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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (751501)	11/6/2013 4:27:38 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577593

Do you admit that actions which by "common sense" should boost economic activity can in fact do the opposite? For example building houses.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (751501)	11/7/2013 12:14:29 AM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1577593

Here's the theory for you, Ten: en.wikipedia.org " Examples[ edit] Polaroid instant cameras have disappeared almost completely with the spread of digital photography. Schumpeter (1949) in one of his examples used "the railroadization of the Middle West as it was initiated by the Illinois Central." He wrote, "The Illinois Central not only meant very good business whilst it was built and whilst new cities were built around it and land was cultivated, but it spelled the death sentence for the [old] agriculture of the West." [19] Companies that once revolutionized and dominated new industries – for example, Xerox in copiers [20] or Polaroid in instant photography have seen their profits fall and their dominance vanish as rivals launched improved designs or cut manufacturing costs. In technology the cassette tape replaced the 8-track, only to be replaced in turn by the compact disc, which was undercut by MP3 players, which will in turn eventually be replaced by newer technologies. Companies which made money out of technology which becomes obsolete do not necessarily adapt well to the business environment created by the new technologies. One such example is the way in which online ad-supported news sites such as The Huffington Post and Zero Hedge are leading to creative destruction of the traditional newspaper. The Christian Science Monitor announced in January 2009 [21] that it would no longer continue to publish a daily paper edition, but would be available online daily and provide a weekly print edition. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer became online-only in March 2009. [22] At a national level, employment in the newspaper business fell from 455,700 in 1990 to 225,100 in 2013. Over that same period, employment in internet publishing and broadcasting grew from 29,400 to 121,200. [23] Traditional French alumni networks, which typically charge their students to network online or through paper directories, are in danger of creative destruction from free social networking sites such as Linkedin and Viadeo. [24] In fact, successful innovation is normally a source of temporary market power, eroding the profits and position of old firms, yet ultimately succumbing to the pressure of new inventions commercialised by competing entrants. Creative destruction is a powerful economic concept because it can explain many of the dynamics or kinetics of industrial change: the transition from a competitive to a monopolistic market, and back again.[ citation needed] It has been the inspiration of endogenous growth theory and also of evolutionary economics. [25] David Ames Wells (1890), who was a leading authority on the effects of technology on the economy in the late 19th century, gave many examples of creative destruction (without using the term) brought about by improvements in steam engine efficiency, shipping, the international telegraph network and agricultural mechanization. [26]"

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (751501)	11/7/2013 1:02:41 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1577593

Ten, here's some info from Bryan Fischer on how to get demons out of your house. I thought, as a believer, you might make use of this vital info: Message 29214733 Here's his latest comments: Demons Into The White House Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Tuesday, 11/5/2013 4:09 pm Citing an article from CNS that reported that First Lady Michelle Obama would be "hosting an event on Tuesday to mark the Hindu festival of Diwali, or 'festival of lights,' to honor Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and prosperity," Bryan Fischer warned that Obama was inviting "demons into the White House." "This is a counterfeit religion," Fischer said. "It is an Eastern religion. It is, in essence, an occult religion. It's a counterfeit, a false alternative to Christianity. It ultimately represents the doctrine of demons, that is what you have with Hinduism and now this is being celebrated in the White House." Fischer concluded by renewing his call for America to elect a Christian president in 2016 who will bring clergy into the White House who will "spiritually cleanse" of all the demonic spirits after the Obama's leave: - See more at: rightwingwatch.org

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (751501)	11/7/2013 1:35:32 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577593

That Time Nazis Marched for Washington's All-White Football Team —By Alex Park\| Thu Nov. 7, 2013 3:00 AM PST motherjones.com "Keep Redskins White!" Members of the American Nazi Party demonstrate against desegregating the Washington, DC, football team, October 1961. Photo by Neil Leifer/Sports Illustrated/Getty Images Currently, Washington, DC's pro football team, the [Redacted], has the distinction of being the only team in the NFL whose name is a racial slur. A little more than 50 years ago, it had another unfortunate distinction: It was the last remaining all-white team in the league. The struggle to integrate Washington's football team is recounted in Thomas G. Smith's 2012 book, Showdown: JFK and the Integration of the Washington Redskins. As Smith tells it, the showdown began in 1961, when John F. Kennedy's interior secretary, Stewart Udall, who'd committed to ending segregation anywhere in his sphere of influence, declared his intent to break pro football's last color bar. Udall later recalled, "I considered it outrageous that the Redskins were the last team in the NFL to have a lily-white policy." The call for integration was met with opposition, most notably from the team's owner, George Preston Marshall, a laundromat magnate turned NFL bigwig who had held firm for years. As legendary Washington Post columnist Shirley Povich wrote: For the 24 years when he was identified as the leading racist in the NFL, he simply stared down the criticism of his refusal to sign a black player. It was the only subject on which the voluble Marshall never expressed a public opinion, never resorted to a quip. But he bristled when this columnist reminded him in print that "the Redskins colors are burgundy, gold and Caucasian." Marshall appeared as outraged by federal interference as he was by the prospect of diversity. "Why Negroes particularly?" he asked. "Why not make us hire a player from another race? In fact, why not a woman? Of course, we have had players who played like girls, but never an actual girl player." The controversy drew out assorted bigots, including neo-Nazis (above), who protested on Marshall's behalf to "Keep [the] Redskins White." Udall had one advantage over Marshall: The team's new home field, DC Stadium (later renamed RFK Memorial), was federal property. With Kennedy's approval, Udall gave Marshall a choice: He could let black players on his team, or take his all-white squad to someone else's gridiron. "You can't tell what will happen under the guise of liberalism," Marshall griped shortly before acquiring a handful of black players for the 1962 season. He would comply with Udall's demands even if it meant hiring "Eskimos or Chinese or Mongolians." The newly integrated team went on to have its best season in five years.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (751501)	11/7/2013 1:42:30 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1577593

Twitter starts trading at an astounding valuation of $31.3 billion By Zachary M. Seward @zseward 3 hours ago qz.com ( Can you say "tech bubble"? ) Twitter just started trading on the New York Stock Exchange at a price of $45.10 a share, which is 73% above the IPO price of $26 that was set by the company last night. + That implies an astounding valuation of $31.34 billion. + To put that in perspective, Twitter’s valuation is nearly twice electric car manufacturer Tesla ($17.14 billion) and more than streaming video service Netflix ($19.42 billion). It’s about equal to food company General Mills ($32.32 billion). And as a multiple of sales, Twitter is significantly more expensive than rival Facebook. + Our valuation figure assumes Twitter will eventually have 694.8 million shares outstanding, including stock options and restricted stock. The number could rise by 10.5 million if Twitter’s bankers choose to sell more shares today. + Based on the number of shares currently trading, Twitter’s opening market capitalization is $24.57 billion. + Here’s what Twitter’s headquarters looked like this morning when the opening bell rang (at 6:30 a.m. local time):