President.

[Uncertain]

Let me preface this by saying I think that Obama is an unmitigated disaster of a president and he was and is unqualified to run our great country. But if you really believe he thinks there are 57 states then there is no hope for you. Everyone mispeaks, and when your every word is recorded those become fodder for the rabid. Obama is a great many things, unintelligent is not one of them. Even if he graduated with a C average, doing so from Columbia and Harvard is a far better achievement than the community colleges that Palin

went to.

I understand the rabid right love Palin, that is why she was chosen to be VP. But she just is not the brightest bulb on the tree. She does not just mispeak, she is just lacking in general intelligence and basic knowledge. This has not really changed based upon what I have seen of her since the election. She is a pretty face that can whip up a crowd, and that is a deep as it goes for her.

[udx]

 

 

 

From a person who has taken accounting, I cringe at this statement.

No company is ever valued at its asset value if it is a profitable company. A company is value at what is worth based on not just its assets, but its intangible assets, profitability and potential for profit. A company is only value at its asset value when it is going to be liquidated.

 

 

 

Well, I didn't say that intangible assets are not factored in.  However, to reassess your conclusion that a company is only valued at its asset value when it is going to be liquidated, perhaps you can explain why companies keep an inventory that is conveniently required each quarter?  You see, the problem here is that for the last decade or so, the very people who installed this new form of economics just so happen to be in charge of teaching economics at institutions of higher learning.  What they teach now is simply there to support their flawed system.

 

I don't really see what kind of point you are making, and how your question supports your point.

What exactly is this new form of economics, what what is this flawed system you are talking about. Could you be precise and talk about specifics instead of this vague accusation? Why are you even talking about economics? Accounting is pretty different from economics. My guess you have not taken any form of accounting.

 

When you ask about why companies keep an inventory do you mean they keep stocks for their products available or count their inventory? I do not understand what you are asking.

Companies take an inventory count if they are a product selling companies, because they are required by law to report their financial statements especially if they are public companies. Inventory is a type of hard asset and obviously needed to be reported so investors could make inform decision about their investments. There are plenty of things you can tell about a company by their inventory levels, by comparing the company to their peers. If the inventory level is unusually high relative to their monthly sale volume (turn over ratio), it is a warning sign the company isn't doing so well.

 

 

 

Hey udx,

 

Your answer to my question supports my point, and contradicts your statement that I responded to.  Compare your own responses below and see if you understand my point.  This is what you said originally.

 

 

A company is only value at its asset value when it is going to be liquidated.

 

 

 

This is how you responded to my question regarding inventory and actual value.

 

 

Companies take an inventory count if they are a product selling companies, because they are required by law to report their financial statements especially if they are public companies. Inventory is a type of hard asset and obviously needed to be reported so investors could make inform decision about their investments. There are plenty of things you can tell about a company by their inventory levels, by comparing the company to their peers. If the inventory level is unusually high relative to their monthly sale volume (turn over ratio), it is a warning sign the company isn't doing so well.

 

 

 

As to why am I talking about economics, well, probably because that is what was being discussed.  That is what the gold standard was all about, the basis on which value was determined.  Since we abandoned the gold standard we now operate under an economic system that is based on imagination and wishful thinking.  Hence my example of Facebook being a fortune 500 company in spite of having no actual value.

 

P.S.  I did two semesters of accounting back in the day, just for amusement.

 

I don't see how it supports your point. Care to expound it more than just one sentence, so I don't have to guess what you are talking about?

[other one]

[Uncertain]

First of all, Sarah Palin was Governor of a state.  You have to have a certain amount of intelligence to do that.  What exactly did she do that showed she isn't the brightest bulb?  Are you going to claim it was the college she went to?  Not everyone has the money to go to the schools Obama did, or the ability to claim minority status to get into colleges like that.  It is absurd to claim that one person who got into a highly recognized college because they are a minority, did drugs while there, and didn't allow anyone to see what kind of grades he got, had to be smarter than a woman that went to lesser colleges and earned the grades she got on merit.  That is not proof of anything.  What exactly did Sarah Palin do that showed she is not smart?  Was lack of knowledge on foreign policy supposed to show that is the case?  She was Governor of a state.  There is no reason she had to be a foreign policy expert.  That is something you have to be educated about, and there is no way Obama was a foreign policy expert when he began his run for the White House. 

 

Now, lets look at the 57 state comment.  He not only made the comment, but he put thought into it.  He obviously didn't know what Memorial Day was about, or he wouldn't have claimed he saw many fallen soldiers in his audience.  What did Palin do that was so bad?  She made one comment in trying to show she understands foreign policy where she mentioned how close Russia is to Alaska.  The comedians like Tina Fey made jokes about it where they claimed she said she could see Russia from her back yard, which she never said.  Look at what Obama did when the British Prime Minister came for a visit.  He gave him DVD movies that couldn't even be used in England as a gift.  Look at how he insulted them over the bust of Winston Churchill.  I have no doubt Sarah Palin would be far more competent to be President than Barack Obama.  And again, look at Joe Biden.  Remember that she was running as Vice President, so her counterpart was Biden, the walking gaff machine.  He is supposed to be someone we can be confident would be able to run the country?  I have no such confidence in him. 

 

Was Sarah Palin the absolute best and smartest person McCain could have chosen?  Of course not, but neither is she dumb as people make her out to be.  You can't be a successful Governor of any state if you are dumb.

There is no intelligence requirement for being a governor of a state, all that is required is to talk people into voting for you.

By what measures was she successful? She didn't even serve her whole term.

[ricky]

Because of course going to a big name college is a qualification for being president, and I am sure George Washington and Abraham Lincoln would agree. 

[Uncertain]

Then I can make the same comment about President.  Using your own words.  "There is no intelligence requirement for being President of the United States, all that is required is to talk people into voting for you." 

 

Governing a state is similar to being President but on a smaller scale.  When you look at the other three candidates that were in the race for President and Vice President in 2008:  Obama, McCain and Biden, none of them had run anything, and has it shown with Obama.  I would go along with what you said in describing a Senator or member of the House of Representatives, but not a sitting Governor.  Alaska was doing good when Palin was in office, and her popularity rating was high when she was chosen by McCain. 

 

What does it take for a minority to get into a big name college?  Nothing, because they will often get preferential treatment based on race, and they will also get pushed through, just like athletes will get scholarships to big name schools, and leave with a degree they never earned.  What are you basing your assessment of Palin on, other than your personal feelings of how she looks to you?  I mentioned the one thing she said everyone twisted to make her look dumb.  That was nothing compared to things Obama has said and done.  What exactly makes her less intelligent than 60 percent of the population?  How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Are you aware that white women fall under the umbrella of Affirmative Action, and are in fact the largest beneficiaries of AA. Thus everything you have said could also apply to Palin.

I base my view of her on listening to her talk over the years. Her knowledge of most things is superficial and even her vocabulary is very limited and she tends to try and use big words that she ends up misusing.