VirtuCon (ticker symbol: EVL) owner Dr. Evil demanded a government bailout today of "O N E M I L L I O N D O L L A R S", though quickly revised this figure to $100 billion. Although VirtuCon owes its rapid growth to diversification in media and other companies, nearly every division has entered hard times. Shipping has been hit by piracy, demand for premium coffee is declining, crude oil prices are falling rapidly, environmental regulations loom for it's original volatile chemicals subsidiary and deflation is hitting sales of miniature models of factories.
Responding to its cash crunch, VirtuCon's number two man has cancelled its deep drilling project code named 'Vulcan' due to low commodity prices. Rumours are the Steamroller Testing Facility in Las Vegas, NV is up for offers. During negotiations for concessions from the henchamans' union Dr. Evil broke down saying only "Throw me a freakin' bone here."
Expectations are VirtuCon will try to push through a lucrative defence contract to develop shark-based directed energy weapons before the change of presidential power in January. Some analysts questioned VirtuCon management talent, pointing to repeated accounting errors confusing billions and millions. [editor: analyst sources could not be reached for verification]
Congress declined to offer an aid package, noting that the VirtuCon executive arrived in a private spacecraft at a time when NASA faces funding cuts. When questioned on how aid money would be spent, Dr. Evil claimed the congressmen were "insolent" and stormed out.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The boundless muzzle
We've seen Harper use the muzzle, there's even a site dedicated to detailing it. But now it extends to the Conservative Party of Canada at their conference in Winnipeg. How democratic can that be?
Danielle Takacs is blogging from the floor this weekend... or at least trying. Some are surprised the media muzzle applies to the conservative media as well (such as a blogging tory, here) - but why wouldn't it? How is this blogger different from the cabinet and other Conservative MPs?
But more important: how is that blogger different from any other citizen of Canada? Where will this end? I can see only one deciding criteria: either you are Steven Harper, or you aren't.
It seems hypocritical that conservatives complain about the Canadian Human Rights Commission interfering with their free speech. Again, either you are Steven Harper, or you aren't.
Next up - the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 2 c) (freedom of assembly) vs. the Liberal Leadership Convention.
Danielle Takacs is blogging from the floor this weekend... or at least trying. Some are surprised the media muzzle applies to the conservative media as well (such as a blogging tory, here) - but why wouldn't it? How is this blogger different from the cabinet and other Conservative MPs?
But more important: how is that blogger different from any other citizen of Canada? Where will this end? I can see only one deciding criteria: either you are Steven Harper, or you aren't.
It seems hypocritical that conservatives complain about the Canadian Human Rights Commission interfering with their free speech. Again, either you are Steven Harper, or you aren't.
Next up - the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 2 c) (freedom of assembly) vs. the Liberal Leadership Convention.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Advisory committee on economic strategy
Stephane Dion has announced his shadow cabinet and also an advisory committee on economic strategy (pdf). Sounds good, but I'll wait to see what comes of it. I don't think it can hurt anyway. Many of the answers may be obvious; some less so. Comparing the Liberal 5-point plan with the Conservative 6-point plan is an example of obvious similarity. Running a surplus vs. selling assets is a pretty big difference.
I believe the next decision is obviously stimulus from spending on infrastructure, coming from the recent meeting between the PM and premiers. Some disagree saying it would take too long to start new projects; maybe they're right.
My hope for this new committee is that they fight hard too prevent loss of valuable Canadian assets at fire sale prices. With the Canadian dollar and the stock markets down prices will be at the lowest (bargain hunting indeed, Mr. Harper). Now is the time to buy infrastructure, while it's cheap. And maybe let those JSS contracts too.
I believe the next decision is obviously stimulus from spending on infrastructure, coming from the recent meeting between the PM and premiers. Some disagree saying it would take too long to start new projects; maybe they're right.
My hope for this new committee is that they fight hard too prevent loss of valuable Canadian assets at fire sale prices. With the Canadian dollar and the stock markets down prices will be at the lowest (bargain hunting indeed, Mr. Harper). Now is the time to buy infrastructure, while it's cheap. And maybe let those JSS contracts too.
Excellent - everything going according to plan
redtory posted a fair comment about the Conservatives having a fire sale to avoid a deficit. Carried further, this could be seen as a planned strategy to reduce the size of government:
The PCs privatized Nova Scotia Power in 1992. In the last few years we've had some pretty bad weather which lead to multi-day outages. The weather may sound like an excuse (hurricane Juan is legitimate), but it seems suspicious at other times when the only company using the weather as an excuse is NSP... times when there were no collapsed roofs, bridges, etc. Why would the weather single out NSP?
Maybe because there is no profit in making more reliable or robust infrastructure, or maybe more profit in using the cheapest material regardless of quality. In case of disaster, wouldn't they expect a bailout? Certainly these losses shouldn't affect profit.
I try not to reject either privatization or nationalization without learning the details. But it seems odd that other countries are nationalizing banks, insurance companies, etc. and Canada is proceeding in the opposite direction. Is this sell low, buy high? Or is it that the companies are too restricted under government ownership, and need less regulation?
- Act outraged at surpluses (which pay down debt)
- Increase spending to avoid surpluses
- Create a deficit by cutting taxes
- Act surprised
- Sell government assets to make up the shortfall (until we run out)
- Cut those unnecessary social programs (because we're forced to, honest!)
The PCs privatized Nova Scotia Power in 1992. In the last few years we've had some pretty bad weather which lead to multi-day outages. The weather may sound like an excuse (hurricane Juan is legitimate), but it seems suspicious at other times when the only company using the weather as an excuse is NSP... times when there were no collapsed roofs, bridges, etc. Why would the weather single out NSP?
Maybe because there is no profit in making more reliable or robust infrastructure, or maybe more profit in using the cheapest material regardless of quality. In case of disaster, wouldn't they expect a bailout? Certainly these losses shouldn't affect profit.
I try not to reject either privatization or nationalization without learning the details. But it seems odd that other countries are nationalizing banks, insurance companies, etc. and Canada is proceeding in the opposite direction. Is this sell low, buy high? Or is it that the companies are too restricted under government ownership, and need less regulation?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The End of Wall Streets Boom
This is a pretty good article explaining the chronology of the Wall Street mess.
You can't tell people what to do, you can only tell them what they can't. Over time people will push any system and exploit it until something gives.
But given all of this mess, capitalism is in principle still a very good system, and we shouldn't make wild changes yet. So I guess I agree in principle with Flaherty's position, though I reserve final opinion until I've seen details. I expect Dion would've suggested something similar.
Obviously what is missing from capitalism is responsibility [to shareholders]. Why are company leaders irresponsible? I propose that those leaders aren't held accountable, and that their decisions aren't transparent.
How can you punish an executive who ruined a company, but no longer works there? He's committed no crime save bad judgment, which isn't enforceable - and he knows it! How can you even know the decision might not be sound if the process isn't transparent? I admit introducing transparency is a difficult problem, and I have no ideas yet.
Companies which have decried regulation in the past now demand government help, holding the shareholders, employees and other stakeholders as hostages.
Shareholders have not demanded company leadership be responsible, they assumed it. However, recent events show at least some company leadership put themselves before shareholders and the longer term interests of the company. In fact, many shareholders themselves might be corporate-like entities such as mutual funds, pensions, etc. which might not demand responsible leadership.
So who should encourage company leadership to behave more responsibly, and how? Simply giving in to demands (for money, loans, etc.) may only guarantee the safety of the hostages temporarily.
Shareholders must return to valuing a company including its leadership and the market risks, and demand at least enough transparency to make a reasonable valuation. Perhaps too many have turned to technical analysis and ignored fundamentals? Not that technical analysis is wrong - but ignoring fundamentals might be.
As long as bailouts continue, then company management and shareholders have indeed shouldered no risk and will continue their behaviour.
Although the current problems seems made-in-America, don't forget the commercial paper crisis repercussions in Canadian Banks, or the tech bubble. We have the benefit of learning from American mistakes.
You can't tell people what to do, you can only tell them what they can't. Over time people will push any system and exploit it until something gives.
But given all of this mess, capitalism is in principle still a very good system, and we shouldn't make wild changes yet. So I guess I agree in principle with Flaherty's position, though I reserve final opinion until I've seen details. I expect Dion would've suggested something similar.
Obviously what is missing from capitalism is responsibility [to shareholders]. Why are company leaders irresponsible? I propose that those leaders aren't held accountable, and that their decisions aren't transparent.
How can you punish an executive who ruined a company, but no longer works there? He's committed no crime save bad judgment, which isn't enforceable - and he knows it! How can you even know the decision might not be sound if the process isn't transparent? I admit introducing transparency is a difficult problem, and I have no ideas yet.
Companies which have decried regulation in the past now demand government help, holding the shareholders, employees and other stakeholders as hostages.
Shareholders have not demanded company leadership be responsible, they assumed it. However, recent events show at least some company leadership put themselves before shareholders and the longer term interests of the company. In fact, many shareholders themselves might be corporate-like entities such as mutual funds, pensions, etc. which might not demand responsible leadership.
So who should encourage company leadership to behave more responsibly, and how? Simply giving in to demands (for money, loans, etc.) may only guarantee the safety of the hostages temporarily.
Shareholders must return to valuing a company including its leadership and the market risks, and demand at least enough transparency to make a reasonable valuation. Perhaps too many have turned to technical analysis and ignored fundamentals? Not that technical analysis is wrong - but ignoring fundamentals might be.
As long as bailouts continue, then company management and shareholders have indeed shouldered no risk and will continue their behaviour.
Although the current problems seems made-in-America, don't forget the commercial paper crisis repercussions in Canadian Banks, or the tech bubble. We have the benefit of learning from American mistakes.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Capitalism
(somewhat) Funny video on capitalism.
What I think is funny here, is the sense of humour of the video creators. Personally I don't know anyone who is anti-capitalism, but I know plenty of people who are getting tired of unrestrained capitalism. Sure, we all need capitalism and capitalism is great, especially if it's your capital. But the idea that people need to promote capitalism (by mocking anti-capitalism) is worth a laugh.
What I think is funny here, is the sense of humour of the video creators. Personally I don't know anyone who is anti-capitalism, but I know plenty of people who are getting tired of unrestrained capitalism. Sure, we all need capitalism and capitalism is great, especially if it's your capital. But the idea that people need to promote capitalism (by mocking anti-capitalism) is worth a laugh.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Hallowe'en
Welcome! This is my first post on a difficult journey. A path toward humour, a path beaten by many great men and women which I admire and to which I aspire. Public speaking and writing often inspires fear of laughter (born of ridicule). When you seek to create humour the fear is lack of laughter.
Did anyone else mistake the Canadian federal election for Hallowe'en?
People canvassing houses offering treats in exchange for support. Lots of nasty tricks, too. I'm not sure the carpet of campaign signs was more attractive than toilet paper in the trees.
The costumed hordes included clowns, knights and few costumes too subtle or confusing to figure out unless you're also a 43rd level paladin in world of warcraft. You just have to be polite and nod.
Some of the visiting kids wouldn't speak, not wanting to give away their disguises. Or perhaps they were scared of the bully. You know, that one kid you could tell was waiting to steal their candy; his blue sweater wasn't much of a costume. He liked to tease the other kids and throw eggs at houses. Still, even he had some tender words about his mother... or perhaps he was really Norman Bates?
Sometimes you come across a house that only offers healthy, nutritious, organically grown treats. They even have a fancy home-made wrap to make them look attractive. But we know the kids get wise to that fast, put a chalk mark in front of the house and avoid it just like the graveyard.
Another house had lots of big, bright orange pumpkins outside. They were giving away full-size chocolate bars, the real good stuff. And they had a bigger turn out than they've had in years.
Then there was the house of horrors that one really enthusiastic house sets up. This year they really outdid themselves. It was over on the corner of Wall St. and Bay St. Truly scary, apocalyptic end-of-the-world-as-we-know it stuff. Vampires and werewolves wanted to take a bite from my RRSP. I expected to see legions of zombies searching for "brains", but they starved to death (undeath?).
When you get home and dump the haul on the kitchen table, you look it over. Your parents throw away anything that's not in store-bought packages (and anything with a Maple Leaf logo, too). Same candy as usual. Still, the pile is bigger than last year - 38 treats of sugary junk to rot your teeth and lower your IQ. And no nutrition facts displayed on the side either.
Well, I must go now. I'm getting a headache as I come down off a $300 million sugar rush.
Did anyone else mistake the Canadian federal election for Hallowe'en?
People canvassing houses offering treats in exchange for support. Lots of nasty tricks, too. I'm not sure the carpet of campaign signs was more attractive than toilet paper in the trees.
The costumed hordes included clowns, knights and few costumes too subtle or confusing to figure out unless you're also a 43rd level paladin in world of warcraft. You just have to be polite and nod.
Some of the visiting kids wouldn't speak, not wanting to give away their disguises. Or perhaps they were scared of the bully. You know, that one kid you could tell was waiting to steal their candy; his blue sweater wasn't much of a costume. He liked to tease the other kids and throw eggs at houses. Still, even he had some tender words about his mother... or perhaps he was really Norman Bates?
Sometimes you come across a house that only offers healthy, nutritious, organically grown treats. They even have a fancy home-made wrap to make them look attractive. But we know the kids get wise to that fast, put a chalk mark in front of the house and avoid it just like the graveyard.
Another house had lots of big, bright orange pumpkins outside. They were giving away full-size chocolate bars, the real good stuff. And they had a bigger turn out than they've had in years.
Then there was the house of horrors that one really enthusiastic house sets up. This year they really outdid themselves. It was over on the corner of Wall St. and Bay St. Truly scary, apocalyptic end-of-the-world-as-we-know it stuff. Vampires and werewolves wanted to take a bite from my RRSP. I expected to see legions of zombies searching for "brains", but they starved to death (undeath?).
When you get home and dump the haul on the kitchen table, you look it over. Your parents throw away anything that's not in store-bought packages (and anything with a Maple Leaf logo, too). Same candy as usual. Still, the pile is bigger than last year - 38 treats of sugary junk to rot your teeth and lower your IQ. And no nutrition facts displayed on the side either.
Well, I must go now. I'm getting a headache as I come down off a $300 million sugar rush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)