lhuang

The SEC alleges that GS committed fraud by not informing investors that the "3rd party objective manager" who cherry-picked the assets that were packaged in the CDO was at the same time betting against the very assets he picked.

That, and recorded conf calls show that GS analysts as trying to convince rating agencies to inflate the ratings of the underlying assets in the CDO.

But why should she compromise for him? By your wisdom shouldn't there be mutual compromise?

He is saying that the Chinese government has been able to reduce poverty quicker that usual by taking a heavier controlling hand.

I'm a big fan of MLK. He once said "the arch of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice"

You could argue that this applies to China. Change is long and slow, but there is progress being made. The situation today, even with its restrictions, is 100x better than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago. There is little reason to believe that it won't continue to improve.

The middle class is growing, people are increasingly more educated, these two things are major ingredients for democracy.

Why I think you're use of his Letter From Birmingham Jail is a "bullshit passionate appeal" is because the context that his letter was written in and the current Chinese climate are two different beasts.

Are my points that off? I'm surprised by how much opposition I've incurred on HN. The points I've raised and the arguments I've made are not radical. They are in fact widely accepted / endorsed by the majority of China scholars in the west.

I call you self-righteous because you don't seem to know much about the situation in China, but make blanket statements based on a few readings of prominent western publications.

Look, we're both on the same page. Democracy in China is good. Demanding democracy is good.

The matter at hand is how best to transition to a true meaningful democracy. My point, that transition should come slow in order to minimize social/economic/political disruption is on point. EVERY prominent western publications agree on this matter.

Slow transition is pragmatic, and favoring it does not equate one to a CCP sympathizer nor is it self defeatist. Different strokes for different folks.

China has already proven that one can spur economic development by going its own way instead of following western policies. There is no reason to believe that it can't transition to a democracy there own way as well.

Your assertion that those in power do not want to give it up and a slow transition to democracy are not mutually exclusive. AGAIN many of China's neighbors have been able to make this transition so I don't see why this can't be done in China. True, dictators don't want to give up power. The trick is making them do so with non-violent disruptive means, and that can be achieved with a large middle class, educated polity, etc things that provide collective power to the masses.

I urge you to actually visit China and you'll see that not all people who use the word "democracy" are brutally oppressed. By god, even senior ranking members of the CCP have used the term during state speeches!

In regards to corruption you are right that its a big issue, although I know of no study that states the problem is as big as you make it. That said, do note that concentration of wealth/power among the social elite is an unfortunate part of reality the world over, the west included.

The main point though that I want to get across is that people like you, smart educated westerners, need to realize that the problems in China are not NEARLY at the level that the media presents it to be. Anyone who has visited China in the past few years can attest to this. Even in the countryside, many problems have been SEVERELY alleviated.

The problems you have listed and the China you have presented is really a caricature of present reality.

It'll grow better if the government wasn't so damn corrupt.

It may even grow even faster if the caste system is abolished.

My attitude is pragmatic.

Both S. Korea and Japan transitioned from totalitarian governments to open democracies peacefully and smoothly. These transitions were stimulated in part by strong economies, a growing middle class, a more educated populace, etc.

But enough with examples. Tell me an actionable plan for China to transition to democracy. You're not offering anything but nice sounding sound bytes.

That and the people in China themselves are not fully clamoring for democracy. Economic progress, rise in standards of living, and a better future is what the Chinese want.

My attitude may be "self defeating" but your attitude is self-righteous.

http://gizmodo.com/5500578/google-would-remind-my-grandpa-of...

In India... Caste systems are still the norm, the government is as corrupt if not more so than Chinese. Millions and millions still languish in poverty. Crime is higher!

China is worse in regards to suppressing free speech and political dissidents. Everything else; poverty, crime, development India either lags or is just as bad.

Dude. Has China opened up in the last 30 years? Is life better for the average Chinese? Has society not been more liberalized?

Tell me how China can democratize today without massive social upheaval? Tell me how this can be accomplished without throwing millions of Chinese back into poverty?

Thats the problem. China has 1.3 billion fucking people! The institutions in place are as fragile as the CCP (very). All sorts of social problems are on the verge ALL THE TIME of bubbling over.

Tell me how China can transition in the short-term before giving me these bullshit passionate appeals of "freedom" and "democracy".

Soundbytes sound GREAT. I personally LOVE them, but they add LITTLE to this debate.

"It's an illusion to believe that readiness for democracy is something that grows over time."

You're missing the point. Its not is China ready for democracy? but rather how can China transition to democracy smoothly without a total collapse of economic, political, and social institutions? ... as is so common in the historical record.

"Blocking it for too long increases the risk of a very violent transition. It's called revolution. "

Not true. Plenty of countries have transitioned from totalitarianism --> democracy slowly and smoothly. China's neighbors of S. Korea and Japan are two examples. You could argue that Taiwan applies as well.

I'm not sure your boat analogy applies in the world of economics.

Many nations have the ingredients for a robust economy; skilled labor, an abundance of resources, etc. but that doesn't guarantee anything.

A more apt analogy would be cooking. Simply having the right ingredients and throwing them in a pot won't magically transform them into a delicious dish. It takes a skilled chef to elevate individual ingredients to a combined dish.

There is a reason the Chinese economy has grown unchecked for the past 20+ years, surviving this recession and the 1997 asian financial crisis, while comparable economies took dives.

I could write paragraphs on why China's economic growth can be contributed to CCP policy but frankly there is enough documentation readily available on the web - much of it written by western academics.

To start, you can read about CCP policies on SEZs, exchange rate, NPL reform (once 20% of its total loan portfolio!!!), and its huge investments in green tech. The last of which is so much smarter than what our representatives in government are doing here in the states.

I think the CCP is very long-term oriented.

The majority of their policies I think would support this. If anything, the CCP is willing to give short-term concessions if it will guarantee long-term success.

This is not so-much the case now as China has more to bring to the bargaining table. But if you look at China's trade policies in the 80s and 90s they were very accommodating to western demands, even if it put China in a weaker position.

what i find surprising is that only those users with high karma points can downvote.

excluding those who've racked up points through submissions, the theory goes that high karma points = thoughtful poster.

thoughtful posters should thus realize that China is a country of 1.3 billion people, which highly highly complicates EVERYTHING.

Frankly, compared to the other 1 bln + country, I think China has done a remarkable job. Even if you just focus on the HR record, China is comparable to India, if not exceeding it.

This is certainly not the popular conventional view.

For the most part, the CCP and their decisions have been largely credited for China's stellar growth.

If you've ever been to China you'll quickly see why. If the government wants something done, its done. Case in point: 2008 Olympics, special economic zones, foreign exchange rate policies, etc.

Before kaifang (opening), China was ass-backwards. The CCP's sole claim to legitimacy is a bizzare positive-negative re-enforcement of two points:

1. Negative: China has been bullied by the world until the CCP came in 2. Positive: China is now an economic power because of CCP policies

The CPP uses these two points to bolster each other in linking CCP directly with nationalism so that pro-China = pro-ccp.

There are civic groups in China, many in fact. The government has even been tolerant, to a degree, to advocacy groups.

I think for a smooth transition, China needs to uplift its rural population. The urbanites are largely ready for democracy, but outside of a handful of cities the rest of the country simply do not have the institutions, social experience, etc to support a working transparent free-market democracy.

But how should the transition even begin? By repealing all internet censorship laws?

Most people don't realize that every day the situation in China improves for the better. Even the stiffling hukou system that you allude to has been slowly weakened over the years.

In regards to your last sentence I'm not quite sure what you mean. I took it to mean that the social ideas of justice and law are different in China, of which I would tend to agree.

West = rule of law. China = rule by law.

Frankly I think Chinese society is just not ready for democracy. There is simply no civic society.

Why is it that you believe the CCP's decisions are terrible?

At the meta level, China has outpaced everyone in the past twenty years in regards to growth and development.

Among the senior CCP leaders, I imagine most if not all, acknowledge that an open, capitalistic democracy is inevitable. Their job is to grow the country to the point where the transition to said democracy is peaceful and smooth.

No China analyst worth his salt will argue that China is ready for this transition today....

This is misleading.

Among the posh, well-educated elites who aspire for jobs at US MNCs this may be true.

The rest of the masses are very much one-sided in support of the CCP. At the very least, even if they are sympathetic to Google's cause, at the end of the day the masses will always believe that China (and the CCP by extension) > Google (or any other western MNC).

That is the reality for the vast majority of Chinese - both online or otherwise.

The China vs Google issue is not really about internet freedoms in the eyes of the polity as it is in the eyes of westerners. Rather, its about a western MNC trying to "bully" the Chinese into adopting their (western) values. This line of thinking; westerners bullying China has been pounded by the CCP for the past 60 years so its very easy to troll that line to great success.

Just nationalism.... the tea baggers are just as vitriolic...

I work for one of these consulting companies. If you wan't to write code, steer far away.

Most likely, they'll staff you in some project management role where you're working with the client to manage a team of developers and/or a workstream consisting of individual projects.

If you have experience with scaling applications and IT architecture, you'll be staffed on IT Assessment and Architecture design projects - very likely with a large insurance company looking to consolidate all their various legacy systems.

Also Empire29 is right, to a degree, that these firms aren't thought-leaders. Clients are very risk-adverse and are wary of too new technologies. Plus most of the time their choices are limited to the technologies they've already invested into and/or skillsets among their staff.

Working for one of those firms will however, give you experience and exposure to the business side of things. Some HNers trivialize these areas, but I've found just seeing how a big organization is run - good and the bad - has been pretty useful. Regardless of how talented you are as a hacker, very likely somewhere in your career - be it with Google or at startup - you'll have to engage and interact with the suits and experience with a consulting firm would give you a good background to do so with ease.

Really? You have no idea why people are outraged?

Maybe it has something to do with the pictures.

What you cant see you ignore...

It is. Reducing China's dependency on Coal is a huge priority for both China and the international community. It was a big point of discussion during last year's talks at Copenhagen.

Hi Paul, I heard about i/o after the deadline. Are you still accepting applications?

How do you know they didn't believe you? They could have been pretending.

True, but you have to take into consideration the type of job she wants.

Very few, if any, entry-level jobs in media and publishing pay 70K.

Plus I'm not so sure that $12/hour is so ridic. An entry level job at a consulting firm is ~70K but you work ~80 hours a week which results in a whopping $18/hour!

Living large indeed.

Your last paragraph is on point.

I disagree though with your idea about a database of applicants thats searchable by skill.

I think your system would fail without a means to authenticate and validate people's credentials, plus without a validation layer it'll only encourage people to exaggerate or lie about their skills.

The other problem from the perspective of an applicant is submitting resumes and cover letters to online postings often feels like all work for no gain. Most of these postings feel like black holes. You submit something and (typically) never hear back.

Maybe an improvement to your idea is some carrot/stick mechanism, that at the very least, incentives both parties to stick to good behavior (timely submissions of RELEVANT resume / cover letters and timely responses from the companies that listed the original posting). This would solve for some of the frustration these sites illicit.

A joke an econ professor once told me:

"Look under your foot, do you see a twenty? No? Well, thats because someone already took it."

The point was a generalization of the fact that in a free market, arb opportunities don't exist because market inefficiencies are corrected in real-time.

Thats not always true, but the general point is.

The problem with finding good jobs on Monster, CL, etc. is that, more or less, there aren't any. Good jobs fill fast, most often through backdoor channels - networking, campus recruiting, etc.

The jobs that flow down to sites like Monster and CL are those that smart, skillfull people don't want.

Think about it from your own perspective. If you wanted to hire someone for a job, chances are you would turn to your circle of friends and trusted advisors and ask them if they knew anyone. You branch out from there like a ripple, with each ring being less focused and more general, until you hit mass market sites likes Monster.

I think this is why the majority of jobs on these sites are usually low-paying admin type work or one-off small business contractual work.

LinkedIn attempts to solve for this, but they I don't think they have a direct enough of a mechanism for doing so.

Other sites fail too because most operate under the assumption that they can do better by improving usability and don't really address the underlying problems, so they suffer from the same issues (namely no good work).

The sites that I think do a better job are those that are niche industry focused. Niche sites help job seekers find relevant (to them) jobs and job posters find relevant hires to fill those positions. This helps both parties filter down, which I think is their value-add.

Ultimately whatever improvement that hopes to be successful needs to focus on ways to either change or divert the current way most employers find employees - word of mouth and personal networks.

Perhaps better mining tools for LinkedIN would solve. I think some functionality that lists job seekers by skill (profile, resume) weighted by in-network relationships may help.

Another idea is scaling the head-hunter model for public consumption. Something where as a job poster, I could send a request out to my network on linkedin, and there would be some sort of incentive (money or otherwise) for those in my network to recommend people the know. There is already natural incentive to do so... having a solid network is a good skill to have by itself; knowing good people says good things about the type of person you are.

Just some thoughts. I know relatively little about this space, so my opinions are just based on my own experiences.

We've explored analyzing the impact that coaches bring to teams and athletes and have found some interesting results.

The big problem though, is that with the NFL at least, there are just wayyyyy too many coaches a player touches and that makes it hard to model to a degree.

Chicago based. Another founder is temporarily in SF for the next couple of months.

Hi Dusty do you have an email address?