybody wants to know is, 'Why isn't the whole world rich? Why can't they be like us? Why couldn't the former Soviet Union become immediately like Switzerland or Denmark? Why is Africa mired in this horrible pool of poverty?' " says Joel Mokyr, an economic historian at Northwestern University.

"Once you admit that that question is on your agenda, which it now is, you can't do without history," he continues, "because you want to know how the rich countries got to be where they are. You need to look at their experience and compare it to the experience of the others." Those who do not learn from history may in fact never repeat it.

Professor Mokyr is the editor of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History, a five-volume set just published by Oxford University Press. The encyclopedia took 10 years to complete, a short time given its scope. "Economic history," Professor Mokyr writes in the preface, "covers nothing less than the entire material existence of the human past."

The encyclopedia gives theoretical economists a way to check their ideas against the realities of the past. "You guys can't write these big, fancy models without looking at the details," Professor Mokyr says.

The encyclopedia does indeed provide lots of interesting details.

Did you know that the oldest records of chemical pest control date back 4,500 years, to Sumerian farmers who used sulfur compounds to kill insects and mites?

Or that a century ago, railroad companies accounted for half the securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange? (Before the railroads, with their huge demand for capital, securities markets traded almost entirely in government debt.)

Or that in 1850, shoemaking employed more workers in the United States than any other manufacturing business?

The past doesn't look quite like we tend to picture it: many of the people who got rich from the Industrial Revolution were not industrialists, but landowners who held urban real estate or property with access to water power or mines. From 1880 to 1914, unions went on strike at least 50 times to stop American employers from hiring black workers. Above all, Professor Mokyr says, "in the Middle Ages and in classical antiquity, the destitute were the vast majority of the population."

Some consistent themes emerge from the many and varied entries. One is the importance of technological innovation in raising living standards.

Consider cotton, an expensive and relatively unimportant textile until the mid-18th century, when spinning became mechanized. Before that innovation, an Indian hand spinner took 50,000 hours - the equivalent of five years and nine months - to spin 100 pounds of cotton. After the invention of the hand-operated cotton mule spinning machine in the 1760's, that time dropped to 300 hours. With the mule, human fingers no longer had to spin the threads, thread could be spun on many bobbins at the same time, and the strength of the thread improved significantly. After 1825, when the self-acting mule spinner automated the process, spinning 100 pounds of cotton took 135 hours. Cotton became a cheap and common cloth, and cotton production a major industry.

Technology even makes an appearance in the entry on religion, which cites estimates that "attribute 90 percent of income growth in England and the United States after 1780 to technological innovation, not mere capital accumulation." The relative insignificance of savings undercuts Max Weber's famous theory that Protestant thrift was the key to capitalist growth.

Another theme is the importance of legal and social institutions, which evolved differently depending on circumstances.

Take marriage payments, a once-common practice. In agricultural economies dependent on hoe cultivation, marrying off a daughter costs the family a valuable field worker. So grooms traditionally pay a bride price. Where farming depends on guiding heavy plows pulled by animals, by contrast, men are more valuable, and brides' families pay dowries. In modern economies, inherited familial wealth is less important than individual skills, brains are more important than brawn, and dowries and bride prices have mostly disappeared.

Like technologies, institutions also compete and change, with new and improved versions emerging over time. That evolution can change the relative economic positions of different parts of the world.

Until the 17th century, the Muslim Middle East was more economically advanced than Christian Europe. Islamic law allowed much more flexible partnership arrangements than Christian customs, giving Muslim regions a commercial advantage. (Non-Muslim businesses in these areas usually chose to be governed by Islamic law.)

The hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, also fostered international trade. Many pilgrims combined business and religious duty, financing their trips through trade along the way, and sometimes coming home richer than they left.

But these once-helpful institutions eventually put the Muslim world at a commercial disadvantage. Islamic partnerships remained two-person ventures into the 19th century. Meanwhile, European laws developed more varied and complex partnership and corporate forms, allowing larger and more adaptable ventures. Meanwhile, the very success of the hajj trade discouraged the development of the nonreligious commercial fairs that spurred growth in Northern Europe.

Despite all the differences across time and space, Professor Mokyr says: "There are certain unifying themes that you see everywhere. People have to make a living. People would rather have more than to have less. On the whole, they don't behave stupidly. They do as well as they can under the circumstances. The variation is in the circumstances, in the richness and diversity of human economic institutions that have emerged over time."

Virginia Postrel is the author of "The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture and Consciousness,'' published by HarperCollins.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: KLP who wrote (22510)1/2/2004 1:46:29 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793677
 
The "unintended consequences" of Immigrants, both legal and ilegal.



washingtonpost.com
Better Than Foreign Aid

By Marcela Sanchez

Friday, January 2, 2004; Page A21

In less than two weeks, the leaders of the 34 democracies in the Americas will meet in Mexico at a special summit to address one central question: How, as economies grow and wealth is created, can societies benefit as a whole?

So far they have not. In fact, nearly one of every two people in Latin America and the Caribbean live in poverty today and one in five in extreme poverty. According to the World Bank, the richest one-tenth of the population receives 48 percent of all income and the poorest one-tenth gets only 1.6 percent.

The leaders will arrive in Monterrey with ambitious strategies for solving the great problem of wealth inequality. But the truth of the matter is that in one fascinating, unique and seemingly unstoppable way, wealth is being distributed right under their noses. And all leaders should be hard pressed to address the moral and fundamental dilemma that this fully functioning system now poses.

I am not talking about any far-reaching land reform program or micro-enterprise lending initiative. I am talking about remittances -- the billions of dollars sent every year by migrants in the United States and elsewhere to their families in Latin America. By last count, remittances totaled more than $32 billion annually -- an amount so great that it surpasses foreign aid, trade and investment for several countries in the region and now has a place on the short list of the leaders' top considerations for regional economic growth.

As an equalizing force, remittances work by placing money in the hands of those traditionally left out of economic gains. They are helping transform communities in remote and neglected areas with cash for the kind of development that governments and politicians have rarely delivered.

Remittances also challenge the high-minded suppositions of regional leaders. They offer the most powerful argument against those, such as Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, who will arrive at the summit declaring that governments must work to redistribute wealth through a new hemispheric social contract.

Indeed, for leaders such as President Bush, who promote equity through the creation of new opportunities, such talk of redistribution is a relic of a failed socialist ideology. If anything, remittances demonstrate that government involvement is practically unnecessary.

After years of empty promises from corrupt or ineffective governments, regional leaders find themselves playing at most a supportive role by trying to lower the cost of sending the cash and, in some cases, matching funds for immigrant-motivated local development projects such as schools or roads.

But remittances also shine a light on the two uncomfortable truths that so many avoid: that the much-desired billions in development aid that remittances represent come partly from the labor of those who work and live elsewhere illegally, and that "creating opportunity" has come to mean opportunity for those willing to live in the shadows in the most prosperous nation on the planet.

For years -- despite the risks, the distances and the gamble -- thousands of desperate Latin American workers have been going north. Most recent studies on remittances have found, for instance, that families frequently make a collective decision about which relative will go to lead the family out of poverty.

U.S. policymakers have mostly looked the other way, and through their silence or inaction are allowing those workers to live in the United States illegally. And so today an estimated 8 million people live in an under-the-radar situation here that seems hypocritical if not immoral, especially in the face of the argument that creating better chances for prosperity is the way out of poverty.

So, the question that remains is whether this system of migratory work and economic growth through illegally earned remittances is the kind of opportunity envisioned for the people of the Americas.

Even before the summit begins, Bush is expected to unveil the most far-reaching proposal for immigration reform in nearly two decades. The plan would include a new program of temporary work visas, as well as a way to grant legal status to some of the immigrants already in the United States. These ideas will be welcome, but many analysts argue that the president's proposal is more of an election-year ploy than a moral or philosophical manifesto.

Those who may be thinking that this could be the occasion for diplomacy to thank politics for saving it from embarrassment should think again. There is no telling how awkward it will be for presidents and prime ministers to sign a declaration later this month that pays deference to capital partly earned illegally while keeping silent about the legal status of those providing such wealth.

desdewash@washpost.com

© 2004 The Washington Post Company