Strategy's Business Thread

[Jeepster80125 0]

I don't know where to draw the line, either. you call it hand-holding, they call it consumer protection. the middle ground is to just make sure everything is above board and clearly articulated for the borrower. there is a prominent liberal in washington who pushed for this.

What do you think about this?from here:People like Rajiv Bhatia have thought about the Platonic ideal meal, and you haven’t. The Platonic ideal of a meal is not a happy one ; rather, it is a meal of which informed people like Rajiv Bhatia approve. A meal of which Rajiv Bhatia does not approve is not a meal at all, and therefore your uninformed belief that you should be able to choose your kids’ meals by yourself is simply untutored. Rajiv Bhatia understands that The People make bad choices and it is the role of The State to make correct choices for them for the ultimate good of The People.A more broad view, which highlights an issue with our 2 party system, from the same guy:We’ve said it many times, but it bears repeating: one of the chief frustrations of being libertarian-leaning is the feeling that mainstream politics offers us a choice between one party’s socially conservative totalitarianism and the other party’s social engineering totalitarianism. Each party constantly rails against the other party’s excesses, but indulges in its own, utterly failing to grasp this: giving the government power to do things you like naturally tends to give it power to do things you don’t like. So liberals cheerfully advocate heavy regulation of our economic lives, not grasping that it tends to empower the government to control our moral lives, and conservatives eagerly advocate increased morals laws and law enforcement power, not grasping that these tend to empower the government to regulate the living shit out of their businesses. And then there are the intrusions and abuses of power that both parties support, like the moronic and destructive War on Drugs.

[SBriand 4]

"COMPETITIVE SALARY" We remain competitive by paying less than our competitors."JOIN OUR FAST-PACED TEAM" We have no time to train you."CASUAL WORK ATMOSPHERE" We don't pay enough to expect that you'll dress up; well, a couple of the real daring guys wear earrings."MUST BE DEADLINE ORIENTED" You'll be six months behind schedule on your first day."SOME OVERTIME REQUIRED" Some time each night and some time each weekend."DUTIES WILL VARY" Anyone in the hospital can boss you around."MUST HAVE AN EYE FOR DETAIL" We have no quality control."CAREER-MINDED" Female Applicants must be childless (and remain that way)."APPLY IN PERSON" If you're old, fat or ugly you'll be told the position has been filled."NO PHONE CALLS PLEASE" We've filled the job; our call for resumes is just a legal formality."SEEKING CANDIDATES WITH A WIDE VARIETY OF EXPERIENCE" You'll need it to replace three people who just left."PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS A MUST" You're walking into a company in perpetual chaos."REQUIRES TEAM LEADERSHIP SKILLS" You'll have the responsibilities of a manager, without the pay or respect."GOOD COMMUNICATION SKILLS" Management communicates, you listen, figure out what they want and do it.

[strategy 4]

What do you think about this?from here:People like Rajiv Bhatia have thought about the Platonic ideal meal, and you haven’t. The Platonic ideal of a meal is not a happy one ; rather, it is a meal of which informed people like Rajiv Bhatia approve. A meal of which Rajiv Bhatia does not approve is not a meal at all, and therefore your uninformed belief that you should be able to choose your kids’ meals by yourself is simply untutored. Rajiv Bhatia understands that The People make bad choices and it is the role of The State to make correct choices for them for the ultimate good of The People.

this kind of writing drives me absolutely nuts. was the proposal idiotic? indeed. but the anti-government diatribe is totally unnecessary. this is some idiot local power figure floating an idea, not Obama using one his special "I deem it so" executive orders.wish I knew more about trans fats to say anything on the topic. that seems like an example of food regulation I might be okay with.

We’ve said it many times, but it bears repeating: one of the chief frustrations of being libertarian-leaning is the feeling that mainstream politics offers us a choice between one party’s socially conservative totalitarianism and the other party’s social engineering totalitarianism. Each party constantly rails against the other party’s excesses, but indulges in its own, utterly failing to grasp this: giving the government power to do things you like naturally tends to give it power to do things you don’t like. So liberals cheerfully advocate heavy regulation of our economic lives, not grasping that it tends to empower the government to control our moral lives, and conservatives eagerly advocate increased morals laws and law enforcement power, not grasping that these tend to empower the government to regulate the living shit out of their businesses. And then there are the intrusions and abuses of power that both parties support, like the moronic and destructive War on Drugs.

I don't understand how regulating business is linked to regulating morals, and the converse argument he makes regarding conservatives is equally confusing. he is absolutely right in his general point: people are willing to overlook the bad their side perpetrates with 'greater good' logic. this mentality is really, really bad for the country in the long run.

[Jeepster80125 0]

this kind of writing drives me absolutely nuts. was the proposal idiotic? indeed. but the anti-government diatribe is totally unnecessary. this is some idiot local power figure floating an idea, not Obama using one his special "I deem it so" executive orders.wish I knew more about trans fats to say anything on the topic. that seems like an example of food regulation I might be okay with. I don't understand how regulating business is linked to regulating morals, and the converse argument he makes regarding conservatives is equally confusing. he is absolutely right in his general point: people are willing to overlook the bad their side perpetrates with 'greater good' logic. this mentality is really, really bad for the country in the long run.

I was more going for the regulating morals aspect, like how New York wants to regulate the amount of salt in restaurant food. That's ridiculous. San Fransisco is out of hand. http://www.popehat.com/2010/07/13/were-fro...s-best-for-you/ I know you don't like the writing style but that's crazy stuff.

[ShakeZuma 585]

wish I knew more about trans fats to say anything on the topic. that seems like an example of food regulation I might be okay with.

looking for a little outside help from uncle sam there huh tubby?

[Balloon guy 158]

Is this still a business thread or did it change to a "Favorite pick up lines:" thread?

[strategy 4]

I was more going for the regulating morals aspect, like how New York wants to regulate the amount of salt in restaurant food. That's ridiculous. San Fransisco is out of hand. http://www.popehat.com/2010/07/13/were-fro...s-best-for-you/ I know you don't like the writing style but that's crazy stuff.

california, specifically san francisco, seems like it could be its own country.honestly, I don't know. we have all these programs that cover people in certain circumstances and this garbage leads to poor health, higher costs. bring in the fat police or figure out a way to adjust how much we're taxing people depending on how healthy they are. trying to get restaurants to serve healthier food via municipality regulations seems like a silly cat/mouse game.tl;dr: cover everyone or no one

[runthemover 39]

Strategy has a university degree in business. Do we really want a generation of people like him?I mean, I would like it, but I'm not sure if it'd be good for society.

we'd be saving paper one page at a time

[Roll the Bones 74]

Wife is interviewing with the MOO of the LMO & A of a business. She has no clue what that stands for though.

[Jeepster80125 0]

california, specifically san francisco, seems like it could be its own country.honestly, I don't know. we have all these programs that cover people in certain circumstances and this garbage leads to poor health, higher costs. bring in the fat police or figure out a way to adjust how much we're taxing people depending on how healthy they are. trying to get restaurants to serve healthier food via municipality regulations seems like a silly cat/mouse game.tl;dr: cover everyone or no one

Slightly related: In Colorado, we used to be able to give up to a 25% discount on healthy groups, and up to a 10% surcharge for unhealthy groups with high utilization, tobacco rates, etc. The fatties complained, they changed the rules to take those discounts away, now we have community rating.I don't think anything like what you're suggesting could ever be implemented. Instead, we get limits on salt in our food, or laws making toys with kids meals illegal.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

I too will use this thread to discuss business-related issues, but in the meantime: A subject dear to your heart.What’s Worse Than Credit Card Debt? Student Loans

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I too will use this thread to discuss business-related issues, but in the meantime: A subject dear to your heart.What’s Worse Than Credit Card Debt? Student Loans

Amen to all of that.Particularly in general*: Here's the bottom line on this issue: it's easier NOT to get into this debt than it is to deal with the debt once you're in it.*That's right, particularly in general.

[mrdannyg 274]

Slightly related: In Colorado, we used to be able to give up to a 25% discount on healthy groups, and up to a 10% surcharge for unhealthy groups with high utilization, tobacco rates, etc. The fatties complained, they changed the rules to take those discounts away, now we have community rating.I don't think anything like what you're suggesting could ever be implemented. Instead, we get limits on salt in our food, or laws making toys with kids meals illegal.

I'm way too lazy to search for the study, but I recall a recent and seemingly non-garbage one that noted that (in Canada), smokers actually had similar or lower costs than non-smokers. Why? Significantly lower life expectancies. Sure, they were unhealthy younger, but that just meant 10 years the government was not supporting their old-age ass.I'm not sure if you were only talking about insurance providers. It really doesn't work for that, obviously.

[strategy 4]

I'm way too lazy to search for the study, but I recall a recent and seemingly non-garbage one that noted that (in Canada), smokers actually had similar or lower costs than non-smokers. Why? Significantly lower life expectancies. Sure, they were unhealthy younger, but that just meant 10 years the government was not supporting their old-age ass.I'm not sure if you were only talking about insurance providers. It really doesn't work for that, obviously.

an arm of philip morris did this study in the czech republic in an attempt to keep them from upping the sin tax on cigs a couple of years ago. they used anti-tobacco organization mortality figures and a few assumptions about pension costs and all the rest, came up with savings in the hundreds of millions of dollars.you can listen to this if you want to know more.

[strategy 4]

I too will use this thread to discuss business-related issues, but in the meantime: A subject dear to your heart.What’s Worse Than Credit Card Debt? Student Loans

Amen to all of that.Particularly in general*: Here's the bottom line on this issue: it's easier NOT to get into this debt than it is to deal with the debt once you're in it.*That's right, particularly in general.

frontline on for-profit universitiesthe bigger picture here, as I have mentioned many times, is that we have spurred demand ("you HAVE to go to college after high school") and increased the ability to attend (FAFSA), so costs are naturally going through the roof. they'll keep going up until they overshoot the actual value of a degree, at which point lots more people will write articles like the one above and break the conventional wisdom re: higher education.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

frontline on for-profit universitiesthe bigger picture here, as I have mentioned many times, is that we have spurred demand ("you HAVE to go to college after high school") and increased the ability to attend (FAFSA), so costs are naturally going through the roof. they'll keep going up until they overshoot the actual value of a degree, at which point lots more people will write articles like the one above and break the conventional wisdom re: higher education.

I'll watch the video later...What do you think of the idea that Harvard's endowment is so huge that they could afford to let their entire student population attend for free and not be hurt financially even a little bit? And that they only charge so much because it adds to the prestige of attending Harvard? (You can substitute a number of schools for Harvard.)

[El Guapo 8]

I'll watch the video later...What do you think of the idea that Harvard's endowment is so huge that they could afford to let their entire student population attend for free and not be hurt financially even a little bit? And that they only charge so much because it adds to the prestige of attending Harvard? (You can substitute a number of schools for Harvard.)

I am pretty sure moving forward they are stopping charging tuition. But I could be wrong about that.

[strategy 4]

I'll watch the video later...What do you think of the idea that Harvard's endowment is so huge that they could afford to let their entire student population attend for free and not be hurt financially even a little bit? And that they only charge so much because it adds to the prestige of attending Harvard? (You can substitute a number of schools for Harvard.)

the above doesn't really bother me. harvard's tuition probably isn't even close to the value of their degree and the network that comes with it. even if that weren't the case, I would chuckle because, well, f the wealthy fags. I feel like the tradition and the money behind the people who attend ivy league schools will keep them solidly insulated from market forces for a very long time: demand for these schools is inelastic.the real shift is going to happen at state universities, community colleges, and for-profits. it will be a continued rise in costs for students, a decrease in the employer's faith in a degree, or some combination of both. I would be making some longer-term bets against APOL if I had money.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I'm way too lazy to search for the study, but I recall a recent and seemingly non-garbage one that noted that (in Canada), smokers actually had similar or lower costs than non-smokers. Why? Significantly lower life expectancies. Sure, they were unhealthy younger, but that just meant 10 years the government was not supporting their old-age ass.I'm not sure if you were only talking about insurance providers. It really doesn't work for that, obviously.

Moving forward, you'll see life insurance policies charge 3x-10x for smokers, because most lifelong smokers have very large costs for end-of-life care with transplants and other related health problems. You're right about lower life expectancy, but they also cost a lot more during that period.That's just one thing wrong with end-of-life care.

[El Guapo 8]

life insurance is 2-3X more expensive for smokers, and that ratio goes up with age.

[Balloon guy 158]

life insurance is 2-3X more expensive for smokers, and that ratio goes up with age.

And how unfair is it that they don't take into account that Cigar smokers are less likely to get lung cancer, yet I get the same classification as a smoker because I don't lie on my application.

[strategy 4]

And how unfair is it that they don't take into account that Cigar smokers are less likely to get lung cancer, yet I get the same classification as a smoker because I don't lie on my application.

because they're totally going to recode their premium calculations and modify the application for the purpose of not collecting extra premium from a demographic that generally does smoke cigarettes anyway.correct me if I am wrong here. maybe there are huge numbers of people who smoke cigars and would never ever touch a cigarette. I see more of a mix of the two.

[Balloon guy 158]

because they're totally going to recode their premium calculations and modify the application for the purpose of not collecting extra premium from a demographic that generally does smoke cigarettes anyway.correct me if I am wrong here. maybe there are huge numbers of people who smoke cigars and would never ever touch a cigarette. I see more of a mix of the two.

Of my friends who smoke cigars, 90%+ do not inhale or smoke cigarettes.Disclaimer:I know only a small portion of the actual cigar smokers in this country.Possibly important data inclusion:But I am pretty much right on this.

[strategy 4]

Of my friends who smoke cigars, 90%+ do not inhale or smoke cigarettes.Disclaimer:I know only a small portion of the actual cigar smokers in this country.Possibly important data inclusion:But I am pretty much right on this.

I feel like you mostly mill around with richers. nothing wrong with that, but your demographic is pretty small. people in my generation don't seem to distinguish a whole lot between the two.

[Balloon guy 158]

I feel like you mostly mill around with richers. nothing wrong with that, but your demographic is pretty small. people in my generation don't seem to distinguish a whole lot between the two.

You pigeon hole me into a social-economic group than brag that you are part of a group that doesn't make these distinctions?I see a flaw in your ability to reason that I am going to let you figure out yourself.