Posts by ruggeddriver70

hollowviper40 said:What on earth are you people even watching? Seriously, get your heads out of the sand.

CNN

Alexander Lewis said:Don't read too much into this. People who bother filling out online polls clearly don't represent the actual voting population. You have far too many retirees and people who aren't even active online trying to use a digital survey to predict meaningful election results.

The value of using a forum poll to estimate election outcomes is roughly on par with polling Esquimalt locals or a group of toddlers in the USA.☕

Exactly. Like, I didn't bother with any of those random internet surveys about whether people liked the European Union or not. But I showed up at my local polling station yesterday and checked the box FOR it.

I mean, HP is probably gonna follow the lead of those guys in the Netherlands eventually. It’s just a matter of when. If the IMF steps in—it'll happen way sooner.

goldengull3 said:Why don't you put your hand up for CEO when the next vacancy opens? Just send an email to the shareholders suggesting they overhaul the entire board, since you and your crew would surely do a better job. Please. To claim the board is merely political appointees because the state owns the company? That's a convenient excuse to avoid facing reality, rather than spinning some conspiracy theory.

The Universal Postal Union website hosts several insightful documents detailing how state postal services have adapted to modern demonopolization. For instance:
- hybrid mail services
- closing small branches and authorizing local retailers—even bars in rural towns—to handle package intake
- subscription models for eBay sellers, allowing them to print all documentation and prepaid postage labels from home

I recall seeing a registered parcel sent from Mexico once; it featured a clean, adhesive barcode containing all the tracking data. You just slap it on the envelope, which is far more efficient than manually transcribing details for official correspondence. It comes down to basic business acumen and market adaptation. The monopolies once held by national carriers are steadily evaporating. The market will decide who survives. There isn't much deep philosophy to it. Further liberalization is expected over the next few years per European Union mandates, and frankly, massive state-run postal monopolies are becoming a relic everywhere else in the world.

To cut down on overhead, the Dutch Postal Service started shutting down about 250 locations across the country back in 2008. They just finished the whole process yesterday by closing their last standing office in Philadelphia—well, the Philly equivalent—and according to officials, this move was all about boosting efficiency and saving some cash. Nowadays, postal services in the Netherlands are handled through around 2,600 service points located inside retail stores and supermarkets.

"The hedonist generation." Man, what a phrase.🙂

From what I've gathered while watching this election cycle roll by, I've only seen one single instance where a journalist actually had the guts to ask a candidate, "Hey, what happens if our credit rating gets slashed to junk status?" It was during some TV appearance by those little sycophants who follow Ljub Jurčić around during the campaign. Their response? Basically, "No way, that won't happen—we're a low-debt nation..." and that was it. Nobody else even bothered to address it. Honestly, the whole American political establishment doesn't even seem to consider that kind of thing a possibility.

A few (not exactly sunny) heads-ups for next year:

"The agencies that rate countries in trouble haven't ignored America—no miracles here. They’re just waiting for the parliamentary elections to wrap up so the new administration can show off its US Federal Budget 2012. At least, that’s what Željko Lovrinčević is saying—he's an economist who was basically advising the US government until yesterday, trying his best to convince them they absolutely have to slash public spending. But, uh, he didn't quite manage to pull that off.

'Credit agencies are looking for America to cut public sector spending by at least one to 1.5 percent of GDP. If we don't see those cuts, America's credit rating is definitely getting a downgrade, probably by the end of March at the latest,' Lovrinčević warns.

Cutting public spending by that 1 to 1.5 percent of GDP in dollars would mean something pretty massive: slashing public sector expenses by about five billion dollars. And since interest payments on debt are set to jump by roughly 1.5 billion next year, the budget really needs to find at least seven billion in savings. On top of that, they need to scrape together cash for investments to actually spark some growth. But—and here's the kicker—he isn't talking about running up a new deficit to do it; he thinks they should find that investment money through those same public sector cuts. To make that work, they'd need to 'free up' at least three billion dollars.

We also really need to keep an eye on what else they plan to sell off or privatize during the next four-year term.

Ashley Collins4 said:To understand our current political and economic landscape, you have to look at the bigger
picture if you want to figure out how much room this or any future
Cabinet actually has to move.
It’s pretty obvious that under our current system of PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP—where a capitalist, whether they like it or not, owns their
assets, their means of production, and essentially rents labor—there is a built-in
flaw. By owning things, they gain power over those very things, especially when
they distance themselves from the Federal Government.
Basically, the government ends up disarming itself. It can't claim total
authority over the entire National Territory because private
property rights are untouchable.

Clearly, we can only discuss what a new or old administration can do
within its own backyard—essentially within a perimeter it sets for itself. And that
perimeter is shrinking every single day. These shifts are just a shell game:
plug one hole by opening
another, then realize that second hole is fresh and wonder if you need a third one to plug it, and so on.

If the government wants to jumpstart the economy, the only way forward is to step up
as an investor in new companies to secure those 150,000+ new jobs.
We can't just sit around waiting for foreign investors; we're out of time.
The opportunities are endless: the automotive industry and all its
sub-sectors, electronics, appliances, IT, heavy manufacturing, defense,
and so on.
But does this mean the Cabinet is acting against its own principles? The idea is that the State
is a terrible economic manager, so what would it even do with massive corporations?
Following the usual systemic inertia, it would probably just end up selling them off again
because they eventually become competition for the capitalists. So, what now? How do we move forward?
The line has to be drawn clearly: there must be a boundary between the interests of the
Federal Government and private interest.

Alright, give me just one single, actual example of a "new startup" that a Government led by either Jadranka Kosor or Zoran Milanović would actually invest in. And honestly—would this "new startup" even turn a profit, or would it just be another massive money pit?

Yeah, right—kind of like some tired old mantra about a development and social budget.

There’s still one tax we haven't managed to dodge yet🙂

Anyway, congrats to everyone over in Cleveland
http://www.seebiz.eu/hr/makroekonomi...3f,100507.html

Check this out, caught my eye earlier:

"Lovrinović warns that in the US, the Federal Reserve was basically the first line of defense against the crisis, noting that one of the core duties of monetary authorities during a crisis is to ensure the government has the funds needed to invest back into production. In America, however, laws prevent the Federal Reserve from lending money directly to the government."

So, what exactly is the government supposed to be producing?

David Rogers18 said:Honestly, I don't think this is about nationalism at all. If you look at how much companies from Canada, North Mexico, Albania, or Mexico are actually investing in America, it’s basically zero.
Even if you look at the numbers, American investment in Canada is tiny compared to how much Canadian money flows into America.

I actually felt pretty good when I saw a segment on PBS showing how a Mexican company from Texas—owned 100% by a Mexican—put their money into a pig farm right here in the Midwest.
Maybe it sounds a bit silly, like, who cares about pig farms when we're constantly hearing about those local Tycoons making massive acquisitions over in Mexico, but I’m totally all for this kind of thing.

I've got nothing against Mexican capital coming into America, especially if they're focusing on actual production and building things.

Like Dalmatian Milk😁
http://www.seebiz.eu/hr/tvrtke/indus...lan,99481.html

So, a study from the insurer Aviva shows that workers across the European Union are looking at a massive €1.9 billion shortfall when it comes to funding their pensions. If people don't start tucking away more cash right now, they might be facing some pretty rough years in their old age—I guess you could say things are looking grim. According to the Associated Press, these deficit estimates are based on how much each current worker would need to save to ensure they actually get a pension worth 70 percent of their last paycheck.

The biggest mess is happening in the United Kingdom, where the gap is sitting at a staggering €379 billion—that's like 26 percent of their entire GDP. Germany and Spain aren't doing much better either, trailing behind with gaps of 24 and 18 percent of GDP, respectively.

Aviva is basically saying that if we don't see an uptick in savings, folks in the EU will end up having to sell their houses just to survive, or maybe delay retirement altogether—or, you know, just settle for a much lower standard of living. They've called on the Union to step up and help plug these holes by setting national targets for pension savings, while also warning regular people not to bank entirely on government pensions to bail them out.

The circus continues

French Parliament gives the green light to pension overhaul

The socialist reps were fighting it tooth and nail, obviously, but Labor Minister Eric Woerth basically stood his ground defending The Government's plan—especially the big one about bumping the retirement age from 60 up to 62.

Romania's parliament also just passed their pension reforms

So, under this law—which is part of the whole deal they made with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union (EU)—retirement age for guys is going up to 65 by 2015, and for women, it hits 65 by 2030.
The public pension system has been bleeding cash since 2008, and by the end of 2010, they’re looking at a massive three billion euro deficit. Guess what? The state is gonna have to go into debt just to keep those checks coming.

ruggeddriver70 said:So, I guess the Americans have an aging ratio of 1.67:1—which, honestly, makes us look even worse by comparison—and their EF is predicting that in a few decades, there’ll actually be more retirees than people actually working. Just great.
[Link to GIF]

And you can see right here that over the last decade—if you look at the data—the average number of years an American retiree actually collects benefits has jumped from 14 up to 17. I guess things are shifting, maybe?
[GIF Link]

It’s honestly hilarious because the Americans do the exact same thing we do—they even stick to the same ridiculous deadlines:

So, the Department of Labor is actually floating this idea—apparently, they want to bump the retirement age to 65 for everyone, men and women alike. I guess they think we’re all just getting younger by the day? It's pretty wild to think about, honestly. Maybe they're just looking for ways to squeeze a few more years out of us before we can finally call it quits. Who knows? Just one more thing to add to the pile, I suppose.So, looks like nothing's actually changing when it comes to qualifying for retirement—you still need those same 15 years of coverage to get anything at all. They’re dragging out this transition period forever, too... I guess that means women won't even hit that 65 age mark until after 2020. Typical.

So, I guess the Americans have an aging ratio of 1.67:1—which, honestly, makes us look even worse by comparison—and their EF is predicting that in a few decades, there’ll actually be more retirees than people actually working. Just great.
[Link to GIF]

And you can see right here that over the last decade—if you look at the data—the average number of years an American retiree actually collects benefits has jumped from 14 up to 17. I guess things are shifting, maybe?
[GIF Link]

It’s honestly hilarious because the Americans do the exact same thing we do—they even stick to the same ridiculous deadlines:

So, the Department of Labor is actually floating this idea—apparently, they want to bump the retirement age to 65 for everyone, men and women alike. I guess they think we’re all just getting younger by the day? It's pretty wild to think about, honestly. Maybe they're just looking for ways to squeeze a few more years out of us before we can finally call it quits. Who knows? Just one more thing to add to the pile, I suppose.So, looks like nothing's actually changing when it comes to qualifying for retirement—you still need those same 15 years of coverage to get anything at all. They’re dragging out this transition period forever, too... I guess that means women won't even hit that 65 age mark until after 2020. Typical.
Looks like the Canadians are setting the pace, and now the Czechs are following right behind them.

So, according to The Wall Street Journal, the Czech Social Security Administration is looking at a massive $1.66 billion hole in its budget—about 32 billion koruna—mostly because everyone seems to be hitting retirement age all at once. I guess the math just isn't mathing lately.

So, Miroslav Kalousek has been grinding away at some pension reform plans leading up to 2012—basically trying to slash the fiscal deficit and give the country's credit rating a much-needed facelift. Standard & Poor's basically gave us a little carrot to dangle, promising they'd bump up our rating if The Government actually follows through on its promises—which, of course, includes fixing this whole pension mess. We don't really know exactly which direction these changes are headed yet, but it's pretty obvious that the deficit from the current pay-as-you-go setup is absolutely wrecking public finances. To cover the gap, The Government is stuck borrowing more and more, and honestly, if we want to see that credit rating move in the right direction, cutting down state spending is pretty much the only way out.

The new coalition Government that took over this summer is already mulling over a bunch of different proposals—it’s kind of wild how fast they started moving. Maybe they'll try something like bumping up the retirement age too—just when you think they can't squeeze any more out of us. So, about that whole mess regarding the introduction of private retirement accounts... I guess we're finally seeing it happen.
I couldn't access that specific link—looks like it might be broken or behind a paywall—but if you can paste the text here, I'll get to work. Just drop the content, and I’ll give it that dry, sarcastic overhaul you're looking for.

Steven Lopez20 said:From what I’ve been able to dig up online regarding the situation in the US, there are roughly 160 million employed people compared to about 60 million retirees. Given how messy things can get—and considering we have such a "highly capable" administration in charge—I wouldn't be entirely surprised if that ratio eventually drifted toward 1:1. I guess I'm just wondering what kind of economy could actually sustain a system like that? Specifically, what would a country like the US need to do to keep this whole thing afloat without everything just collapsing one day??

So, I guess the Americans have an aging ratio of 1.67:1—which, honestly, makes us look even worse by comparison—and their EF is predicting that in a few decades, there’ll actually be more retirees than people actually working. Just great.
[Link to GIF]

And you can see right here that over the last decade—if you look at the data—the average number of years an American retiree actually collects benefits has jumped from 14 up to 17. I guess things are shifting, maybe?
[GIF Link]

It’s honestly hilarious because the Americans do the exact same thing we do—they even stick to the same ridiculous deadlines:

So, the Department of Labor is actually floating this idea—apparently, they want to bump the retirement age to 65 for everyone, men and women alike. I guess they think we’re all just getting younger by the day? It's pretty wild to think about, honestly. Maybe they're just looking for ways to squeeze a few more years out of us before we can finally call it quits. Who knows? Just one more thing to add to the pile, I suppose.So, looks like nothing's actually changing when it comes to qualifying for retirement—you still need those same 15 years of coverage to get anything at all. They’re dragging out this transition period forever, too... I guess that means women won't even hit that 65 age mark until after 2020. Typical.

casuallynx8 said:That is technically true, but one has to consider the mechanics of the business model. Since Walmart collects most of its revenue almost instantly—either through cash at the register or via quick credit card settlements—it stands to reason that Walton is essentially floating that capital for a while before passing it along to the vendors. It’s a way of squeezing extra utility out of the cash flow. And that advantage grows even more pronounced if they manage to force suppliers into settlement agreements through offsets or compensations.

Those were actually the first two things I checked when digging into the Walton family's companies. Short-term liabilities and financial income. That second one blew up last year—Ice saw a 37% jump, Walmart was up 67%, Coca-Cola hit 77%, and Star shot up over 100%
.

The whole quarterfinal setup feels just like the Olympics. Back in Athens, the Russians ended up dropping three games during the group stage—losing to Korea, Spain, and us—but then they went out and took down the French in the quarterfinals (who had been undefeated until then) with a 26-24 win, and actually walked away with the bronze.

Quarter-finals

Jan 30th | 5:30 PM | Philadelphia | ESP-GER
Jan 30th | 8:00 PM | Philadelphia | USA-FRA

Jan 30th | 5:30 PM | Seattle | POL-RUS
Jan 30th | 8:00 PM | Seattle | ISL-DEN

USA vs. Russia (halftime) 15-12