So a few days ago at work, while I was pulling state wire stories, I came across one about an administrative ruling approving Enbridge to expand a pipeline across Northern MN and into Wisconsin. This MJS story is not the exact story I was looking at, but is on the same approximate topic and will serve to give readers an idea what's going on.
These WI/MN pipelines have been at a low burn for months or years; they make regular if unspectacular appearances on the AP wire, and I'm sure they are widely ignored by all readers save those already emotionally invested in the issue of pipelines. And even those readers likely give the issue short shrift when compared with the granddaddy of all pipeline issues: Keystone XL.
Keystone XL, of course, has been all over the news for years, and is hotly opposed by environmentalists and conservationalists across the country. Here is just one of the many articles, op-eds and treatises written to express that opposition. And I will admit that for a long time, I reflexively agreed with them, on the general assumption that oil is bad, oil companies are bad, we should fight them on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets. I've been thinking more about it, a process catalyzed by the AP story I came across at work, and I'm no longer sure that's the case.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Monday, November 18, 2013
Why Google will eventually take over the world
No, this is not a paranoid conspiracy theory. This is just a thought experiment at taking current trends to their logical extremes. I quite like the results, however.
One thing I quite enjoy about watching large tech companies is their rather straightforward approach to problem solving. Having trouble breaking into a certain industry? Just reinvent the industry. Is one company causing you problems with their chokehold on the market? Invent their competition and push them out of the way. Consider how many industries Apple has essentially invented in the last decade. This is a very different approach from large corporations in other industries. GM, Ford, Honda, Chrysler, all the automakers, all expanded until they could expand no more, and then settled down to compete for incrementally larger slices of the existing market share. (Unless you're talking about Tesla, which is as much a tech company as a car company, and acts like it.)
Recently, I was discussing this with my brother in relation to the video game company Valve. Over the last decade, through the incremental growth and development of their Steam platform, Valve has managed to snap up something like 75% of the total PC video game distribution market. As a consumer, I will admit that I think the last time I bought a hard copy of a PC game was Halo 2; everything else I could desire is either on Steam or can be downloaded directly from the developer. And given the choice, I'll go with Steam. They have an extremely well-integrated social and stat-tracking front-end, and more to the point, they have a ridiculous economic engine in the form of TF2 Hats, Dota 2 cosmetic items, trading cards, and all the other games that provide market items to feed the growing Steam economy.
One thing I quite enjoy about watching large tech companies is their rather straightforward approach to problem solving. Having trouble breaking into a certain industry? Just reinvent the industry. Is one company causing you problems with their chokehold on the market? Invent their competition and push them out of the way. Consider how many industries Apple has essentially invented in the last decade. This is a very different approach from large corporations in other industries. GM, Ford, Honda, Chrysler, all the automakers, all expanded until they could expand no more, and then settled down to compete for incrementally larger slices of the existing market share. (Unless you're talking about Tesla, which is as much a tech company as a car company, and acts like it.)
Recently, I was discussing this with my brother in relation to the video game company Valve. Over the last decade, through the incremental growth and development of their Steam platform, Valve has managed to snap up something like 75% of the total PC video game distribution market. As a consumer, I will admit that I think the last time I bought a hard copy of a PC game was Halo 2; everything else I could desire is either on Steam or can be downloaded directly from the developer. And given the choice, I'll go with Steam. They have an extremely well-integrated social and stat-tracking front-end, and more to the point, they have a ridiculous economic engine in the form of TF2 Hats, Dota 2 cosmetic items, trading cards, and all the other games that provide market items to feed the growing Steam economy.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
The E-word
I am currently applying for jobs as a teacher. I am I hold Secondary English/Language Arts licensure (at least provisionally) in three states and am applying to every position I can find in at least a substantial portion of each. I started searching in early February, shortly after finishing student teaching and graduating in January.
I have submitted 82 applications to date. I have only missed 8 application deadlines that I know of, half of which were in the last week; between the increased number of positions, and my need to take time away from applications for interviews and (starting next week) working full-time at my summer job, it's now more or less unfeasible to apply to every application that comes along. That also doesn't count job postings that have no deadline; I'm usually so busy trying to keep ahead of deadlines that those without get pushed to the back of the line, and I'm sure many of the open-deadline positions on my list have been filled for weeks. Until the rate of postings starts to slow down (and it may have, although I haven't checked my job boards for close to a week), there's only so much I can do.
I have had 7 interviews. One of those was for a position that I actually had not applied for; my resume came into consideration because the district had it from a job fair. Another district scheduled me for an interview, but then unscheduled me in favor of someone else. Yeah. Classy, I know. Of the 7 interviews I have had, 4 have notified me of having selected another candidate, one has not contacted me but can be safely assumed to be a bust, and one is still a possibility but is several days past their intended timeframe of reply, from which I deduce that they have offered to another candidate and are waiting to see if he/she accepts and is approved by their board; the only way they will offer it to me is if every more favored candidate turns them down. Not holding my breath. The seventh interview was this afternoon; they expect to be contacting candidates with their decision on Wednesday.
I have received confirmed rejections for 31 of the applications I have sent, counting the unsuccessful interviews.
I am so, so very sick of job applications.
I have submitted 82 applications to date. I have only missed 8 application deadlines that I know of, half of which were in the last week; between the increased number of positions, and my need to take time away from applications for interviews and (starting next week) working full-time at my summer job, it's now more or less unfeasible to apply to every application that comes along. That also doesn't count job postings that have no deadline; I'm usually so busy trying to keep ahead of deadlines that those without get pushed to the back of the line, and I'm sure many of the open-deadline positions on my list have been filled for weeks. Until the rate of postings starts to slow down (and it may have, although I haven't checked my job boards for close to a week), there's only so much I can do.
I have had 7 interviews. One of those was for a position that I actually had not applied for; my resume came into consideration because the district had it from a job fair. Another district scheduled me for an interview, but then unscheduled me in favor of someone else. Yeah. Classy, I know. Of the 7 interviews I have had, 4 have notified me of having selected another candidate, one has not contacted me but can be safely assumed to be a bust, and one is still a possibility but is several days past their intended timeframe of reply, from which I deduce that they have offered to another candidate and are waiting to see if he/she accepts and is approved by their board; the only way they will offer it to me is if every more favored candidate turns them down. Not holding my breath. The seventh interview was this afternoon; they expect to be contacting candidates with their decision on Wednesday.
I have received confirmed rejections for 31 of the applications I have sent, counting the unsuccessful interviews.
I am so, so very sick of job applications.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Democrats, take note
<mounts soapbox>
You know what I would say if I were in Congress and I heard talk about how we shouldn't tax 'job creators' because 'their investments drive the economy,' etc. etc.?
(I'm not bothering to find or post specific examples; if you aren't aware of the line of reasoning of which I speak, you clearly need to watch http://www.thedailyshow.com/ more often.)
There appears to be a false dichotomy in the minds of many people between investment and the government. They say that we cannot tax the wealthy at even the same rate as their blue-collar employees because doing so will 'discourage' investment. Since when was paying taxes not an investment? When a citizen or corporation pays taxes, they are absolutely making an investment. They are investing in roads, bridges and airports to help them bring their products to market quickly, cheaply and safely. They are investing in an education program that will produce a more capable, flexible and competitive workforce to create said products. They are investing in a military capable of safeguarding American assets, public, private or corporate, in any market around the world. They are investing in law enforcement, retirement benefits, and social programs that will keep their workforce and their customer base healthy and happy. They are investing in scientific research in everything from biotechnology to aerospace engineering that will produce breakthroughs to drive our economy through the next century and beyond. They are investing in the responsible and sustainable development of our natural resources. Their investment will create jobs in education, construction, research and development, manufacturing, and beyond, all of which will drive economic growth and direct commerce back at them and their companies. If someone came up to me and offered me shares in that investment, I'd say it was a darned fine deal.
Of course, the people who are opposed to this might have another meaning of the word 'investment' in mind, so let me tell you what investing in America will not do. It will not buy out smaller companies, strip them of their assets and leave them for dead. It will not bundle junk mortgages into booby-trapped credit swaps and sell them to retirement funds or pension plans. It will not drive massive bonuses into the pockets of executives whose businesses are going under. If that's the kind of investment people want to make, that's their decision, but I wouldn't expect the American people to slash their taxes to cover it. Because America has tried that. America has tried giving corporations and Wall Street free reign, and it led us into the worst depression since the great one. So if you want to invest, fine. But invest in America first.
<dismounts soapbox>
You know what I would say if I were in Congress and I heard talk about how we shouldn't tax 'job creators' because 'their investments drive the economy,' etc. etc.?
(I'm not bothering to find or post specific examples; if you aren't aware of the line of reasoning of which I speak, you clearly need to watch http://www.thedailyshow.com/ more often.)
There appears to be a false dichotomy in the minds of many people between investment and the government. They say that we cannot tax the wealthy at even the same rate as their blue-collar employees because doing so will 'discourage' investment. Since when was paying taxes not an investment? When a citizen or corporation pays taxes, they are absolutely making an investment. They are investing in roads, bridges and airports to help them bring their products to market quickly, cheaply and safely. They are investing in an education program that will produce a more capable, flexible and competitive workforce to create said products. They are investing in a military capable of safeguarding American assets, public, private or corporate, in any market around the world. They are investing in law enforcement, retirement benefits, and social programs that will keep their workforce and their customer base healthy and happy. They are investing in scientific research in everything from biotechnology to aerospace engineering that will produce breakthroughs to drive our economy through the next century and beyond. They are investing in the responsible and sustainable development of our natural resources. Their investment will create jobs in education, construction, research and development, manufacturing, and beyond, all of which will drive economic growth and direct commerce back at them and their companies. If someone came up to me and offered me shares in that investment, I'd say it was a darned fine deal.
Of course, the people who are opposed to this might have another meaning of the word 'investment' in mind, so let me tell you what investing in America will not do. It will not buy out smaller companies, strip them of their assets and leave them for dead. It will not bundle junk mortgages into booby-trapped credit swaps and sell them to retirement funds or pension plans. It will not drive massive bonuses into the pockets of executives whose businesses are going under. If that's the kind of investment people want to make, that's their decision, but I wouldn't expect the American people to slash their taxes to cover it. Because America has tried that. America has tried giving corporations and Wall Street free reign, and it led us into the worst depression since the great one. So if you want to invest, fine. But invest in America first.
<dismounts soapbox>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)