
Betting on the Engineers - alexandros
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/betting_on_the_engineers/
======
blehn
_...my theory that you should buy stocks in the companies that you hate the
most_

Wow, that's a pretty sad statement. No wonder our economic system is so fucked
up. We've got people out there investing in companies they'd otherwise prefer
never existed. Then, of course, there are machines making billions of
transactions a day in an effort to game the system. Unless _people_ start
investing in companies that they _truly believe_ in, I don't see how this
system can do anything but fail in the long run.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
This reminds me of an investment strategy Iain Banks described in his novel
Complicity: Leverage yourself and load up on the most unethical companies you
can find.

This is because there is a lot of money that seeks to invest only in ethical
business, so the prices of unethical companies are permanently depressed from
their true value, and in the long term the return from their dividends should
thus beat the average of the market.

It's scary how it almost made sense.

~~~
baguasquirrel
And then some people wonder why most of the mainstream seems to like the idea
of government intervention into the markets (as long as it's not _their_
industry being regulated ;).

------
nrj
Damnit. When I click on Dilbert links, I want to be entertained. The world is
too depressing to read a serious blog entry from such a comedic genius.

~~~
chrislo
I thought "I admire them in the same way I admire the work ethic of serial
killers" was pretty funny. That probably says more about me than the article
though ...

~~~
jbooth
That part was disgusting.

If they stop all of the oil immediately, they've already done damage that
we'll be cleaning up for decades. They've probably destroyed about 100 billion
worth of revenue in the fishing business alone over the next 10 years.

And will they be held liable? For causing 100s of billions of economic damage
over the medium-long term, let alone the environmental damage? Of course not,
because they have good lobbyists and 65% of congress is either corrupt or an
idiot who thinks "drill baby drill" is all you need to know about energy
policy.

Yeah, that's admirable. It used to be we cared about justice in this country,
and now we just admire those who evade it the best while they're screwing us.

~~~
anamax
> If they stop all of the oil immediately, they've already done damage that
> we'll be cleaning up for decades. They've probably destroyed about 100
> billion worth of revenue in the fishing business alone over the next 10
> years.

Does the Exxon Valdez experience support this theory? How about the IXTOC
blowout in 1979, which lasted for 9 months and dumped way more oil into the
Gulf of Mexico.

I ask because both of these were the roughly the same size (EV) or
significantly larger (IXTOC) and their impact was much smaller than you've
claimed. If their not relevant, why not?

So, what's the basis for your claim about the amount of damage?

~~~
jbooth
Hey, a reasonable response. I was under the impression this is bigger than the
Valdex spill, but the fact that IXTOC was bigger means this might not be as
big a deal as I thought.

It's still just offshore from the Mississippi delta, which will hopefully not
be ruined. And I still think it's a little perverse to be cheering them on for
the fact that our corrupt system won't hold them accountable.

------
chaostheory
I would also bet on BP having really good lobbyists.

------
sbierwagen
Christ, Scott actually bought BP stock after the oil spill?

I can see how his "buy stock of evil companies" strategy might work, but
typically you do that when the company is actually doing well, and not, say,
when they're about to be curb stomped by the US government.

Also, his complaint about the "liberal media" is somewhat disingenuous, seeing
as how he is part of the liberal media, what with the anti-corporate comic
strip and the vegetarianism and the belief in affirmation and the whoa-hoy and
the glaven.

~~~
brown9-2
Up until today their stock price was down 25% from a month ago. He's pretty
clearly betting that the short-term damage to the stock from the media
coverage is just a blip in the long-term outlook of a pretty successful
company.

~~~
sbierwagen
One might quibble that the long term outlook of an oil company are perhaps not
the best.

Of course, they've got the alternative energy division, which had $5 billion
in sales in 2008. Pity it operated at a net loss, costing BP one and a quarter
billion dollars.

~~~
brown9-2
well, "long term" as in next few years, not 50 years.

~~~
sbierwagen
Your definition of long term is "the next few years"?

Even so, the near future prospects of BP aren't terribly good either, what
with the crashing price of oil, (good for us, bad for oil companies) the
numerous civil lawsuits and (singular) criminal investigation resulting from
the oil spill, and the prospect of a moratorium on offshore drilling, coupled
with additional regulation.

------
zck
Here's the first entry about this, where he discusses why he thinks it's a
good idea to buy BP stock now:
<http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/engineers_to_the_rescue/>

------
hristov
It is depressing to hear Scott Adams trot out the tired old lie about the
liberal media.

But he is right that BP is a good buy. The sad truth is that after the Bush
years the law is so much in favour of oil companies and the federal courts are
so packed with conservative judges, that it is doubtful that BP will have to
pay much for this disaster. You probably do not remember but the Exxon Valdes
case concluded just a couple of years ago and Exxon got away with paying a
very minimal sum considering the scope of the disaster.

~~~
miked
>> it is doubtful that BP will have to pay much for this disaster

Since Obama has gotten more campaign contributions from BP (also from Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac) that any other politician in the US, at least we'll know
who to blame if it happens.

~~~
hristov
The thing about Obama receiving most money from BP is misleading. He received
most money from individual BP employees, but received no money from BP itself
for his presidential campaign, as he took no money from corporations or their
political action committees and lobbyists. The fact that Obama received most
money from BP individual employees is not surprising because he got record
donations from individuals in general.

Also, the whole thing will have very little to do with Obama. BP will pay
according to the law on the books and the way judges enforce/construe that
law.

Obama will probably campaign to change the law, but that will not affect the
treatment of the spill because ex post facto laws are usually considered
unconstitutional in the US. So the spill will be treated according to the law
as it was at the time the spill happened.

------
stcredzero
Bet on engineers? Do that one better and bet on something even more powerful
and absolutely amoral: Bet on basic physics, biology, and math. (Yes, there
are ways you can do this in the stock market.)

------
omouse
Why would you admire them? This is one of the problems with our culture. For
some reason, it's acceptable to admire and respect someone's behaviour even if
it is _bad_ behaviour and _unjust_ behaviour. Why is that acceptable?? We
don't admire Hitler for being so efficient at invading countries and killing
millions of people, and we don't admire or respect the way that racists or
fundamentalists insult and attempt to destroy other people.

Do you also admire the Wall St jerks and bankers for screwing people over with
bad loans? Do you admire how 'clever' they were?

~~~
pavel_lishin
Well, he did say:

> I admire them in the same way I admire the work ethic of serial killers.

------
jbooth
Note to self : don't take anyone who makes throwaway comments about the
"liberal media" seriously.

It didn't add to his argument at all, and subtracted by implying that he's
doing this more as an "f you" to liberals than out of any rational thought
process.

EDIT: /me watches the downvotes prove his point about how some people's
thought process can be entirely hijacked. Yes guys, the apparent devastation
of the Gulf is entirely a product of liberal propaganda -- things are actually
perfectly fine.

~~~
scott_s
You're probably unfamiliar with Scott Adams. From reading his comic and his
blog, I think he's actually liberal. His comment was probably tongue-in-cheek.
It's also worth remembering that he loves pushing people's buttons. Remember
that this guy makes jokes for a living.

~~~
jbooth
Well, ok, he's trolling and I was successfully trolled :) Good for him, I
guess :)

------
mpare
This is almost exactly the opposite sentiment as was voiced by Bill Joy just
yesterday about Sun's downfall:

> As for Sun's downfall, Joy traces it back to the fact that the company's
> business changed, leaving much of its research in areas where Sun no longer
> had products.

He also blamed the business side for not doing a better job of selling what
the technologists at Sun created.

"I think if you wound the clock back, _I'd like to think that we invented
stuff in engineering that could have been marketed better_ ," he said.

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20005814-56.html>

~~~
jerf
Did you read the article, or just the headline? Your post looks like "just the
headline".

