What can I say, as I get older I get dumber. I know that those people reporting (?)the news can't hear me, but after I passed my 65th birthday I just can't help myself. I just can't help it. Especially those financial news people. You would think when I watch sports and see a bone headed play I'd scream at the TV, no I just yell at news people, especially those on financial news networks, and the buffoons on cable news networks. Example of what I yell at, this or that stock went up because ( reason?). No this or that stock went up because pensions, 401ks and IRAs need to go up and there is no place else to park money and get decent return, so let's make sh*t up to justify the rise in stock. Most financial news reporters will report the justification not the real reason money must grow. No you idiot I scream. Before my 65th I would just say the network needs a pleasant looking and sounding nincompoop to fill up the air time, now I say damn that bozo makes more in a week then I made in my best year.
Yes I have a right to be stupid and yell at the TV, the news on television has turned into the vast wasteland that was in the old days used to describe the entertainment part of TV.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Friday, March 27, 2015
Steve's Barking; Who will kill TV?,
Who will kill TV?
Why the television stations of cause!
The first thing the will kill is cable, by demanding that they pay them excessive fees and then by bundling their programs into steaming services.
Let's look at first things first, how long can the average consumer afford the ever rising price of their cable bill?
How much can the consumer afford the different services, Netflix, Amazon, Apple(?),plus HBO, Viacom, Fox and all those other bundled networks?
Cable will die, the bundled networks will suddenly have to prove that they have many shows that the public wants.
Many of them will die a very unglamorous death, leaving their share holders only with their death notices.
Their will again be a smaller amount of jobs for actors, anchor people, and woolly headed so called experts.
Unfortunately no one can legislate against greed, shortsightedness, and just plain stupidness.
So my prediction for the future, in ten years their will be less professional entertainment that one can get in ones home then they got in the sixties.
Why the television stations of cause!
The first thing the will kill is cable, by demanding that they pay them excessive fees and then by bundling their programs into steaming services.
Let's look at first things first, how long can the average consumer afford the ever rising price of their cable bill?
How much can the consumer afford the different services, Netflix, Amazon, Apple(?),plus HBO, Viacom, Fox and all those other bundled networks?
Cable will die, the bundled networks will suddenly have to prove that they have many shows that the public wants.
Many of them will die a very unglamorous death, leaving their share holders only with their death notices.
Their will again be a smaller amount of jobs for actors, anchor people, and woolly headed so called experts.
Unfortunately no one can legislate against greed, shortsightedness, and just plain stupidness.
So my prediction for the future, in ten years their will be less professional entertainment that one can get in ones home then they got in the sixties.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Steve's Barking: There are no reforms in the New York City Education Department
There are no reforms in the New York City Education Department.
There never will be any reforms as long as we don't think of students as individuals with individual needs some faster and some slower.
Special Ed is a doomed 60 year experiment, especially when the student in special ed feels inferior, and schools make money by having it.
We the public blame teachers for being over paid, when the truth be told most of the money government gives to education goes to the bureaucracy.
Many a proponent of school reforms talk of standardize testing, when time, and time again shows that standardize testing is a root cause of cheating. Is that what the new reformers want, a way to show young people that it's alright to cheat?
What's with parochial schools? Why do they seem to have better graduation rate and college bound then the normal school system, Maybe we would be better off encouraging them, instead of discouraging them. Wouldn't that help with the over crowding in NYC Schools, and wouldn't it be cheaper then giving more money to the city school systems bureaucracy.
There never will be any reforms as long as we don't think of students as individuals with individual needs some faster and some slower.
Special Ed is a doomed 60 year experiment, especially when the student in special ed feels inferior, and schools make money by having it.
We the public blame teachers for being over paid, when the truth be told most of the money government gives to education goes to the bureaucracy.
Many a proponent of school reforms talk of standardize testing, when time, and time again shows that standardize testing is a root cause of cheating. Is that what the new reformers want, a way to show young people that it's alright to cheat?
What's with parochial schools? Why do they seem to have better graduation rate and college bound then the normal school system, Maybe we would be better off encouraging them, instead of discouraging them. Wouldn't that help with the over crowding in NYC Schools, and wouldn't it be cheaper then giving more money to the city school systems bureaucracy.
Steve's barking; Just call me a Jelly Role
Ech Ein Berliner!
With so many people who call their politics Conservatives or Liberal or Progressive, something I find hard to understand. Today's Conservatives aren't yesterday's Conservatives and today Liberals, and Progressives aren't yesterday's. The fact of the matter the Roosevelt's would have a hard time understanding what the meaning of what progressive, liberal movement is today. Hamilton is spinning in his grave,(as if he can spin in his grave).
Just think, today's Conservatives are Pro-Israel, and the Conservatives of my youth were anti-Israel, and many were Democrats to boot.
Our founding father Conservatives were pro tax Hamiltonian's. Our founding father liberals were Jeffersonians who believed that this country should have a revolution every 45 years. ( I may have it wrong, he may have stated 35 years).
I can call myself a conservative, after all I want to conserve Social Security, Medicare, and equality that's all ready been won, but our so called conservatives want to dismantle instead of conserve.
Those who call themselves Liberals, Progressive seem to want to live in the past and have no idea how to help the masses, and the oppressed.
Getting back to some who call themselves Republican Conservatives, are not Conservatives at all, there obstructionist.
People call themselves Conservatives, Liberals, and Progressives. This is a free country and people can call themselves what every they want, so just call me a Jelly Role.
With so many people who call their politics Conservatives or Liberal or Progressive, something I find hard to understand. Today's Conservatives aren't yesterday's Conservatives and today Liberals, and Progressives aren't yesterday's. The fact of the matter the Roosevelt's would have a hard time understanding what the meaning of what progressive, liberal movement is today. Hamilton is spinning in his grave,(as if he can spin in his grave).
Just think, today's Conservatives are Pro-Israel, and the Conservatives of my youth were anti-Israel, and many were Democrats to boot.
Our founding father Conservatives were pro tax Hamiltonian's. Our founding father liberals were Jeffersonians who believed that this country should have a revolution every 45 years. ( I may have it wrong, he may have stated 35 years).
I can call myself a conservative, after all I want to conserve Social Security, Medicare, and equality that's all ready been won, but our so called conservatives want to dismantle instead of conserve.
Those who call themselves Liberals, Progressive seem to want to live in the past and have no idea how to help the masses, and the oppressed.
Getting back to some who call themselves Republican Conservatives, are not Conservatives at all, there obstructionist.
People call themselves Conservatives, Liberals, and Progressives. This is a free country and people can call themselves what every they want, so just call me a Jelly Role.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Steve's barking; So you think the devaluation of they Euro is good for the Euro Zone?
Is the devaluation of the Euro good for the Euro Zone?
Classic economics would tend to say yes, because goods from the Euro Zone becomes cheaper in the United States.
Fortunately for the Euro Zone the price of energy has gone down, if not any gains that for cheaper labor would be negated by much cheaper energy and raw material cost in relationship to the dollar.
In the modern (21st) century heavy manufacturing cost depends more on raw material and energy, (which is becoming cheaper in the US then Europe) then it does on labor.
Europe can't compete with Asia for cost in labor intensive industries.
Let's look at something that Europe is doing that hurts its exports. Austerity hurts it's industries, with the exports to counties in the Euro Zone. Think about it, if your customers can't afford your product, how are they going to buy your product? Most of European nations exports are to other nations in the Euro Zone.
It has been discussed that Europe tourism will go up from the United States because Europe has become cheaper.
A person from the U.S. isn't going to take a trip to Europe in most cases unless they all ready planned to take a vacation. They may change their mind and instead of taking a trip to places in America, or the Caribbean they may take advantage of the cheaper Europe. Maybe next year it's possible for a surge in tourists from the U.S. to Europe.
Who in the U.S will be hurt by the dollar growth against the Euro. Places like New York with it's large retail stores that cater to foreign tourist, and hotels.
The retail stores in the U.S. that have large European clientele.
Places like McDonald's won't lose money but their profits will be smaller. The same is true for bottlers like Coke and Pepsi.
U.S. manufactures like Caterpillar and John Dear may lose some sales and the sales that they do keep the profit margin will be slimmer.
Profits for our high tech companies will be there, just that the profits will be slimmer.
It won't be a disaster,except for all those stock holders who expect greater profits year after year( and in some case quarter after quarter.
Who will benefit most, those European companies that have a large presents in the US by owning U.S. companies or large manufactoring facilities in the U.S. that sell to the American market.
Should Americans investors buy European stocks, after all the German Dax has gone up 20% since the beginning of the year.
The Euro has only lost 12% in that time so, the investor in the Dax would be up 8%.
My thinking is that the chances that the Euro will lose value against the dollar will be greater then the increase of the Dax index for the rest of the year.
Classic economics would tend to say yes, because goods from the Euro Zone becomes cheaper in the United States.
Fortunately for the Euro Zone the price of energy has gone down, if not any gains that for cheaper labor would be negated by much cheaper energy and raw material cost in relationship to the dollar.
In the modern (21st) century heavy manufacturing cost depends more on raw material and energy, (which is becoming cheaper in the US then Europe) then it does on labor.
Europe can't compete with Asia for cost in labor intensive industries.
Let's look at something that Europe is doing that hurts its exports. Austerity hurts it's industries, with the exports to counties in the Euro Zone. Think about it, if your customers can't afford your product, how are they going to buy your product? Most of European nations exports are to other nations in the Euro Zone.
It has been discussed that Europe tourism will go up from the United States because Europe has become cheaper.
A person from the U.S. isn't going to take a trip to Europe in most cases unless they all ready planned to take a vacation. They may change their mind and instead of taking a trip to places in America, or the Caribbean they may take advantage of the cheaper Europe. Maybe next year it's possible for a surge in tourists from the U.S. to Europe.
Who in the U.S will be hurt by the dollar growth against the Euro. Places like New York with it's large retail stores that cater to foreign tourist, and hotels.
The retail stores in the U.S. that have large European clientele.
Places like McDonald's won't lose money but their profits will be smaller. The same is true for bottlers like Coke and Pepsi.
U.S. manufactures like Caterpillar and John Dear may lose some sales and the sales that they do keep the profit margin will be slimmer.
Profits for our high tech companies will be there, just that the profits will be slimmer.
It won't be a disaster,except for all those stock holders who expect greater profits year after year( and in some case quarter after quarter.
Who will benefit most, those European companies that have a large presents in the US by owning U.S. companies or large manufactoring facilities in the U.S. that sell to the American market.
Should Americans investors buy European stocks, after all the German Dax has gone up 20% since the beginning of the year.
The Euro has only lost 12% in that time so, the investor in the Dax would be up 8%.
My thinking is that the chances that the Euro will lose value against the dollar will be greater then the increase of the Dax index for the rest of the year.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Steve's barking; what if the next presidential election nobody cared?
The next presidential election in the United States is coming up and the general public seems bored all ready. I'll take a stab in the dark and say that only those who make money off politics and people who don't have a life care about who's running for president in 2016.
What happens if we're stuck with the most uninspiring candidates after the silly season better known as primary season.
What happens if what the candidates say to get donations and the delegates in the early Caucuses and primaries ( ruining it for everybody who else who vote in the general elections) is just a big turn off.
What happens the general voting population decides that it's just not worth it to go to the poles?
Is it possible that this presidential election that less then 50% of those who can vote do?
Can the president elect say this is a great victory?
A great victory for apathy maybe.
As I look at the canidates who are likely to run, the only thing that the inspire in me is to throw up.
Is that what the leader of the free world is suppose inspire?
What happens if we're stuck with the most uninspiring candidates after the silly season better known as primary season.
What happens if what the candidates say to get donations and the delegates in the early Caucuses and primaries ( ruining it for everybody who else who vote in the general elections) is just a big turn off.
What happens the general voting population decides that it's just not worth it to go to the poles?
Is it possible that this presidential election that less then 50% of those who can vote do?
Can the president elect say this is a great victory?
A great victory for apathy maybe.
As I look at the canidates who are likely to run, the only thing that the inspire in me is to throw up.
Is that what the leader of the free world is suppose inspire?
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Steve's barking; America the math challenged country
A lot has been said that the top tech companies aren't hiring minority ( not counting Asians).
Now after a little research on my part I have discovered that the top tech companies only hire 20% of the computer science graduates.
My research indicates that only 12% of computer science grads are women.
My research indicates that 10 % of computer science grads are minorities.
That being said what percentage of new hires should be women and what percentage should be minority?
Hint women should not make up 12% and minorities should not make up less then 10%.
* My research isn't that good because I did on Google and Google has been falling down on the job.
I ask simple question and I'm steered to sites that are at best remotely related to what I ask.
Now if my math isn't off I would say that female hires should be 2.4 % of hires and minorities should be 2%.
Now if I would rate my math ability on 1 to 10, I would rate it a 2.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Steve's. Barking; at some oily questions
If there's no room at the inn ( there's no room for anymore oil in the U.S. Oil holding depots) why is the price of gas going up? *
Why is there a spread of $10 for Brent compared to domestic crude?
Would allowing domestic crude overseas help producers in the US produce more crude because there will be a profit?
Does the U.S. sell gasoline overseas? What about diesel? And what about benzine?
If it does, doesn't that defeat the purpose of no oil selling domestic oil overseas?
Is it possible that selling domestic crude overseas lower the price of oil in the US?
*Shouldn't the refiners be giving gas away?
Is the price of oil being manipulated?
Why is there a spread of $10 for Brent compared to domestic crude?
Would allowing domestic crude overseas help producers in the US produce more crude because there will be a profit?
Does the U.S. sell gasoline overseas? What about diesel? And what about benzine?
If it does, doesn't that defeat the purpose of no oil selling domestic oil overseas?
Is it possible that selling domestic crude overseas lower the price of oil in the US?
*Shouldn't the refiners be giving gas away?
Is the price of oil being manipulated?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)