Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (182977)	3/6/2006 1:25:21 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

USA Corporations are just less-bad than governments, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of how great they are. I keep forgetting about the word normalization thingy. Any day now I'm going to get around to uploading my extensive research on government spiv DNA. Take a class in evolutionary biology first, and pay special attention to the discussion on speciation and how that is thought to occur. You seem to have some entirely novel notions in the field, perhaps you could submit a paper on the subject :) You are obviously a white person as people who understand statistics better [Asian-Americans and Ashkenazis] wouldn't make that mistake. Especially after having been lectured about it a few posts ago. I was wondering if you would catch that one :))) In fact, the harebrained scheme was the scheme come up with by the electricity supply deregulators who completely hashed it. Yes, the main problem was deregulating the producers and PUDs while not the end consumers. The problem wasn't what Enron did in response [leaving aside any criminal things they might have done which is a separate issue]. It was the rules in which Enron had to work. What Enron and others did wrt to California was a major part of the problem, and AFAIK has not been proven illegal. Not only Enron, but many of the dot commers in a wide range of businesses were doing the same thing, round trip deals. In the case of Enron and the energy boys, they simple exploited the highly nonlinear price environment. It was a textbook example of an unregulated market having unique dynamics, and greed without principle working every angle for another buck. That is just pure capitalism. Nothing illegal about it. Ah, I see the misunderstanding there. The government spivs don't necessarily get rich, though the hangers-on often do, who harvest the stupid ideas that the government spivs come up with. The spivs are geneticly incapable of making loads of money in the private sector, or even functioning in it, which is why they gravitate to sinecures in government. Well, they can function, but not particularly well. Even if they are good and get into government by mistake, they are hog-tied by all surrounding them. Which happens in the corporate world too of course, but not as badly. As another example of private vs public, perhaps you could apply your considerable talent to analyzing Stanford University v.s. UC Berkeley. Two very good schools, one private (therefore good I assume) the other public (therefore inefficient by your factor of 2-4 I assume). If you are concerned that these are anomalies, feel free to expand your labor to N=30 by looking at the top ranked 30 private and public universities in the US. Since I went to Stanford, I know a number of profs there, and I also know a number from Berkeley. Can't say I see anything like a factor of 2 difference in their performance. Can you enlighten me on why this might be?