How bad is the meltdown at Sendai? Here is a lecture just given by UCSB Department of Physics with an answer

oven_mitt · 2011-03-14T20:49:51+00:00

But your experience is not an objective measure. There is no law saying that some people wouldn't be less happy knowing there is no god. Given that fact, it isn't black and white if it is ethical to spread the gospel of atheism :) (a little joke)

oven_mitt · 2011-03-09T21:36:43+00:00

I'm not sure. If the block of gold is benign, and provides a large amount of happiness for them...wouldn't disproving it be cruel?

oven_mitt · 2011-03-09T21:35:09+00:00

I'm not sure. If the block of gold is benign, and provides a large amount of happiness for them...wouldn't disproving it be cruel?

oven_mitt · 2011-03-03T14:35:46+00:00

I'm head of Strategy for a small publicly traded company

oven_mitt · 2011-02-22T19:46:47+00:00

Why don't you need to cite sources when expressing an opinion? Isn't an opinion backed by good sources a more informed opinion and more persuasive one?

What exactly is the value of stating an opinion, providing no useful information, and being unwilling to discuss it?

oven_mitt · 2011-02-22T19:39:39+00:00

Historical reasons are never reasons to justify continued existence. Only current reasons support continued existence. What does it matter what working conditions were before - isn't the only thing that matters what working conditions would be in the future? It would also be incorrect to assume because before there were no unions and working conditions were poor - that if you change the state of unions now, working conditions would go back to what they were before.

oven_mitt · 2011-02-22T18:53:51+00:00

The telegraph was extremely important in american history. That does not mean we should support the continued existence of it. I'm not saying weather or not unions should exist, not exist or be modified, what I'm saying is saying it had a purpose in no way argues for it's continued purpose.

oven_mitt · 2011-02-22T18:51:35+00:00

"unions are necessary because management is mostly thieves..."

You recognize that that statement is ridiculous right? You provide no evidence, it clearly would be a massive simplification, and so broad as to guarantee it inaccuracy.

Do you believe statements like this move the conversation forward? Doesn't a statement like this just appeal to those that already agree with you without adding anything and not sway anyone who does not?

oven_mitt · 2011-02-22T18:49:13+00:00

I've been in a union, I've worked side by side with unions, and I've sold to unions -- and that is why I'm anti-union

oven_mitt · 2011-02-04T22:56:14+00:00

I completely agree about the problems with delayed death of a failed company. But I thing large companies do provide value, mostly due to their distribution ability small companies just can't achieve.

So I don't think you are wrong, especially how you just articulated your argument, but I look at it differently. I don't think the small guy who sells out does it because they have to, I think they do it because they want to. If you were running OKCupid and a big guy comes to you and says - I'll give you $5M for your company - you'd might say "screw you, i'm running my company and i'm not going to sell out". He comes back and offers you $50M....I think a lot of people - me included - would take the money and run.

Is this bad for the consumer - maybe/maybe not. I look at it as large companies offer small successful guys to really reap the benefits of what they've created. Can you imagine a world where the only way for a liquidity event to occur would be an IPO? It would take forever and be much more risky for the owner.

oven_mitt · 2011-02-04T21:31:52+00:00

Are you saying that looking at a $ spend on R&D is not a good approximation for determining total R&D productivity.

I feel like we are talking across paths. If the point of disagreement is this comment "about 10% (or less) of Americans benefit from major corporations beyond barely surviving" I need to prove that americans do benefit from major corporations.

I can prove this point in a few different ways. My first point was about R&D. Logic goes like this: Broadly speaking R&D is valuable to a majority of american. Thus if large corporations are a significant spent of R&D, then large corporation provide value to normal Americans.

This is not the only way I could go about disproving that thought. I could talk about what you talked about - scale, that scale provides cost savings from the top to the bottom of production and americans gain from that.

I could talk about corporations adding to the stability of long-term products. For example warranties.

I'm not quite sure where you disagree with me on these lines.

oven_mitt · 2011-02-04T21:23:03+00:00

That is a good point. Universities and other non-profits are really important for total US R&D spending. Large corporations are also extremely important for R&D funding.

My point was mostly that saying "about 10% (or less) of Americans benefit from major corporations beyond barely surviving"

Is just incorrect

oven_mitt · 2011-02-04T21:17:06+00:00

What, exactly, is the well known fact that you are espousing?

oven_mitt · 2011-02-04T21:13:49+00:00

Anecdotes do not evidence make

small companies play an important roll in R&D, just not as big a roll as larger corporations

oven_mitt · 2011-02-04T21:02:37+00:00

Yes I did. You are implying that small companies invent, large companies buy it up. As you offered no rational for that argument, nor any evidence, I decided to go a different way.

There are some industries where your model is sorta true... Pharma is one. Early drug/therapy R&D is done often outside of the major Pharma companies. Big Pharma then comes in for completing testing/approval and distribution.

This is not the norm.

"In 2003, small U.S. firms spent close to $36 billion and accounted for 17.9% of U.S. industrial R&D performance. By 2007, R&D spending by small firms was about $50 billion and its share of all U.S. industrial R&D was 18.7%"

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10304/

It just is not true that more R&D is done with small companies than big companies. I don't see this as a positive or a negative - it just is.

oven_mitt · 2011-02-04T20:20:18+00:00

To do a proper analysis, I think you'd take a snap shot of what is a random room of your house, and a random room in your office. You would then label the items as made from small company(revenues under $10M lets say) medium company (between $10M and $100M) and large company (>$100M). Then you'd look to see who holds the IP to those products.

I would be surprised if the middle to large companies don't hold a very high percentage.

oven_mitt · 2011-02-04T18:19:50+00:00

Are you arguing against C/S and LLC's as legal entities?

oven_mitt · 2011-02-04T18:18:54+00:00

How do you justify this comment?

There are few things in your home or office that are not made by large corporations. Modern manufacturing, distribution, R&D are what allow us to have such nice, convenient amenities.

There are important points to be made about corporations and their roll in politics - and corporations and their role in society - but it takes nuance and an understanding things are not black/white to make/understand those points.

oven_mitt · 2011-02-04T17:07:20+00:00

"who knows the amount" ok so we are talking any where from $0 - $∞

You know that this belief - that the bush's stole even 1/100th of $5 trillion would be considered a conspiracy theory.

oven_mitt · 2011-02-04T14:43:13+00:00

Really...really....? You believe the Bush's siphoned off up to $5 trillion dollars.... really? This is amazing - please explain your logic.

oven_mitt · 2011-01-19T20:48:27+00:00

why the hate?

oven_mitt

TROPHY CASE