If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Economist)   Facebook's IPO is so big, it will balance California's budget   (economist.com) divider line 100
    More: Cool, IPO  
•       •       •

12577 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 May 2012 at 2:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-14 03:37:04 PM  

DavidVincent: farkerts: The solution is even easier that that, simply stop paying to feed, house, educate and give medical care to the 3M illegal immigrants in the State and your problem is solved!

No, no. It's prop 13. If we didn't have prop 13 we could pay for them easily. We need to tax the elderly at a higher rate so mamacitas can take their ninas and ninos to the emergency rooms for ear aches. Also it costs a lot to have the helicopter fly them to trauma centers after their gang fights. (happens at least once a month here)


I read that as ninjas and ninos. Much more interesting.
 
2012-05-14 03:37:44 PM  
You mean a P/E of >100 isn't a good investment? lulz

Stay very far away from the facebook IPO.

/Guy who bought UG over a year ago.
 
2012-05-14 03:39:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: jdmac: Oh those evil Wall Street types going and balancing CA's budget. Those bloodsucking vampires. Don't they know that investment in business is bad? I hope the occupiers do not hear about this, or they are going to really upset.

That's the crappiest strawman I've ever seen.


So I GIS'd "crappy strawman".
i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-14 03:40:44 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: Cagey B: RoyBatty: jackiepaper: That last paragraph's intellectual dishonesty is staggering. California's tax system is farked thanks to a wee little thing called Prop 13. Any discussion of why the state is messed up that fails to mention it is basically lying.

Just wondering, who was governor back then when that crazy bill passed?

Prop 13 was an initiative, not a bill.

And you're arguing semantics on something that has completely hosed the most populous state? Aren't you precious.


How is it semantics?

Someone asked what governor prop 13 was passed under.

The point being made is that it is irrelevant what governor prop 13 was passed under because it's passage was not in the hands of that governor.

Rhetoric fail.
 
2012-05-14 03:44:57 PM  
To see why California is in trouble you just have to look at the "high speed" rail project. It's almost universally acknowledged as the biggest money-wasting useless boondoggle in the history of the state if not the world, and yet it will ... not ... die. That's the nature of things in this state. If some politically-connected constituency stands to make money off of something, no matter how insane, stupid, or wasteful, it'll happen. So no matter how much dough California makes off of Facebook, it'll go down the same sinkhole as what preceded it and what will follow.
 
2012-05-14 03:47:20 PM  

jjorsett: If some politically-connected constituency stands to make money off of something, no matter how insane, stupid, or wasteful, it'll happen.


Explains Prop 13 pretty well...
 
2012-05-14 03:52:07 PM  
facebook can suck it...
 
2012-05-14 03:54:20 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: fanbladesaresharp: Cagey B: RoyBatty: jackiepaper: That last paragraph's intellectual dishonesty is staggering. California's tax system is farked thanks to a wee little thing called Prop 13. Any discussion of why the state is messed up that fails to mention it is basically lying.

Just wondering, who was governor back then when that crazy bill passed?

Prop 13 was an initiative, not a bill.

And you're arguing semantics on something that has completely hosed the most populous state? Aren't you precious.

How is it semantics?

Someone asked what governor prop 13 was passed under.

The point being made is that it is irrelevant what governor prop 13 was passed under because it's passage was not in the hands of that governor.

Rhetoric fail.


Semantics fail there space cowboy. You're hung up on the verbiage of something that's completely screwed the state over the years. I'm guessing you're probably 30 or younger to understand. Get rid of the problem, citizen. You've had enough time.
 
2012-05-14 04:08:39 PM  

crewsr: faceTulipbook can suck it...

 
2012-05-14 04:09:34 PM  
I really, really, really hope my 401(k) managers don't put any of my money into this. Day traders and other short term investors will go nuts with this shiat and I'm sure the price will rise crazily following the IPO, but my retirement money needs to go to things that aren't going to tank (at least relatively speaking) within 5 years.

I've chosen investment funds that are mostly conservative, so I might be OK. But still, for a long term investment, I'd run screaming away from this piece of hot air.
 
2012-05-14 04:12:47 PM  

jjorsett: To see why California is in trouble you just have to look at the "high speed" rail project. It's almost universally acknowledged as the biggest money-wasting useless boondoggle in the history of the state if not the world, and yet it will ... not ... die. That's the nature of things in this state. If some politically-connected constituency stands to make money off of something, no matter how insane, stupid, or wasteful, it'll happen. So no matter how much dough California makes off of Facebook, it'll go down the same sinkhole as what preceded it and what will follow.


I would have to go with building LA, San Diego, and all the rest in the freaking desert. My second choice would be building the state capitol in a swamp. There's also Prop 13, Irvine Ranch, stolen Spanish land grants, Kearney and the Bear Flaggers ...

No, I think you're just guilty of massive hyperbole, nevermind.
 
2012-05-14 04:14:49 PM  
Does anyone still have the image of the governator at his desk with large stack of paper, with capshun "I'm not going to read all dat" ???
 
2012-05-14 04:20:30 PM  

Tellingthem: Thorny4Pie: I'm 10yrs removed from living in California (all in So Cal), and it seems every year something more is farked in that state that convinces me that moving and taking a cut in pay was worth every penny. I think the only thing I truly miss is the melting pot of cuisine available.

I've lived in San Diego for around 8 years and about the only thing I would miss would be the burritos...every other burrito sucks compared to the ones here.


Have you looked out the window today?
 
2012-05-14 04:21:06 PM  

Rapmaster2000: seadoo2006: JohnCarter: So this supposed $100 Billion worth that is pegged as the value of Facebook. Not that anyone has seen it, but other than selling all the data it has collected and promised never to let anyone have access to, what is their income vs expenditure?

Do they actually have cash flow or is it all just hype?

Expected Market Capitalization + private share value = $100 Billion ... it's not too hard of a stretch if the IPO is successful ... Google did 23 or 24 Billion in market cap with their IPO and Facebook seems to be buzzing a bit more than even Google did back in the day.

Google also is valued at 5 times revenue vs. Facebook which is trying to valuate at 24 times revenue. That's why I'm staying away.


But what was it valued at at the time of the IPO?
 
2012-05-14 04:23:11 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: Kumana Wanalaia: fanbladesaresharp: Cagey B: RoyBatty: jackiepaper: That last paragraph's intellectual dishonesty is staggering. California's tax system is farked thanks to a wee little thing called Prop 13. Any discussion of why the state is messed up that fails to mention it is basically lying.

Just wondering, who was governor back then when that crazy bill passed?

Prop 13 was an initiative, not a bill.

And you're arguing semantics on something that has completely hosed the most populous state? Aren't you precious.

How is it semantics?

Someone asked what governor prop 13 was passed under.

The point being made is that it is irrelevant what governor prop 13 was passed under because it's passage was not in the hands of that governor.

Rhetoric fail.

Semantics fail there space cowboy. You're hung up on the verbiage of something that's completely screwed the state over the years. I'm guessing you're probably 30 or younger to understand. Get rid of the problem, citizen. You've had enough time.


The difference between a bill and a ballot initiative is not semantics. One goes through the legislature and is signed by the governor. The other is voted on by the population. That's why pointing out that it was not a bill but a ballot initiative was a perfectly appropriate bit of information to give in response to the question of who was governor.
 
2012-05-14 04:27:58 PM  

SoCalSurfer: Tellingthem: Thorny4Pie: I'm 10yrs removed from living in California (all in So Cal), and it seems every year something more is farked in that state that convinces me that moving and taking a cut in pay was worth every penny. I think the only thing I truly miss is the melting pot of cuisine available.

I've lived in San Diego for around 8 years and about the only thing I would miss would be the burritos...every other burrito sucks compared to the ones here.

Have you looked out the window today?


Yeah it's a nice day...but I can get nice weather in lots of areas...I can't get a good burrito...
 
2012-05-14 04:34:26 PM  

Thrag: fanbladesaresharp: Kumana Wanalaia: fanbladesaresharp: Cagey B: RoyBatty: jackiepaper: That last paragraph's intellectual dishonesty is staggering. California's tax system is farked thanks to a wee little thing called Prop 13. Any discussion of why the state is messed up that fails to mention it is basically lying.

Just wondering, who was governor back then when that crazy bill passed?

Prop 13 was an initiative, not a bill.

And you're arguing semantics on something that has completely hosed the most populous state? Aren't you precious.

How is it semantics?

Someone asked what governor prop 13 was passed under.

The point being made is that it is irrelevant what governor prop 13 was passed under because it's passage was not in the hands of that governor.

Rhetoric fail.

Semantics fail there space cowboy. You're hung up on the verbiage of something that's completely screwed the state over the years. I'm guessing you're probably 30 or younger to understand. Get rid of the problem, citizen. You've had enough time.

The difference between a bill and a ballot initiative is not semantics. One goes through the legislature and is signed by the governor. The other is voted on by the population. That's why pointing out that it was not a bill but a ballot initiative was a perfectly appropriate bit of information to give in response to the question of who was governor.


Thrag, it is unmanly to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. They obviously went to school in California during the worst of the Prop 13 era and this argument is a direct result.

Clearly, Governor Brown, while publicly opposed to prop 13, went door-to-door and pled to each voter individually to vote for prop 13.

Now if the moron had made the argument that, by leaving a surplus of money in the state government, he unwittingly led a state revolt against taxes which was unfairly directed toward property taxes collected by the county, instead of state income taxes, he might have a point. He didn't so... here we are.
 
2012-05-14 04:37:30 PM  
You can bet quite a few people will be leaving California to avoid those taxes. Zuckerberg might just decide to take Facebook to Delaware.
 
2012-05-14 04:48:55 PM  

haemaker: Thrag, it is unmanly to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. They obviously went to school in California during the worst of the Prop 13 era and this argument is a direct result.Clearly, Governor Brown, while publicly opposed to prop 13, went door-to-door and pled to each voter individually to vote for prop 13.


Pretty funny you're going on and on about this, since I immediately corrected myself and did so before anyone else corrected me on this.

And while Brown was against it prior to its passage he championed it right after its passage to such an extent an LA Times poll back then showed voters thought Brown supported 13 all along.

Link

In that sense, in the sense that Brown championed it, endorsed it, and used it as a huge lever to shift California to Brown's liking during all 8 years of his first two terms as governor, Brown can certainly be held responsible for its impact on California.
 
2012-05-14 04:49:52 PM  

DavidVincent: bloatboy: DavidVincent: farkerts: The solution is even easier that that, simply stop paying to feed, house, educate and give medical care to the 3M illegal immigrants in the State and your problem is solved!

No, no. It's prop 13. If we didn't have prop 13 we could pay for them easily. We need to tax the elderly at a higher rate so mamacitas can take their ninas and ninos to the emergency rooms for ear aches. Also it costs a lot to have the helicopter fly them to trauma centers after their gang fights. (happens at least once a month here)

Hear hear! If not for Prop 13, we could also pay for a million extra lane-miles of road, snow machines in San Diego, and speed metal bands on every gold-paved street corner!

/Actually, it's 10,000,000 new immigrants
//7,000,000 new people on Medi-Cal (Medicaid, but CA is special)
///150,000 new taxpayers
////no problem!


I was told there would be no math.


Er, yeah ok. You're off the hook.
 
2012-05-14 04:59:47 PM  

jjorsett: To see why California is in trouble you just have to look at the "high speed" rail project. It's almost universally acknowledged as the biggest money-wasting useless boondoggle in the history of the state if not the world, and yet it will ... not ... die.


You may have a different opinion after you notice what happens to airline ticket prices in the next couple decades.
 
2012-05-14 05:03:08 PM  

Tellingthem: SoCalSurfer: Tellingthem: Thorny4Pie: I'm 10yrs removed from living in California (all in So Cal), and it seems every year something more is farked in that state that convinces me that moving and taking a cut in pay was worth every penny. I think the only thing I truly miss is the melting pot of cuisine available.

I've lived in San Diego for around 8 years and about the only thing I would miss would be the burritos...every other burrito sucks compared to the ones here.

Have you looked out the window today?

Yeah it's a nice day...but I can get nice weather in lots of areas...I can't get a good burrito...


So true, my favorite place has to be Rudy's in solana beach
 
2012-05-14 05:18:10 PM  
Prop 13 does not need to be thrown out. It merely needs to be rewritten and limited. Right now:

1. There is no income or non-property asset limit. So you are a billionaire who lives in the same Beverly Hills mansion since 1970? You pay less property taxes than some shmuck who just bought a 2 bedroom condo in Irvine.
2. It applies to commercial propetry. So if a huge company owns the same shopping mall, office tower, or warehouse since 1970, they also pay microscopic property tax rates.
3. Even if a commercial property is resold, the tax rate usually doesn't reset as it should because nobody sells commercial property in the state of California any more-they merely sell the LLC whose only business is owning said property. Since the LLC remains the owner, the property isn't actually "sold" for prop 13 purposes, even though it is.

Add an income and non-primary residence property asset limit and remove the exemption from commercial properties and the state budget will be balanced instantaneously. This still prevents the whole "grandma from having to move away because her property taxes skyrocketed" scenario.
 
2012-05-14 05:23:29 PM  

SoCalSurfer: Tellingthem: SoCalSurfer: Tellingthem: Thorny4Pie: I'm 10yrs removed from living in California (all in So Cal), and it seems every year something more is farked in that state that convinces me that moving and taking a cut in pay was worth every penny. I think the only thing I truly miss is the melting pot of cuisine available.

I've lived in San Diego for around 8 years and about the only thing I would miss would be the burritos...every other burrito sucks compared to the ones here.

Have you looked out the window today?

Yeah it's a nice day...but I can get nice weather in lots of areas...I can't get a good burrito...

So true, my favorite place has to be Rudy's in solana beach


I haven't been there, but I will have to make a trip now. There are a few around me (North Park) that are quite good. I judge a taco shop by who eats there and how crappy it looks. Dirty and busy is usually a good sign. And you can never go wrong with Santana's for a california.
 
2012-05-14 05:30:08 PM  
Too Big to Fail
 
2012-05-14 05:32:42 PM  
Really? A buy? What do I know, but it looks like a Groupon or Zynga type IPO to me. More hype than substance. Plus, with more mobile use, less and less folks will see Facebook's valuable website ads.

And it seems to me that social is just a commodity. Facebook was just the first ones to make it work, and make it useful, but it's really just 21st century e-mail.

Can't that be open-sourced or replicated?
 
2012-05-14 05:41:15 PM  

johnnyrocket: Really? A buy? What do I know, but it looks like a Groupon or Zynga type IPO to me. More hype than substance. Plus, with more mobile use, less and less folks will see Facebook's valuable website ads.

And it seems to me that social is just a commodity. Facebook was just the first ones to make it work, and make it useful, but it's really just 21st century e-mail.

Can't that be open-sourced or replicated?


Some of us were trying.
 
2012-05-14 05:51:07 PM  

Geotpf: Prop 13 does not need to be thrown out. It merely needs to be rewritten and limited. Right now:

1. There is no income or non-property asset limit. So you are a billionaire who lives in the same Beverly Hills mansion since 1970? You pay less property taxes than some shmuck who just bought a 2 bedroom condo in Irvine.
2. It applies to commercial propetry. So if a huge company owns the same shopping mall, office tower, or warehouse since 1970, they also pay microscopic property tax rates.
3. Even if a commercial property is resold, the tax rate usually doesn't reset as it should because nobody sells commercial property in the state of California any more-they merely sell the LLC whose only business is owning said property. Since the LLC remains the owner, the property isn't actually "sold" for prop 13 purposes, even though it is.

Add an income and non-primary residence property asset limit and remove the exemption from commercial properties and the state budget will be balanced instantaneously. This still prevents the whole "grandma from having to move away because her property taxes skyrocketed" scenario.


I think that pretty well sums it up.

\I want to buy a house/condo/something in Irvine right now but everything is still a little crazy in terms of price.
 
2012-05-14 06:33:52 PM  
How to fix California's budget:

1. Assess all properties every 10 years, and adjust the property tax rate appropriately.
2. Raise the minimum capital gains tax rate to 25%
3. Tax all autos by gross weight
4. Install tolls every 20 miles on all highways within counties with an urban core.
 
2012-05-14 06:39:50 PM  

Geotpf: Add an income and non-primary residence property asset limit and remove the exemption from commercial properties and the state budget will be balanced instantaneously. This still prevents the whole "grandma from having to move away because her property taxes skyrocketed" scenario.


No. grandma needs to get fark out of the 4-bedroom ranch three blocks from downtown and move into an age-restricted elder tower, so that someone who has kids under the age of 40 can afford to live someplace less than three hours' commute from their jorb.

/and someone needs to start building six and eight story buildings on a large scale for residences in and around downtown urban cores.
 
2012-05-14 06:40:45 PM  
Except that at least one of the Facebook founders, Eduardo Severin, has given up U.S. citizenship for Singapore -- to duck taxes on his estimated $4 billion in stock. Link
 
2012-05-14 06:57:25 PM  

jackiepaper: jvl: jackiepaper: That last paragraph's intellectual dishonesty is staggering. California's tax system is farked thanks to a wee little thing called Prop 13. Any discussion of why the state is messed up that fails to mention it is basically lying.

Damn those voters for placing a clear limit on how much the Legislature can leech out of their pockets! Damn them to heck!

"Voters are often short-sighted":a special report by Ric Romero on tonight's evening news.

/California's initiative process is farking idiotic.


How was that intellectual dishonesty, they agree with all of your stated points? The article says that "the state relies more on personal" taxes, leading to instability. Personal as in opposed to property taxes, Prop 13 was about property taxes. Other comments they have also agreed with you on that the initiative process is extremely damaging and that Prop 13 brought it on (the link is actually a really good link, it talks about Jerry Browns role in all this as well).
 
2012-05-14 07:15:21 PM  

struct: (the link is actually a really good link, it talks about Jerry Browns role in all this as well).


That is a good article.

That circulator gathered signatures for Kimball Petition Management, founded by Fred Kimball and considered the seed of the industry as it exists today. Rather than wait passively for clients (ie, sponsors who need the signatures to qualify their initiatives for the ballot), Mr Kimball came up with his own ideas for initiatives, then sought out someone rich to sponsor them.

As his son, also called Fred Kimball, explained to The Economist, the pricing for signatures today is based purely on market conditions. The circulators are independent contractors who work for several petition-management firms at the same time and often have four or more petitions simultaneously on their folding tables. They "sell me their signatures", says Mr Kimball, and he in turn charges the sponsor a mark-up.


This guy Kimball, is more dangerous than ALEC. At least with ALEC you get a coherent and principled, if obnoxiously conservative, view of the world. This guy thinks up any screwed up initiative he think people will petitition for and he doesn't give a shiat what it's about.

He plays all sides against each other.
 
2012-05-14 07:46:57 PM  

johnnyrocket: Really? A buy? What do I know, but it looks like a Groupon or Zynga type IPO to me.


The only question is; Is there enough hype for a day one pop? While I wouldn't get near Zynga or Groupon with a ten foot pole, I going to bet yes on this one. I've got my COTP in.
 
2012-05-14 07:59:18 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-14 08:05:07 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: End prop 13 and we can finally force the elderly out of CA when they have to choose between paying taxes or food & medicine.

Hurray for Fark Soshulism?


Many states freeze property taxes for 65 and older.
 
2012-05-14 08:06:22 PM  

mcreadyblue: EdNortonsTwin: End prop 13 and we can finally force the elderly out of CA when they have to choose between paying taxes or food & medicine.

Hurray for Fark Soshulism?

Many states freeze property taxes for 65 and older.


That will stop.
 
2012-05-14 08:12:27 PM  

Mantour: [static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Crazy man on TV says Facebook is a ''buy''


Heh, the same guy that was like "RIMM buy 4ever!!!!!!"
 
2012-05-14 08:33:11 PM  

rubi_con_man: How to fix California's budget:

1. Assess all properties every 10 years, and adjust the property tax rate appropriately.
2. Raise the minimum capital gains tax rate to 25%
3. Tax all autos by gross weight
4. Install tolls every 20 miles on all highways within counties with an urban core.


Well, 3 good ideas to one "that's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard" isn't a terrible balance.
 
2012-05-14 09:05:02 PM  
Yahoo was once valued at $100 billion and to this day still has more earnings than Facebook.

Good luck investors. Good luck.
 
2012-05-14 09:27:40 PM  

JimmyFartpants: Yahoo was once valued at $100 billion and to this day still has more earnings than Facebook.

Good luck investors. Good luck.


Yeah. True investors who buy into this are going to be feeling very sorry for themselves in 5 to 8 years. The people who get lucky on the greed, naivete', bad luck or whatever of the other get-rich-quick 'investors' will prosper before it all goes to shiat. Won't be too many overall that prosper besides the pre-IPO stockholders, though. Fads are ephemeral. Facebook has gained an unprecedented mindshare or whatever the else fark you can call it, but it's all based on some form of popularity; think celebrities, bell-bottom jeans or Levis 501s, mini-skirts, tie-die or skinny jeans. Any other thing that too many people doing over an extended period of time manage to take the popular "coolness" out of. At some point, the simple-minded follower types will find something new and shinier to buzz and thump against, like a three-neuron insect.

Yeah. Good luck, investors.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-05-14 09:34:04 PM  
Many states freeze property taxes for 65 and older.

Some cities in Massachusetts do not foreclose on old homeowners. They let taxes accumulate and the estate pays back taxes after the homeowner dies.

Many property tax increases here must be approved by voters. Old people disproportionately vote against property tax increases. Politicians want to divide and conquer.
 
2012-05-14 09:47:02 PM  
How can you blame prop 13 for California's problems?

a) All it does is cap the rate of tax increases by 2% per year. Is that onerous?
b) When a house sells the tax jumps to the current value.
c) It's been almost 40 frikken years. If one of your income streams dries up, don't you think you can adjust to it in 40 fricken years?
d) Someone else mentioned high speed rail. Exactly.
e) About 10 years one of our "leaders" said he figures out how much he wants to spend in a year, then figures out where to get the money. Uhhh, wut?

/ lived here for 50 years
// Will be out of here 34 seconds after my parents die
/// California sucks serious ass, outside of the weather.
 
2012-05-14 11:51:59 PM  

haemaker: Thrag: fanbladesaresharp: Kumana Wanalaia: fanbladesaresharp: Cagey B: RoyBatty: jackiepaper: That last paragraph's intellectual dishonesty is staggering. California's tax system is farked thanks to a wee little thing called Prop 13. Any discussion of why the state is messed up that fails to mention it is basically lying.

Just wondering, who was governor back then when that crazy bill passed?

Prop 13 was an initiative, not a bill.

And you're arguing semantics on something that has completely hosed the most populous state? Aren't you precious.

How is it semantics?

Someone asked what governor prop 13 was passed under.

The point being made is that it is irrelevant what governor prop 13 was passed under because it's passage was not in the hands of that governor.

Rhetoric fail.

Semantics fail there space cowboy. You're hung up on the verbiage of something that's completely screwed the state over the years. I'm guessing you're probably 30 or younger to understand. Get rid of the problem, citizen. You've had enough time.

The difference between a bill and a ballot initiative is not semantics. One goes through the legislature and is signed by the governor. The other is voted on by the population. That's why pointing out that it was not a bill but a ballot initiative was a perfectly appropriate bit of information to give in response to the question of who was governor.

Thrag, it is unmanly to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. They obviously went to school in California during the worst of the Prop 13 era and this argument is a direct result.

Clearly, Governor Brown, while publicly opposed to prop 13, went door-to-door and pled to each voter individually to vote for prop 13.

Now if the moron had made the argument that, by leaving a surplus of money in the state government, he unwittingly led a state revolt against taxes which was unfairly directed toward property taxes collected by the county, instead of state income taxes, he might have a point. He didn ...


I'll be damned. I trolled for once and it worked. Nice. Don't need a lot of fish, just 2 big ones.
 
2012-05-15 12:02:05 AM  

vodka: Mantour: [static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Crazy man on TV says Facebook is a ''buy''

Heh, the same guy that was like "RIMM buy 4ever!!!!!!"


It was quite obvious when RIMM was screwed. Unlike some other companies.
 
2012-05-15 12:06:09 AM  

JimmyFartpants: Yahoo was once valued at $100 billion and to this day still has more earnings than Facebook.

Good luck investors. Good luck.


Too Big to Fail

pocodoy.com
The Rockford Files Feb 24, 1978
 
2012-05-15 12:08:04 AM  
Actually, that episode is quite prophetic.

The Rockford Files: Season 4, Episode 21
The House on Willis Avenue

Took place in California.
 
2012-05-15 06:32:18 AM  
I liked Facebook better when it was called "CB radio."
 
2012-05-16 02:45:18 AM  

Snotnose: How can you blame prop 13 for California's problems?

a) All it does is cap the rate of tax increases by 2% per year. Is that onerous?
b) When a house sells the tax jumps to the current value.
c) It's been almost 40 frikken years. If one of your income streams dries up, don't you think you can adjust to it in 40 fricken years?
d) Someone else mentioned high speed rail. Exactly.
e) About 10 years one of our "leaders" said he figures out how much he wants to spend in a year, then figures out where to get the money. Uhhh, wut?

/ lived here for 50 years
// Will be out of here 34 seconds after my parents die
/// California sucks serious ass, outside of the weather.


You obviously skimmed a very good post above, but:

a. Prop 13 destroyed California in the 70's because it limited increases to 2% while inflation was galloping along at 10-25% a year; in the rare years where inflation is under 2%, it's capped at inflation, so even then it can't catch up. Real property tax revenue was designed from the outset to shrink every year, so the state would be strangled and bankrupted, just like the Tea Party thinks they can do at a national level. Joke's on the long-gone elite of that era; California eventually just said screw it, we're the world's fifth largest economy, who would possibly call our debts? And they were right, just like the Feds.

b. A house, but not a business. Businesses are traded via shell corporations, a blatant abuse of tax law that should have been corrected decades ago. Even houses don't reset when they're inherited.

c. Too many people don't want California to be Texas or Alabama, and it takes money to be great; but on the other hand, too many do, so there's also constant expenditure in court and bureaucracy trying to placate one or the other. (Unfortunately, it's not possible to prosecute for the many crooked political favors that also cost us so much over the years.)

d. Anyone who mentions high speed rail has no idea how much our freeway system costs to build and rebuild continuously, plus 10% of the cost goes to improve existing highways (mainly 99, 43, and 580, and possibly 5 depending on the route). Billions of dollars a year are sunk into concrete. That said, the state is too litigious to get anything done right now, half of the money will be spent in court before one mile of track is laid down.

e. Missed a word? But realistically, that's how budgeting happens everywhere, even companies. Directors come up with all kinds of ways to get every penny they can.

StoPPeRmobile: Actually, that episode is quite prophetic.

The Rockford Files: Season 4, Episode 21
The House on Willis Avenue

Took place in California.


Yeah... Rockford lived in Los Angeles, 90% of his cases were in LA, of course it took place in CA.
 
2012-05-17 11:25:02 AM  

notmtwain: Faceplant shares?


THIS. I say we also calculate in interest from 2002, the first time this happened :)
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report