- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
U.S. schools may join inexpensive laptop project
|
|
|
Comments (45)
25 earlier comments in the full thread.
> In case somebody doesn't understand
Oh I understand without even looking hkwint, but we're obviously NOT referring to the Nazi Schutzstaffel, which might understandably cause bad memories in many areas of Europe. That said, censoring the two letter abbreviation when used in another common context strikes me as false sensitivity, and, overly political correctness. Now, if this were primarily a Dutch site I'd obviously feel differently.
Oh I understand without even looking hkwint, but we're obviously NOT referring to the Nazi Schutzstaffel, which might understandably cause bad memories in many areas of Europe. That said, censoring the two letter abbreviation when used in another common context strikes me as false sensitivity, and, overly political correctness. Now, if this were primarily a Dutch site I'd obviously feel differently.
jimf -
It's hard for us to grasp how the Dutch or the Poles or others might feel about such things, however
I'm inclined to agree, especially when one considers that the events in question concluded more than 60 years ago.
It's hard for us to grasp how the Dutch or the Poles or others might feel about such things, however
I'm inclined to agree, especially when one considers that the events in question concluded more than 60 years ago.
--Mistake--
Okay, if that's the case, sorry to bother and for hijacking the conversation, and please keep discussing Social Security and OLPC issues. I just wondered if the people using the abbreviation were conscious of the 'other' meaning (some abbreviations are 'contaminated'). Because our 'National Day of Commemoration of the Dead' is this Friday, and nine people - among which resistance and persons in hiding - died in a bloodily SS-raid (the ones which didn't have been executed by SS the next day) only 3 miles from here, I was thinking about it, though it's 60 years ago. But, enough about that.
As for the debt of the USA to foreign countries: I still wonder how long it can last. Some people say it will finally collapse because of the debts, while other say that's almost impossible. The situation with health care is exactly the same here in Europe, which is why there's a big discussion in my country how this should be handled. As it seems now, rich retired people have to pay for the 'old age pensions' (hope that's the correct word) of all other people, people will have to work more years (retirement will be 'postponed' by one or two years), and there are cuts in the costs of health care. Also, hospitals etc. should compete against each other (which doesn't go without saying in my country). Sadly, the pension funds in my country made big investments in American real estate and shares of American companies (MS etc.), so risks for the American economy are a real issue over here, and a lot of people are a bit worried (especially because the dollar loses value compared to the Euro, so the pensions are worth less in Euro's).
Well, only time can tell I think.
As for the debt of the USA to foreign countries: I still wonder how long it can last. Some people say it will finally collapse because of the debts, while other say that's almost impossible. The situation with health care is exactly the same here in Europe, which is why there's a big discussion in my country how this should be handled. As it seems now, rich retired people have to pay for the 'old age pensions' (hope that's the correct word) of all other people, people will have to work more years (retirement will be 'postponed' by one or two years), and there are cuts in the costs of health care. Also, hospitals etc. should compete against each other (which doesn't go without saying in my country). Sadly, the pension funds in my country made big investments in American real estate and shares of American companies (MS etc.), so risks for the American economy are a real issue over here, and a lot of people are a bit worried (especially because the dollar loses value compared to the Euro, so the pensions are worth less in Euro's).
Well, only time can tell I think.
> As for the debt of the USA to foreign countries:
Well, that's a difficult subject. As I understand it, the USA actually has very little debt to foreign countries except to the extent that they own US government bonds. Those bonds have a fixed payment amount over a fixed period. The foreign governments have no way to demand early payment, so the only option they have if they decide they don't want the bonds anymore is to sell the bonds, if they can find a buyer. That will reduce the value of the bonds, but have little other effect. The inability to sell further bonds will, in theory, reduce the USA's ability to run deficits, which would have a greater effect. The only real problem for the US would come if they can't cover the payments due on the bonds. That would get "interesting".
Well, that's a difficult subject. As I understand it, the USA actually has very little debt to foreign countries except to the extent that they own US government bonds. Those bonds have a fixed payment amount over a fixed period. The foreign governments have no way to demand early payment, so the only option they have if they decide they don't want the bonds anymore is to sell the bonds, if they can find a buyer. That will reduce the value of the bonds, but have little other effect. The inability to sell further bonds will, in theory, reduce the USA's ability to run deficits, which would have a greater effect. The only real problem for the US would come if they can't cover the payments due on the bonds. That would get "interesting".
jdixon -
I think our Dutch friend is referring more to "American debt" rather than "US debt", by which I mean debt originating in the US. That would include private corporations and individuals, as well as any government debt.
Personally, I don't know what to think of that. The biggest concern to me is not the sheer amount of debt so much as the continuing growth and the degree to which we rely on foreign benefactors/manufacturers.
Periods of debt interspersed with periods of surplus would indicate a healthier economy, and, to me, that is the concern...that we don't seem to generate any surpluses.
I think our Dutch friend is referring more to "American debt" rather than "US debt", by which I mean debt originating in the US. That would include private corporations and individuals, as well as any government debt.
Personally, I don't know what to think of that. The biggest concern to me is not the sheer amount of debt so much as the continuing growth and the degree to which we rely on foreign benefactors/manufacturers.
Periods of debt interspersed with periods of surplus would indicate a healthier economy, and, to me, that is the concern...that we don't seem to generate any surpluses.
> referring more to "American debt" rather than "US debt", by which I mean debt originating in the US. That would include private corporations and individuals, as well as any government debt.
Hmm, good point. I haven't seen any figures on the private debt owed to foreign interests. Does anyone know of any good sources and/or analysis. IANAE :).
Hmm, good point. I haven't seen any figures on the private debt owed to foreign interests. Does anyone know of any good sources and/or analysis. IANAE :).
> to me, that is the concern...that we don't seem to generate any surpluses.
To me it's that this 'healthy economy' that you keep referring to generates nothing but paper.
To me it's that this 'healthy economy' that you keep referring to generates nothing but paper.
Well, here's an example: Today, GM earns more by granting of credits (and mortgages) than by making auto-mobiles (I heard this on Dutch 'Business News'). This leads to 2% of all credits in my country (NL) coming from GM. I thought GM was supposed to be a car manufacturer, but that's the branche where they are making big losses. The debt of GM (_one_ US company only) is about equal to the national debt of my country (16 million inhabitants), IIRC.
07 May '05, Standard & Poor's reduced GM & Ford's debt ratings to 'Junk Status', which meant it isn't sure if they can ever pay back a part of their giant debt worth (that part) $290 billion:
http://newpaper.asiaone.com/printfriendly/0,4139,87843,00.ht...
Okay, Microsoft and ExxonMobil are doing very fine, but there are a lot of companies like GM; and the question is if the debts those companies have, will ever be paid. Especially because rising retiree health care costs is also an issue. GM is trying to catch up with Toyota, and they announce trucks which will be more fuel-economic than today's Toyota trucks, but when those GM-trucks arrive, Toyota has moved forward, and moreover, fuel has risen in price.
Oh, and BTW, nobody over here at LXer believes MS will be as profitable as today in ten years from now, or am I wrong?
07 May '05, Standard & Poor's reduced GM & Ford's debt ratings to 'Junk Status', which meant it isn't sure if they can ever pay back a part of their giant debt worth (that part) $290 billion:
http://newpaper.asiaone.com/printfriendly/0,4139,87843,00.ht...
Okay, Microsoft and ExxonMobil are doing very fine, but there are a lot of companies like GM; and the question is if the debts those companies have, will ever be paid. Especially because rising retiree health care costs is also an issue. GM is trying to catch up with Toyota, and they announce trucks which will be more fuel-economic than today's Toyota trucks, but when those GM-trucks arrive, Toyota has moved forward, and moreover, fuel has risen in price.
Oh, and BTW, nobody over here at LXer believes MS will be as profitable as today in ten years from now, or am I wrong?
Hans -
GM is a very sad case. The once-mighty manufacturer has fallen on its own stupidity, which is sad, because they actually know how to make good cars. The problem is a short-sighted focus on today's consumer. Nothing wrong with making money on what people are buying today, but a smart company makes sure its other products are strong so that a thoroughly predictable and inevitable increase in fuel prices -- hey! You think it's bad now, wait 'til India catches up with China -- leads consumers to change their wish lists.
They can still make it if they want to, but nothing's guaranteed.
GM is a very sad case. The once-mighty manufacturer has fallen on its own stupidity, which is sad, because they actually know how to make good cars. The problem is a short-sighted focus on today's consumer. Nothing wrong with making money on what people are buying today, but a smart company makes sure its other products are strong so that a thoroughly predictable and inevitable increase in fuel prices -- hey! You think it's bad now, wait 'til India catches up with China -- leads consumers to change their wish lists.
They can still make it if they want to, but nothing's guaranteed.
> Today, GM earns more by granting of credits than by making auto-mobiles ... This leads to 2% of all credits in my country coming from GM.
I assume from this that you're referring to the fact that GM makes more money by handling car loans than by making the cars. That's undoubtedly true, but that's GM loaning money, not GM being in debt.
> The debt of GM (_one_ US company only) is about equal to the national debt of my country (16 million inhabitants), IIRC.
That's entirely possible, but it has nothing to do with their making money on car loans. Yahoo and Google list GM's total debt as just over $48 billion.
I assume from this that you're referring to the fact that GM makes more money by handling car loans than by making the cars. That's undoubtedly true, but that's GM loaning money, not GM being in debt.
> The debt of GM (_one_ US company only) is about equal to the national debt of my country (16 million inhabitants), IIRC.
That's entirely possible, but it has nothing to do with their making money on car loans. Yahoo and Google list GM's total debt as just over $48 billion.
Indeed, car loans are no debts, I meant what they earn from it. But, they (GMAC) also do insurances and mortgages, and these are NO car loans (as far as I am aware); check for yourself what they (used to) do:
http://www.gmacfs.com/us/en/index.html
It seems GM sold their 'financial' subsidiaries recently (March/April 2006), which may be why their debt is not as high as I believed it was; I wasn't really up to date. I don't know why the debt is different from what I thought, but I also suspect they kept the books in 'creative ways' a bit. Nonetheless, Chrysler (DCX) has a debt of about $100b. and Ford(F) of $170b (Yahoo finance is really nice!), which brings the debt of 'Detroit' to $320b. In comparison, NL public debt in 2005 was about $290b. I hope the automobile-branche is not representative to all US economy. At least I know this is true for ExxonMobil, since someone I know told me how much they earn; appalingly big numers of Dollars. Therefore, I guess, ExxonMobil could by an OLPC for every American child this year without losing money. However, they rather use their money to buy back their own shares...
http://www.gmacfs.com/us/en/index.html
It seems GM sold their 'financial' subsidiaries recently (March/April 2006), which may be why their debt is not as high as I believed it was; I wasn't really up to date. I don't know why the debt is different from what I thought, but I also suspect they kept the books in 'creative ways' a bit. Nonetheless, Chrysler (DCX) has a debt of about $100b. and Ford(F) of $170b (Yahoo finance is really nice!), which brings the debt of 'Detroit' to $320b. In comparison, NL public debt in 2005 was about $290b. I hope the automobile-branche is not representative to all US economy. At least I know this is true for ExxonMobil, since someone I know told me how much they earn; appalingly big numers of Dollars. Therefore, I guess, ExxonMobil could by an OLPC for every American child this year without losing money. However, they rather use their money to buy back their own shares...
> But, they also do insurances and mortgages...
OK, but the same story. Those are assets, not liabilities. Those people owe GM money, not the other way around (Note: Yes, accounting considers money you have but owe back a liability, but money you don't have but are owed an asset. I'll never understand accountants.)
The money GM owes is probably mostly corporate bonds.
> I hope the automobile-branche is not representative to all US economy.
It's not. Keeping things somewhat on topic, Intel owes less than $2 billion, Microsoft has no debt, and Red Hat owes $570 million. It varies widely based upon what the company does though. Businesses like railroads and electric companies tend to have a lot of debt since they require a lot of land and infrastructure. Most tech companies are very low debt. Other companies fall in between.
> At least I know this is true for ExxonMobil...
Exxon has more debt than you would expect. Google indicates that they owe about $8.35 billion. Of course, their net income was over $9 billion last quarter alone.
OK, but the same story. Those are assets, not liabilities. Those people owe GM money, not the other way around (Note: Yes, accounting considers money you have but owe back a liability, but money you don't have but are owed an asset. I'll never understand accountants.)
The money GM owes is probably mostly corporate bonds.
> I hope the automobile-branche is not representative to all US economy.
It's not. Keeping things somewhat on topic, Intel owes less than $2 billion, Microsoft has no debt, and Red Hat owes $570 million. It varies widely based upon what the company does though. Businesses like railroads and electric companies tend to have a lot of debt since they require a lot of land and infrastructure. Most tech companies are very low debt. Other companies fall in between.
> At least I know this is true for ExxonMobil...
Exxon has more debt than you would expect. Google indicates that they owe about $8.35 billion. Of course, their net income was over $9 billion last quarter alone.
Hkwint:
I should add, though it may be obvious, that debt is only bad if you can't pay it back. The problem with GM isn't just that their debt is so high. It's that the debt is so high while revenues are falling and profits have been non-existent. If GM were making enough money to pay back their debt over a reasonable amount of time, they wouldn't be in trouble. And at that, things have improved significantly. Their debt was over $279 billion just over a year ago, and they actually had a net income (before adjustments) of $950 million last quarter. Taking in money has never been GM's problem (their gross revenues were over $270 billion last year, and over $51 billion last quarter), their problem has not spending more than they make. A situation I'm sure most of us can understand quite well.
I should add, though it may be obvious, that debt is only bad if you can't pay it back. The problem with GM isn't just that their debt is so high. It's that the debt is so high while revenues are falling and profits have been non-existent. If GM were making enough money to pay back their debt over a reasonable amount of time, they wouldn't be in trouble. And at that, things have improved significantly. Their debt was over $279 billion just over a year ago, and they actually had a net income (before adjustments) of $950 million last quarter. Taking in money has never been GM's problem (their gross revenues were over $270 billion last year, and over $51 billion last quarter), their problem has not spending more than they make. A situation I'm sure most of us can understand quite well.
Quoting:OK, but the same story. Those are assets, not liabilities.
Yes, I understood that, and that was not my problem. My problem was, a _car_ manufacturer made more money by delivering financial services, than by delivering cars. It's the same if Microsoft would make more money by selling Xbox'es than by selling software: If that were the case, the 'business of minor importance' would outshine the core-business, which can never be good if you asked me.
> If that were the case, the 'business of minor importance' would outshine the core-business, which can never be good if you asked me.
Well, GM is the company which is famous for saying (from memory) GM isn't in the business of making cars, they're in the business of making money. When a company becomes more concerned with their profit than their product, what happened to GM is the almost inevitable result. Companies make money by making good products and taking care of their customers. If they do that correctly, the money takes care of itself. If they start worrying about the money instead, they soon don't have either products or money.
So, yes, in my opinion, it's never a good thing.
Well, GM is the company which is famous for saying (from memory) GM isn't in the business of making cars, they're in the business of making money. When a company becomes more concerned with their profit than their product, what happened to GM is the almost inevitable result. Companies make money by making good products and taking care of their customers. If they do that correctly, the money takes care of itself. If they start worrying about the money instead, they soon don't have either products or money.
So, yes, in my opinion, it's never a good thing.
>When a company becomes more concerned with their profit than their product,
No kidding, as the product ultimately drives the product. Most of those GM car loans go to finance GM cars.
GM has been more or less screwed since the Roger Smith days. An accountant in charge of a car company! He truly never saw cars as anything other than "units". That's how the execrable Cadillac Cimarron came to be.
No kidding, as the product ultimately drives the product. Most of those GM car loans go to finance GM cars.
GM has been more or less screwed since the Roger Smith days. An accountant in charge of a car company! He truly never saw cars as anything other than "units". That's how the execrable Cadillac Cimarron came to be.
OTOH, when a business' primary value proposition wanes, its good for that business to show the flexibility to move into another value proposition that is profitable.
Case in point. A guy I know owns a meat slicer made in the 1940s by a company called International Business Machines.
Case in point. A guy I know owns a meat slicer made in the 1940s by a company called International Business Machines.
> OTOH, when a business' primary value proposition wanes, its good for that business to show the flexibility to move into another value proposition that is profitable.
Yes, but the value proposition in cars hasn't really waned. Just ask Toyota.
Yes, but the value proposition in cars hasn't really waned. Just ask Toyota.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
(In case somebody doesn't understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS )