is...trading (occasionally), trying to improve our political system (persistently) and just hangin' out.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Who needs sound?
Fred
Speculators are bores. They don't know nuttin', they're just guessing.
My guess, which is as worthless as anyone else's, is that we'll wind up with about a 1-for-20 split. That should put the price comfortably above the $5.00 level which is important for some institutions. It won't change the value of the company (or investments in it), but it will open the door for a broader spectrum of investors.
That investing in YRCW is a long-term proposition is a given. As a trading vehicle, though, it may have some appeal.
Fred
Consolidated Freightways, years ago.
Same difference.
Fred
I'm sorry to hear that.
Fred
My guess, which is worth what it will cost you, is that YRCW will do well in the long term. They've turned their creditors into investors, gained major improvements in their labor costs, and probably turned their LTL pickup drivers into effective salesmen. In my days in the industry (long, long ago), drivers with the initiative to grab the 'best way' routings added important revenue.
Since the drivers are now shareholders, they just might pick up more freight. One thing is certain --- they can't get more unproductive than they were before this calamity befell them. The dawn may not be bright, but there will be one. We probably won't move up quickly but, in the long run, it should work out OK.
Fred
I was unduly pessimistic, but it will probably be a long grind from here. Any solid information on improving tonnage will be a big help.
Fred
Could be.
We'll know before long.
(Can I send you a private note on a topic we used to discuss?)
Fred
The worry may be the 17th.
#msg-43515538
#msg-46201399
Of course, the fall in gross revenue doesn't help.
Fred
The big question in my mind is whether we have already discounted the dilution or whether the reality of it will take us to 20-cents around the 17th.
Fred
Uhhhh, 'Scuse me
When you have time, could you stick a link to the new eduwiki up there by "Home" and "Mailbox".
It'd sure be nice.
Fred
How perspicacious of you.
Incidentally, that didn't 'clear anything up' ... it's called 'stirring the mud'.
Fred
Nahhhhh ...
It's by the grace of Matt, who had the energy and the insight to conceive it, and Bob who had the talent to make it work.
Fred
I wish I'd something cute to say
But I might not say it, anyway
I was fast enough to catch the flu
A fate I wouldn't wish on you.
I'd sure welcome a cuppa Tea
To lift the spirits of l'il ol' me.
Fred
I'd Like to help, Rosie, but cars ain't my thang.
I'm still looking for someone willing to ...
Ahhh, well. Never mind.
Fred
I disagree.
We are neither stupid nor idiotic.
We simply lack a means of selecting and electing intelligent, principled people as our political leaders.
As long as our laws are enacted (and repealed) by legislators controlled by their financial backers, our circumstances will not improve.
It's easy to say we're dumb --- it's more difficult to say, exactly, how we can put good people in office.
Dammit! ... We live with the rape that followed the repeal of Glass-Steagall every day. When you are smart enough to tell us how we can get it re-instated, you can talk about how dumb the rest of us are.
Fred Gohlke
Thanks for that. It seems like a rational assessment.
Fred
Oh, I don't know. I think the fuel surcharge covered that pretty well. I'm more inclined to imagine the heart of the problem is ego.
When one puts a business in a debt situation that assumes perfect operating conditions beyond the foreseeable future, they've let their desire to be the BIGGEST overrule good judgment.
My recollection is that Roadway was a well-run outfit, for a mighty long time. I don't know anything about Yellow.
In any case, after the dust settles, they'll probably be around for a while. It'll take a long time to clean up the mess, though. For now, the reverse split is an excellent step. Delisting is s-u-c-h a drag.
Fred
I think you're right, but keeping a short horizon might be a good idea.
Fred
I would (did).
95% dilution of a $2.00 stock is about a dime, so it's a risk, but folks are gonna wanna unload all those shiny new shares, so they'll manage to run it up a bit, first. Manipulation, they name is 'market'.
Fred
I was hunting through some old material on iHub and ran across an idea I outlined in May 2003: #msg-971326
There are some bright folks on this board. If anyone would like to get support for some government action, you're welcome to pick up on the idea. It's easy enough to set up. I'm unable to take it on because I'm rarely on-line any more.
Fred
Good Morning, skono4
re: "Our system has been thoroughly corrupted and all relevant office holders 'captured' by the largest financial interests. The government bailouts prove this beyond any shred of doubt."
I agree.
re: "I don''t think that's because our judicial and legislative processes are based essentially on an adversarial relationship between competing interests. That's still a healthy aspect of what has evolved into a perverse process."
How and why did it evolve that way?
It evolved that way because parties put their own interest above the public interest. We may not like the result, but we should recognize that it is natural and normal. None of us act the way others think we 'should' act, we act the way we think best for ourselves. It's silly to imagine parties will act differently.
re: "At any time we could disenfranchise the crooks simply by refusing to support the two political parties that overwhelmingly are the conduits of corrupt interests."
How can we 'disenfranchise the crooks'?
The political parties empowered themselves by giving themselves legitimacy in our state laws. We're going to have to get those state laws changed ... and that's a non-trivial exercise. As you say, "... it would be much easier to fight back against their power grab if they were not so entrenched in the power politics that's developed through the two party system."
re: "What I think is clear is that we need half a dozen to a dozen political parties sharing influence and office at the least in order that no element of any political machine can command so much 'compromise' on principle as we see today in all our important policy decisions."
More parties won't change the fundamentals. The new parties will also need resources to conduct their campaigns and will support the goals of their financial backers. The difference between now and 200 years ago is that the cost of manipulating the pubic is incomparably higher ... and the need for funds is greater.
There's another reason why additional parties would do more harm than good. It was explained by Dr. Stafford Beer in a work he called "Designing Freedom". He shows why we can not have a stable system until all of us are able to participate in the political process:
http://grace.evergreen.edu/~arunc/texts/cybernetics/beer/book.pdf
Obviously, the question is, "How can all of us participate?" It's a question worth pondering.
Fred Gohlke
Good Morning, MisterEC
re: "They are asked at every election."
What --- exactly --- are they asked?
They're asked to choose between narcissistic liars selected by those who control our political parties. The rest of us ... the people ... have absolutely no say in those selections. That is roughly equivalent to being asked whether you'd rather be shot in the left temple or the right.
re: "Voters return the same people to power ..."
Of course! When we have a choice between the devil we know and the devil we don't know, we choose the former.
re: "and they think they are doing what the people want."
No, they don't. They know they are doing what their party wants --- enacting the laws purchased by their financial backers. (Surely you don't imagine they gutted Glass-Steagall because they thought that's what the people wanted!)
re: "Too lazy/disinterested are the masses to become involved in a right most of the world does not have."
That's utter nonsense. Those who avoid a game run with loaded dice are doing their best to protect their own interests. We are neither lazy nor disinterested. We simply have no choice.
We will develop a better method than the cesspool we currently endure. Unfortunately, it won't happen in my lifetime.
Fred Gohlke
Hence our 7 children.
Fred
Me, tooooo.
I have no use for unions --- but in this case the biggest problem was management's ego (and stupidity). They wanted to be the B-I-G-G-E-S-T so took on debt as if interest was meaningless and they'd never have to pay the principle back.
I'm not good at this kind of math, but doesn't 95% dilution suggest a price somewhere between 20 and 40 cents?
Hmmmmm.
Fred
Good Morning, skono4
It seems to me two parts of your message contradict each other. On the one hand, you say:
"I see nothing inherently wrong with a system based on adversaries hacking out a consensus or majority opinions as the basis for peace and progress."
while on the other hand, you say:
"Essentially our system fails because people have a say who have no basic comprehension of the issues and those with both comprehension and vested interests are able to manipulate their opinions and therefore their actions at the voting booth. General ignorance is what the two party system thrives on. They are able to "serve up" voters to those vested interests for the right price. Our government goes to the high bidder for all intents and purposes."
Whatever the theoretical benefit of "adversaries hacking out a consensus" might be, the fact is, as you make clear, it doesn't work that way in practice.
Since the interests of those with a will to govern are certain to conflict, the rise of adversary democracy has been portrayed as 'natural'. The leaders who originate and perpetuate the 'sides' in political conflict believe they will yield the least of their control if they prevail in the struggle for power. As a result, what we call democratic government is not 'by the people', but by a victorious 'side'. Little consideration is given to the idea that there may be better methods of resolving the differences among people.
Over two hundred years experience with adversary democracy informs us that, when politics are based on competition between interests, the electoral process becomes a telling machine with the various sides telling the people what they should want and who they should support. Complex issues are gutted to rabble-rousing snippets intended, not to resolve the issue, but to empower one side or another. Interests form oligarchical power blocks that become an end in themselves and ultimately transcend the will of the people. If we wish to improve our political system --- and our society --- the first step must be to stop telling the people what they want ... and ask them.
Fred Gohlke
It would be better if we would (or could) face up to the fact that adversarial politics is not 'good' or 'natural' or 'the best system in the world'.
Adversarial politics is nothing but a silly child's game of: "Hah, Hah, I got a bigger stick than you got!"
We'll do better if and when we decide government should be for the humans among us ... and learn to elect people who genuinely represent our interests.
Fred
Thanks, tc
I'll give that a shot next time it happens.
Fred
Yes, I can do that to resize it, but I'd like to prevent it happening in the first place.
It's a bit strange because it happens intermittently. I'm not sure what causes it, but it must be some condition on my machine that it finds offensive ... and runs off and hides.
I run one non-browser type program that opens about 8 windows. When I'm in that program I rarely use the browser. I'm starting to think that program may be causing the difficulty.
In any case, thanks for your help.
Fred
Greetings, All
My Mozilla Firefox, Version 3.0.15, has suddenly taken to shrinking my screen to a tiny thumbnail thingy and sticking it off in a corner when I choose to go from full screen to window.
I haven't seen this action before and don't know how to throttle it (in the sense of choke it to death). When it happens, it loses my window size and location ... and that's a pain.
Anyone know how to correct this?
Fred Gohlke
My apologies.
I have no wish to usurp Curak's authority, but it seems he missed your question.
I believe the procedure is straightforward --- stop coming to the site and don't send any more checks.
If you need further information, perhaps Churak will respond.
Fred
This doesn't help: #msg-9431311
Fred
Hope springs eternal in the human breast ...
Take two teaspoonsfull of "ATA reports turn up in tonnage"
Add one-half cup of "Union agrees to wage cut"
Add a few pounds of hope
And mix briskly
Fred
I saw it BD, but better than that, I lived it ... having come on this fair earth in 1929 (but ahead of the crash).
I remember a bank in Peoria (I think it was) buying a right-of-way through another building so it could have a teller on the next block over from the main building ... that was in the 50's ... well before they REALLY got their hooks into us.
Fred Gohlke
No, BD, I hadn't seen that. Thanks.
The piece closed by saying, "This must change."
But, how?
It will not, and can not, change as long as we let political parties pick our representatives in government. The gutting of Glass Steagall didn't happen by accident. It was bought and paid for ... and our political parties were the conduits for that corruption. They can do it because we let them pick cheats and liars as our representatives.
Someone, somewhere, has to start thinking about a better way to select our representatives. Until we do we will keep waddling in this vast sea of corruption.
Fred Gohlke
Oh, My Goodness
Volcker calling for the re-instatement of Glass Steagall!!!!!
As I said, #msg-40116992
And now I've actually seen it, albeit on the internet
Fred Gohlke
I wish I could help, but I can't.
My role as guardian of the public morals was recently exposed to be something less than adequate.
T'is a gift that iHub gie us
To act like dolts where ithers see us
(with, of course, apologies to Robbie Burns)
Fred
Thank you very much for you clear response. I agree with the ideas you expressed, even if I'm not sure about the practicality of Admin trying to find and delete the offending posts. I gather the Board Moderator(s) don't want to, or don't have time to, delete the messages.
I wonder:
1) If iHub would consider adding you as a Moderator on the offending boards, and/or
2) If it would be appropriate for Admin to address the perpetrator(s). Perhaps a direct reminder of the rules, from the boss, would be helpful.
Fred
How would admin know the source of the material ... take this instance:
"These are important issues, and yet minor. There are fundamental ideas that must be revised."
Can you tell whether I wrote it or whether I copied it from another site? If you can't, how could we expect admin to identify the source.
Should your assurance be enough?
For everyone?
I'll bet that would lead ot greater anguish. If not for you, for others.
Fred
Good Morning, Dan
I reported the difficulty accessing the site because I thought that might be a matter of concern.
I don't mind the switching, it's invisible. It was a bit disconcerting, when I first noticed it, but now I'm glad they've got it working.
Fred
Good Morning, Dan
When I tried to enter iHub this morning, the connection timed out. On my second try, I came in on WEB3. (I have since been switched to WEB4 ... and now back to WEB3, again.)
The time-out also happened a couple of days ago, but I didn't report it. This is a new experience.
Fred