Fiorina Hits the Ball out of the park on this one
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
I am curious and not that knowledgeable regarding HP while Fiorina was CEO. What did she do? I know that stock when down significantly however was she just there at the wrong time? She took over in 1999 right before the tech crash. Didn't pretty much every tech company get hammered?
Below is a chart of the NQ #F and HPQ. Just eyeballing it, that looks pretty correlated to me. HPQ is the black line.
Last edited:
HPQ was once a dynamic company that produced real high end technological equipment, in the 90's she bought into the model that the way to make money was by selling cheap garbage made in china at a cheap price, and unsurprisingly HPQ like Dell and all the other computer companies who bought into this model have seen their market share go down and down and down, as they all fight to sell the biggest pieces of shit at the lowest price.
Apple took a much different path and thought "How can we make this product better" They didnt buy into the idea that the best way to push product was to make the lowest quality shit and sell it at the cheapest price. AAPL up how many thousand percent since then while all these tech dinosaurs pushing garbage see their market share eaten into year after year after year. Not that i dont think AAPL is going to run into the same problems, i think AAPL has seen its peaks, but its just a much different thought process from Jobs who was a dynamic thinker, and all the other wallstreet MBA's who fail to see the forest for the trees, and sacrifice product quality year after year after year, all to benefit next quarters bottom line.
Apple took a much different path and thought "How can we make this product better" They didnt buy into the idea that the best way to push product was to make the lowest quality shit and sell it at the cheapest price. AAPL up how many thousand percent since then while all these tech dinosaurs pushing garbage see their market share eaten into year after year after year. Not that i dont think AAPL is going to run into the same problems, i think AAPL has seen its peaks, but its just a much different thought process from Jobs who was a dynamic thinker, and all the other wallstreet MBA's who fail to see the forest for the trees, and sacrifice product quality year after year after year, all to benefit next quarters bottom line.
I am curious and not that knowledgeable regarding HP while Fiorina was CEO. What did she do? I know that stock when down significantly however was she just there at the wrong time? She took over in 1999 right before the tech crash. Didn't pretty much every tech company get hammered?
Below is a chart of the NQ #F and HPQ. Just eyeballing it, that looks pretty correlated to me. HPQ is the black line.
Possible.
I am curious and not that knowledgeable regarding HP while Fiorina was CEO. What did she do? I know that stock when down significantly however was she just there at the wrong time? She took over in 1999 right before the tech crash. Didn't pretty much every tech company get hammered?
Below is a chart of the NQ #F and HPQ. Just eyeballing it, that looks pretty correlated to me. HPQ is the black line.
One person does not bring down a company. She had the bad luck of managing a tech company during the tech bubble. Were some poor decisions made? With all the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight...obviously, but they were group decisions. If a person is going to blame Fiorina for the damage done to HP then you would have to blame George Bush for all of terrorism because the big attack happened on his watch. You would have to ignore all the things leading up to the event, all the other players in the game and everything that happened to everyone else. IOW, you'd have to think like the leftists do about Bush, which is not putting much thought into it at all. But hey, if it fits a narrative one is trying to push, it's all good.
Or, equally true, think like the rightists do about Obama...
You knew that was coming, right?
: )
I believe I stated in an earlier post that I am no fan of Hillary. I'm indifferent towards her as a person. I've never met her. I think she was a competent Sec. of State, nothing more. The email and Benghazi stuff is pure politics, not substantive, and won't stick if Hillary counterattacks with facts and vigor. [I Think Kerry on the other hand has been a brilliant secretary of State, despite a few early gaffs. The reason the Swift boaters were able to damage him, despite his commendable service record, is because it's against his nature to dirty his hands. He has always wanted to stay above the fray, and that cost him the election. It's not against Hillary's nature, however, to mud wrestle.]
I would most definitely would not want Hillary to be President. My vote as an independent will not count/not matter in my State because I live in a heavily Republican State where winner takes all Electoral College votes. If I vote Republican, my vote will not matter, and if I vote Democrat my vote will not count, so why bother. I am effectively disenfranchised in presidential elections.
If my vote counted, and Hillary were to be running against Kasich, I would, of course, vote for Kasich. Hillary against Fiorina, Huckabee, Bush, Walker, Cruz, Santorum, Perry, Jindal, Carson, Christie or twinkle toes (Graham) I'd be forced to vote for Hillary. Hillary versus the others, I'm not sure. Would probably stay home.
Should Kasich run with Rubio as his V.P., Kasich will be the Next President, though it would be a very close election if Joe ran against a Kasich- Rubio ticket with Elizabeth Warren as his running mate, because then there would be 4 competent, and popular politicians with minimal heavy baggage (so far as we know now), running against each other.
I imagine, from a democrat's point of view, the Republican Dream team would be Christie, Jindal, Walker, Cruz or Perry running with one of the Jesus Freaks.
It's fun to speculate, but I imagine it will be Hillary against Kasich and whatever V.P. candidates they need to help win swing States. Both Hillary and Kasich are too savvy to allow a lunatic on the ticket. Kasich is the only GOP candidate that can draw large numbers of independent and democrat votes as well as mainstream republican votes. Many independents, myself included, don't want to see Hillary (or another Bush) in the White House.
Last edited:
"You would have to ignore all the things leading up to the event..."
So, let's not ignore it. When we don't ignore it, we must conclude that the W. and his Daddy are, along with Eisenhower, responsible for much of the terrorism since 1950!
I forgot Cheney. Give him honorable mention.
Although the U.S. can not take credit for inventing terrorism, they deserve full credit for perfecting it and have themselves used it to great effect... By bringing down the Trade Centers, the Saudis Terrorists, showed that they are virtually as adept as the Americans at Terrorism used to get what they want.
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossaddegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic* reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs." -- Madeleine Albright [http://fas.org/news/iran/2000/000317.htm]
One reaps what one sows. The sins of the fathers will be visited upon the sons.
_____________________________
* The "strategic" reason was to preserve the hegemony and profits of the Anglo-Persian-Oil Company.
Last edited:
Lying is crucial to him unless someone is running against a republican, then not so much.