2 nd February 2006
analysis. That's what's done here.
- GOOGLE -
reported yesterday that "Google Stock Down After Results Miss Views".
On closer reading it turned out that financial forecasters'
& journalists' profit estimates (views) were waaaay above the
actuality. Apparently they had hugely underestimated (by more
14c/share) Google profits in the past five quarters, and they had
overestimated (by 14% or 22c/share) profits
this quarter. It gets worse. Apparently Google is a
rarity. It does not give profit forecasts.
So let's put it in perspective: financial analysts & journalists
had to actually make their own estimates instead of reading predigested
PR. Despite the magnificent qualifications, financial expertise
and huge salaries these financial experts no doubt get paid (at least
in relation to their
displayed expertise) they got it hugely wrong in all six quarterly
Google profits. (Google has only been a public company for six
quarters). Could somebody suggest (for publication here) a
blogger financial forecaster who actually uses ability to forecast
profits, and doesn't blame the target company when profits are not as
Google has been in the news lately for standing up to
Uncle Sam about privacy, and for caving in to China about
censorship. (No significant mention was made that Yahoo &
everybody else had already caved in to Uncle Sam & China.)
Gates has recently spoken with approval of the Chinese regime,
believing that they will soon join the ranks of governments who
breaching of copyright to be a capital crime.
Microsoft's projected Vista OS is rumored to be an attack on Google's
search monopoly, on the other hand there are rumors that Google is
working on a
downloadable OS with a suite of applications. With broadband,
an online OS becomes a real possibility. I suppose that it
would function by downloading the OS from Google during boot.
There are a lot of issues, but my money would be on Google.
However Bill Gates is a wily player, not above quite a few dirty
tricks, it's a fair way to game.
The US Senate seems to be taking an interest in our cosy
little John Howard designed judicial
investigation of the corrupt ex-government QANGO called AWB
which is Australia's wheat sales
monopoly, which it is now known paid larger bribes than anybody else in
the world to support Saddam Hussein. According to today's
"Australian" (2/2/06), PM Howard's
past senior adviser, and then Washington Ambassador John Thawley spoke
to Republican Senator Coleman in October 2004
& "unequivocally dismissed" any possibility
that the AWB was paying bribes to Saddam Hussein.
As an Australian I believe that my government has the duty of
taking those actions that will maximize Australia's national
income. (and reducing my taxes thereby). However that
mandate does not extend to
commission of illegal or even immoral acts to attain that
objective. For instance, Australia under
Fraser was the first country to recognize Indonesia's
invasion/annexation of E.Timor, and it profited us greatly
thereby. Personally I would have preferred that Indonesia
not have been encouraged in that invasion, and I am happy that John
Howard has supported Timor separation, and happy that he has returned
at least some of the mineral hydrocarbon income to which they are, by
law, entitled. Frazer's actions on our behalf were probably not
illegal, but they were immoral. Australia profited at the expense
of the Timorese.
In the same way, I can appreciate that our government labored to sell
our wheat to Iraq against intense competition, and against severe
political difficulties. They probably had knowledge that other
people (the French and Russian Presidents and Kofi Annan's son spring
to mind) were corruptly giving bribes. That others were guilt of
the same crime does in no way excuse the
payment of bribes.
According to law, a crime committed in my name is a crime committed by
me, unless I disavow that crime and do everything in my power to make
restitution & bring the guilty parties to justice.
I disavow that crime. There should be an open investigation of
involved, including Prime Minister John Howard, minister for trade
then ambassador Thawley and the relevant chairmen & board members
of the AWB and the various government departments. That
investigation should be conducted under the auspices of the High
Court. In view of the heinous nature of the offense, justice
demands that those found guilty should have assets confiscated and be
jailed. One of the tests of guilt should be whether the
concerned benefited directly; if not, then there should be a
presumption that either (a) the officer was directed by a superior to
the act, or (b) the officer was chosen because it was anticipated that
he would act in that manner, and so on up the food chain. John
benefited by having made the sales. He kept my taxes low and
therefore I voted for him..
How can we prevent corruption from recurring in the future?
Corruption would be hindered by eliminating all
reference to "charges" or "exempt documents" from the Freedom
of Information Act and making all
Government documents available
online*. This is not the first time
I have written about secrecy in government. While our government
can act in secrecy from we, it's
shareholders, it is open slather for criminals & the morally
to enter government (especially with the slander & defamation laws
that we have) & exercise their talents.
there are issues such as personnel records that will need
There is much information on the personnel records of public
sector employees that
quite irrelevant to the qualification assessment necessary in
hiring of the employee, and
should be deleted. There is other information
about public sector employees which
should be available to any taxpayer.
- IRAN -
China and Russia are both (together with Euro powers & the US)
bringing evidence of acquisition by Tehran of nuclear weapon technology
before the UN security council. Tehran states that the evidence
is misinterpreted, false or fabricated, and that in any case, it has a
perfect right to obtain such technology if it so desires.
The government in Tehran needs a lesson in
realpolitik. That lesson is: Equal rights is a fine
theory, except (for instance at the village level) where the person
wanting equal rights is giving good
for belief by others that (s)he is a homicidal maniac,
and the particular equal right that (s)he wants is the acquisition of a
Of course perhaps the Iranians are a
perfectly reasonable bunch of people from a culture very different from
our own, and we are misinterpreting their responses. Perhaps they
are extremely hurt & offended that others should consider their
polemics as evidence that they are a nation of religiously homicidal
maniacs. By their culture, our suspicions might require
them to maintain their "honor" by seeking to acquire those very items
that we seek to deprive them of, but only because we seek to deprive
them of those items. It is mere coincidence that those
weapons are what they would have required to carry out their oft
repeated threats against their neighbors.
Unfortunately, we cannot give Tehran that much latitude. The
lesson of history (which they apparently deny) is that the time to stop
homicidal maniacs (religious
or otherwise) is before
they acquire power.
China and Russia are erstwhile allies of oil power
Iran. I calculate that only their belief that there
a threat of imminent military
action by Israel and/or the US against Iran could have brought about
such action by China and Russia.
I believe that the leaders in Tehran have fallen into the trap of
believing their own
polemics. Do they think that the only reason the US went into
was to stop Saddam? Do they believe (as they say) that they could
successfully fire missiles across US forces in Iraq against
USA might not look very efficient as an occupying power, but as a
military power they have no match.
prediction stands. we can anticipate strategic pinpoint
unavoidable civilian casualties* (about March 2006
is my guess). I imagine that the delivery mode will be by some
stealthed cruise missile, and when the resulting radioactive plume
makes a few
thousand Iranians sick, the response will be "Tut tut, gee whizz, we
that they were so far into processing.." Most of the
rest of the cosy dictatorships in Islam do not approve of the "holier
fundamentalist attitude, so it can be expected that they will be
outraged, but (with hands out, palms up:) what can I do against the
against us etc...