He is. AND...I agree with him. Jobs is one in one-million. Most that fail that much, never take another chance. Or more likely: they CAN'T take that chance. Despite my criticism of him, I do give him a high persistence rating.
What a consummate bore you are...The true degenerates have been at the helm of these "TBTF banks" that you continue to hysterically defend. Still rooting for more "intervention" to preserve the artificially high asset values are we?
Trading over the long haul is really no different. You have to re-invent yourself. Adapt. Markets are always changing, they never stay the same in terms of price action and trading range and sentiment.
I agree on Jobs and the consequences failure for most people, but not on the banks. What type of economic principles do you really embrace? It doesn't look like it's capitalism, or even a mixed-market.
People, most of you donât understand what I wrote and just too eager to pull the trigger. I just attacked the logical argument. That was not defending of bank bailouts although I must say that I agree that some banks are too big to fail because their failure will create irreversible damage. Actually, many banks are let to fail each year. Many so far. Only the big ones were bailed out and I believe that was a good thing to do. Most importantly, there has never been pure capitalism in US or elsewhere. The system in US has been for a long time a bastardization of capitalism with socialist policies. Thus, on this ground alone, letting banks fail is not justified because they were forced to lend to unqualified buyers through legislation. Their failure was not a pure result of capitalist forces. If that were to be the case, then stronger banks would exist to take the place. In this case (2008), there was a failing system across the board. Get your facts and logic straight people.
Once the TBTF is factored in to the equation by the 2nd X1, brown nosers then they know they are safe however stupid their decisions are. They are never got rid of and become a permanent sore in the business system - failing ! If Jobs & co can spring back - great, but mostly the crap gets flushed out of the system - tough.
This article is wrong by many counts. NeXT was definitely not a failure as a company. Apple Is and IIs weren't failures. The Apple Lisa was a fail, but the MacOS was not. If you say the Lisa was a fail, why wouldn't you say the Xerox Alto was? And what the hell is a fail? Did Gall fail when he spent his entire life coming up with phrenology, which is mostly wrong, but located the idea that human thought, emotions, and feelings come from the brain, which is true and the basis for much of what we know about medicine and psychology today? And another thing - he wasn't forced out of Apple because of the Lisa. He was forced out because there were money grubbers that wanted to grow Apple like IBM and he didn't want to do that. From what I remember, that was the big fight. Look at the licensing and look at Apple and IBM today and see where protectionism gets you? Where the hell does this guy get all this from?
I agree but most posters here are either too young to know or too ignorant of the facts. Lisa was the first windows based PC. It is possible that MS Windows emerged from that and we will never know the secret deals behind it. Very often a business appears as a failure but the deals done in the dark are not. For example, many developers in the 1980s overpriced construction of shopping malls around the US. They made a lot of money and invested it in other businesses like high technology. The companies that managed the shopping malls defaulted on their loans, leading to the highest savings and loans disaster in the history of US when more than 5,000 small banks got hit and were let to fail. Judging from their posts on trading and the compulsive behavior of some members here I don't expect them to know these facts. I wonder though why they do not understand that some banks are too big to fail. My answer is that they are simply ignorant people.