Book Of Norm

Follow this logic: "a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product [GDP] due to climate change is about 3 percent…by [the year] 2100" " Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy. For example, the Congressional Budget Office…concludes that the cap-and-trade provisions of H.R. 2454…would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) below what it would otherwise have been—by roughly ¼ percent to ¾ percent in 2020 and by between 1 percent and 3½ percent in 2050. By way of comparison, CBO projects that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today, so those changes would be comparatively modest." Yeah, and even more "modest" in 2100. The cost in 2050 is still $500billion, which is $500billion less to divide among American citizens - lower standards of living, less economic opportunity, less housing, less social welfare, less everything. And why?...

I dont normally read comments on articles (it is one of the most useless aspects of Web 2.0 in my opinion), but fortunately the crowd at NewScientist seems to be better than most, so I read more of the comments. And today, I was rewarded, coming across this: "The FAA doesn't comission/build and operate aircraft, so why does NASA have to comission/build and operate space craft?" While I think NASA should be involved on the science and research side, I dont think it should be building the rockets anymore. Let private companies do that, NASA can pay to fly, and we might actually be able to move ahead.

I usually spend time yelling at people in front of me to find the skinny pedal on the right. Often they are driving sport/luxury/SUV/crossovers. However, in this case, one such driver found the skinny pedal on the right at just the wrong time.. hilarity ensues.

The basic premise of a board of directors is that it is independent from the company and does not have conflicts of interest. As the varied companies of USA Inc. are finding out, the 535 new "board members" they picked up when the government bought them out are heavily biased, have agendas, and have serious conflicts of interest. I speak of course of the members of Congress, who right now are fighting GM, Chrysler, AIG etc etc to not close that office, reinstate that contract with a mine in their home state, re-open a dealership that was meant to be closed etc etc etc. In other words, business as usual for the conniving idiots who run this country (on both sides of the isle, in every corner of Washington, they all love their pork and bullshit). The end result will of course be that those companies dont do very well. If you force companies to do things that are in your constituents "best interests" instead of the companies best interests and at the same time scare of...

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY? This article, through its tone, its implications, it stupidity and its anti-capitalist, anti-competitive, fuck the principles and people that built this country premise pisses me off so fucking much I cant think straight right now. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/business/27aig.html?em Do people out there actually read this and think "wow, Hank Greenberg, he's really ruining this country because he is hiring away executives from a failed fuckup of a govt. bailout where a communist pay czar who was not elected and has no fucking legitimate powers at all just decided to cut their pay by 50% and completely violate their contracts, but still it's un-American to compete for talent with a goverment owned company." The tone of the article is just so totally fucked. It keeps saying things like "exploit," "lure," and the line "While America generally loves stories of entrepreneurs making a comeback, Mr. Gree...

Fiat has a hot little hatch they want America to know about: the 500. The original 500 is an Italian icon, this one is a popular, and very nice retrofuturistic remake. Fiat, now owner of Chrysler, has repeatedly stated that the 500 will be the first and perhaps the only Fiat badged vehicle to be sold Stateside. Interestingly, the first one to be brought over with be the Abarth - the factory tuner special: I like the 500. I like the reviews I have read. But I dont think that the Abarth is really going to get Americans all hot an bothered. And let me give you two reasons why: 133hp $19,000 Lets think about this. That is $142 per HP. A Ford Mustang GT is about $83 per HP, with 300hp/$25,000 A Mazdaspeed 3 is also $83 per HP, with 263hp/$22,000 Even a Mini Cooper, which I have always regarded as expensive, is $127 per HP Now, HP is not all of the battle. Neither is 0-60 times. To a degree, those are outdated ideas on performance, I will be the first to say. But they are outdated in part be...

Turns out Renault made a bit of an iffy decision to invest in the Russian company behind Lada cars. Back in 2007, they got locked in a bidding war with GM and Fiat, and ended up buying 25% of the company for $1 billion. Today, that stake is worth about $250 million, meaning it has already been a disaster for Renault. What they did not count on is the Russian version of "bailout." Turns out that Putin the Russian People own 25% of the company as well, and they Putin is demanding that Renault gives about $850 million in loans to Lada... or else. In other words, in Mother Russia, the bailout comes not from the ever generous government, but from whatever foreign company had the screwed up idea to try and operate in Russia, and is now faced with the option of paying up or writing off the entire investment, and the Russian market overall.