backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by omnicronx.. on Oct 6 at 8:37 AM

Could more layoffs be in store for Yahoo?

It's no secret that Yahoo is in trouble.  With shares falling to a five-year low, and no word yet on whether the new Google advertising pact will withstand regulation scrutiny, Yahoo is surveying its limited options.

Earlier this year, Yahoo cut 1,000 jobs, or roughly 7 percent of its workforce.  Analysts are calling for Yahoo to cut deeper into its company to try to regain competitiveness.  Analyst Henry Blodget suggested Yahoo fire 3,018 employees, more than 20 percent of its current workforce.

While Yahoo is unlikely to fire this many employees, sources close to Yahoo say cuts are coming.  According to a Silicon Alley Insider report, sources state that Yahoo is mulling over a new round of job cuts.  The cuts would be less than 20 percent, but significant.  The site describes, "While our Henry Blodget has called on Yahoo to can 3,018 people (that's more than 20 percent of the workforce), the odds that Yahoo will make cuts on that scale are very low, we're told by people familiar with the company's thinking. But we're also told that another round of layoffs are indeed on the drawing board, prompted by a grim financial forecast."

The cuts may be announced after the third quarter results are predicted October 21.  The report is expected to be mixed at best, and may further damage Yahoo's already unstable stock value.

Also bad news for Yahoo is that Sen. Herb Kohl, chairman of the congressional subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights, is pushing the U.S. Department of Justice to examine the Google-Yahoo partnership closely for possible antitrust violations.  He sent the DOJ's head a letter Thursday with this request.  If the DOJ were to rule that Yahoo could not continue in the pact, it would be devastating, as the deal is really one of the only pieces of good news for the company lately.

Kohl's antitrust committee held its own review of the merger.  While its findings were inconclusive, the committee frowned on the deal.  In Sen. Kohl's letter he states:

The parties assert the transaction is in the advertisers' best interests since it will create a more efficient marketplace.

While we have conducted a careful review of this transaction, we do not have the benefit of the confidential business information supplied by the companies to the Department nor the economic models necessary to predict consumer behavior...nonetheless, we conclude that important competition issues are raised by this transaction. Should the amount of advertising outsourced by Yahoo to Google grow significantly, we believe the threat to competition will also increase.

The partnership is currently in its final stage of approval by the U.S. Department of Justice.  The DOJ may block the deal entirely, or it could only allow it to proceed with strict conditions -- so called "remedies".



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

proof
By shin0bi272 on 10/3/2008 5:55:23 PM , Rating: 3
This is just more proof that we are living in a socialist country now. The government owns banks, mortgage companies, spends billions on education, is about to nationalize healthcare and possibly the oil companies depending on which socialist wins the election.

Freedom to fail or succeed based on your actions? whats that?




RE: proof
By Ordr on 10/3/2008 6:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely.
Separation of economy and state is just as important as separation of church and state.


RE: proof
By Myg on 10/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: proof
By eetnoyer on 10/4/2008 7:53:22 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, how about we go back to our Christian roots and institute a church run state. That way we can have some more Inquisitions and use religion as an excuse to persecute others with different opinions on everything from religion to politics to economics.</sarcasm> Sound like anywhere else in the world?

It is precisely that separation of church and state that allows so many diverse concepts and idealogies to be freely discussed amongst our population. Diversity of thought is the driving force behind all human advances. The earth is round. Evolution happens. Women have rights.

Spoken by a Christian. First among his lessons Christ taught forgiveness and tolerance. Even his religion, given absolute power, was corrupted and led to human tragedy and suffering. Separation of church and state is the only possibility for peaceful coexistence.


RE: proof
By spuddyt on 10/4/2008 8:14:36 AM , Rating: 2
^ OMG a sensible christian! (J/K :p)


RE: proof
By straycat74 on 10/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: proof
By SiN on 10/4/2008 11:56:02 AM , Rating: 2
ah, so your a fan of indoctrinaion!

surely if you beleive god blesses your country and looks after it - then god does. isn't that the point? beleive... or dont.

however. i dont like relidgions or the idea of a god. the purpose of life is to live. i personaly beleive god is just a word for all and everything, not a spirit or afterlife. just atoms gravity light and everything else inbetween.

if you want to worship something you should worship the sun. Aten.


RE: proof
By mmatis on 10/4/2008 7:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
And you're not? It's fine for the maggots to indoctrinate worship of Gaia, and the One True JasonMick of GlobalWarming, but Christianity must be purged? Go ahead and worship the sun if you want, but you can shove your Global Warming up your divine butt! And I curse the filthy maggot pigs that enable this sewage.


RE: proof
By Jackthecat on 10/6/2008 2:44:18 AM , Rating: 3
LOL - what a troll. You should comment more when you actually know what you are saying.

Separation of church and state in America (a country you may one day be a citizen of if you try hard enough), was put in place because our founders understood what could happen if it was not there. In fact, they had seen it.

But really, I don't need to tell you that. You already know it. You are trying to forge a reality in the online community that will favor the point of view you espouse (even though its not actually your point of view - you are herding cats as it were).

But guess what :) People are not that stupid anymore. At least not in general.

Really - do you think that you are preaching to anyone but the choir with your ignorant comments?

lol - and I went to war to make sure you could spew your crap. My friend Garret didn't make it. Nor did Grant - as I am reminded each day - another friend. Why don't you move to a country like Iran or Israel that has the same ideals you espouse. Sounds like you will be happier there, and I can assure you, so will we.

And this comes from someone who said the pledge everyday through all of his school. Who defended your ass in war.

You know what StrayKat. You are what weakens this country - a person who thinks the American way - the Constitution -is but a mild suggestion.


RE: proof
By paralipsis on 10/4/2008 10:14:30 AM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry. Separation of what and what now?

Separation of church and state is the mechanism whereby the orthodoxy of one religion is not forced upon a population that does not adhere to that belief system.

Every country in the world uses government to determine the model of economics that it employs and determines what is and is not allowed. "Separation of economy and state" is the equivalent of saying that you want people to be free to choose to live by free-market capitalism, socialism, feudal economics, or whatever system they "believe in".

I normally read some of the comments people make around here and ignore the absurdity of them. But this just pushed me over the edge. Either you are using a rhetorical device very poorly to make an utterly inane point or you have no understanding of politics whatsoever.


RE: proof
By SiN on 10/4/2008 12:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
you know... there is such a thing as nit picking!


RE: proof
By Ordr on 10/4/2008 1:09:26 PM , Rating: 1
I know exactly what I'm talking about.


RE: proof
By BansheeX on 10/4/2008 3:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
Something you are failing to explain is that religion doesn't need government or change with government to be practiced. Separation of church of state is an ideology by which belief systems of any kind are not endorsed by government. It has nothing to do with practice.

Economic systems require government in some form to be practiced. Economic systems have been confounded by creating categories that make people believe they are absolute models. They're not, capitalism and socialism are merely referencing the percentage of capital which is controlled privately and governmentally respectively. History would suggest that a system which is only socialist to the extent that government appropriates funds to protect rights, provide courts, and perform basic functions like laying pavement and picking up garbage is the optimal system. Systems like this are difficult to maintain, because government is usually able to deceive its ignorant populace into passing socialist enablements that grow as the problems they create beget more socialist solutions.

For example, at the turn of the 20th century, banks were allowed to do something no other industry could. Money started as gold, notes were supposed to be representative of actual gold deposits. The banks realized that redemptions at any one time never reached more than a fraction of deposits, so they created fraudulent notes not representative of real gold and loaned it out at interest. But it didn't always work, causing a lot of bank runs in the old days. Instead of banning this practice, they backstopped it with a central bank, but the central bank price fixed interest rates, causing a crash in 29. Government intervened further and turned it into a fifteen year depression, a nuclear explosion compared to the firecrackers of the original problem. Then the FDIC was created. It got depositors back in, but also removed the self-regulating fear and disincentive that would otherwise exist to prevent people from depositing their money with risky investment banks offering abnormally high yields. See how the failure to correctly solve one problem has led to a cascade of "solutions" that fundamentally pervert the risk/reward of the system until eventual collapse? Every attempt to "regulate" what was inherently fraudulent failed because it removed fears that otherwise would have existed to deter excessive risk.


RE: proof
By foolsgambit11 on 10/5/2008 6:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Economic systems require government in some form to be practiced.
Not really. Anarcho-Capitalism requires no government intervention. That is to say, without any government, the 'state of nature' economy would reign. But I get your point, since it would seem (to me, at least) only one economy is possible without government intervention (unless you buy into certain stateless political systems, like anarchism).

quote:
History would suggest that a system which is only socialist to the extent that government appropriates funds to protect rights, provide courts, and perform basic functions like laying pavement and picking up garbage is the optimal system.
And you're basing this on a statistically significant number of cases? First off, historical accounts can only get us so far, because the size and speed of the modern economic system negate certain problems that existed in the past, and introduce certain other problems that didn't exist. But the fundamental principle is that globalization changes the game. On the other side of the argument, why would you say the government has a role in laying pavement and picking up garbage? Waste Management makes a successful business of garbage pickup (currently by contracting with local government, but they could potentially contract directly with people). All roads could be toll roads - wouldn't it be more equitable, since those who use the roads would be the ones paying for it?

But back to my basic point. The suggestions of history are anything but clear when it comes to varying degrees of Capitalism-Socialism. If we look at economies all over the world right now, the one clear conclusion we can draw is that America is an economic powerhouse. But to decide that's a direct result of the current low regulation of the economy is difficult to justify. There are numerous historical, cultural, and geologic factors which are key to America's position in the world.

In America, we've had two major 'laissez faire' periods - the early Twentieth Century and the late Twentieth Century. The first ended after causing the Great Depression, with the increased regulation of the New Deal era. The second may be coming to an end now (or not) thanks to concerns over another major economic meltdown.

This isn't to say that socialism is better, or that capitalism is. Just that there isn't decisive evidence for either. For instance, currently Europe may be experiencing slow growth, but China has been experiencing explosive growth, both nominally Socialist. The one good rule that applies when all else fails is, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. So, while the economy is growing, we 'don't switch horses in midstream' (to pile on the truisms). But conversely, when something does break, you fix it. But in fixing it, you 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Put the smallest patch on the problem possible. That's how our current regulatory framework has evolved - the one that's at least part of why America is the most powerful country on the planet.

To draw on history from the other side, fundamental economic change has been advocated by various people on various occasions, and all have been soundly trounced. Communism? Anarchism? As politico-economic theories go, they've got about as much going for them as feudalism. I think most people can agree that 'perfecting' economics now comes down to incremental change. That is, at least for modern America, the best system lies somewhere in between European capitalism and complete free-market capitalism.

Why?

The question comes down to what your primary goal is going to be. To say it's maximizing quality of life (QoL) could be accurate, but it glosses over a lot of values questions. Is freedom important in QoL? To what degree? What about economic growth? What about security? Physical security? Job security? Economic security? Health security?

So even if the point were conceded that a system that was only socialist to the extent you outline is the most efficient, there's still a lot more to discuss. In addition to efficiency, what other goals should society have? What costs are acceptable in the pursuit of those goals (both economic and intangible costs, like restrictions on liberty)? For instance, would you consider there is at least a limited role for government in consumer protection - any or all of setting safety standards for baby cribs, cars, baby milk, Mexican jalapenos, drugs, &c...? Those are socialist incursions into the market, certainly. I mean, the free market would purge companies from business that people didn't trust. But we've chosen regulation as a preventative measure.

Anyway, I've rambled, and thrown out a lot of thoughts I have on the subject. Since nobody is going to come back and read this, I'm guessing I've probably wasted my time.


RE: proof
By someguy123 on 10/4/2008 12:11:24 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with most of that except education and healthcare. I mean, people need some sort of education to succeed and public schools' fulfillment of that is pretty basic. and about healthcare, you really can't completely control outside anomalies from hurting you in some way, and with the way healthcare is priced right now in the U.S. you'd have to be already successful to be able to afford it.


RE: proof
By straycat74 on 10/4/2008 8:48:43 AM , Rating: 3
The department of education is useless. The money could be better spent returned to the taxpayers. Education can and should be funded by the state and local governments, not making a bloated bureaucracy.

As for healthcare, government should stay out. I had to shop for a policy and purchased one last month. I didn't hear about it on the news I actually did it. You can not get a deal on insurance any where because the price is regulated by government. That means no competition. And it doesn't break the bank, you have to budget for it, and buy the right coverage. I could pay $1200 a month, and not have to pay a dime extra for medical attention, but I don't plan on going to the doctor every week. So in the event I do go, I pay more.

Healthcare, like your investments take a little bit of thought and effort to do well. I am disturbed by the way Americans are starting to think. Everything we need should be provided for us? Food. Done. Shelter. Done. Financial security, (bail out) done. I guess you people are right, I should work, pay taxes, and the government will provide. I can put up a huge portrait of the current President in my living room, and be thankful to the allowance given to me by my government, because all my needs are taken care of. We can them all change our sur-names to Eloi, and be done with it.
I guess it makes sense with more and more "children" living at home into their 30's and 40's.


RE: proof
By someguy123 on 10/4/2008 1:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
If you actually read what I posted you'd see that I agreed with the fact that the government is becoming too socialized, and I only disagreed with those two areas.
Also, where did I say that education must stay regulated by the department of education? All I said was that basic education is fundamental in success. Education funded by state/local governments is still socialized education in that region is it not?

And with healthcare, the government's regulations are pretty much based on what lobbying pharmaceuticals and HMO's wanted. The current regulations are meant to benefit the corporations. I think the difference in opinion is that you see heath care as a business, while I see it as a right. I don't want EVERYTHING to become socialized, and I'm not looking for a hand out. I am very financially secure and to be honest the pricing does not effect me, but I still believe this should become socialized.


RE: proof
By quiksilvr on 10/4/2008 12:28:39 AM , Rating: 2
Capitalism is a facade. Freedom is claimed for everyone and there is no "control" upon the people unless they refuse to follow the laws of the land. Bullshit. Those with power in this world will always control and rip away the freedoms of the people in whatever way they can to keep their power. You can't do these drugs but these drugs are okay. We can tap your phones but so long as you obey the laws you won't even notice. These cameras on the traffic lights are for your own protection. Sooner than later it will be these cameras in front of your house are for your own protection.

Capitalism was a term just used to face against Communism. Ooooh Communism is evil and Capitalism is good! This society only makes sure that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. They destroyed the education and healthcare system and now are going towards "education for everyone" and "healthcare for everyone" when in reality they don't have a clue on how to fix it.

The problem with freedom to fail or succeed based on your own actions is that your actions aren't free; they're limited. You are pushed in a corner with the quality of life based on location the moment you're born. Bad education, bad health care, insane taxes, gun shops, liquor shops. It's almost as if it was meant to happen, that you are meant to be stuck on the bottom of the barrel.

The simple truth? A pure capitalist or pure communist society cannot exist. Corruption prevails and the foundation of the society crumbles. There has to be a balance and right now the scales are teetering back and forth, with a mix of capitalist and communist ideologies and a heavy sprinkle of corruption. And the sad part? There aren't many other better places to be living in. Welcome to the American Dream.


RE: proof
By TheFace on 10/4/2008 3:54:15 AM , Rating: 1
I feel like people should keep track of the sentiments found on these message boards about the sentiments felt about our nation. 15 years ago everything was much more positive. Everything was just starting to boom, and it seemed like the sky is the limit. Now, in the dark hours of this economic extreme, the tendency is to be negative. Focusing on what is wrong, how everything needs to change. We forget that we still live in a great society. As Americans we have become jaded with all that we have, and not grateful for the ability to have purchased all of it. Our government will hopefully turn things around, but we need to do our part. Vote.


RE: proof
By straycat74 on 10/4/2008 8:54:57 AM , Rating: 1
You must be an NOBAMA voter. His campaign is based on negativity. You don't need him to give you HOPE if if already have it. He speaks to the hopeless, the down people who feel sorry for themselves and only see bad things on the horizon. I heard the same things from Gore and Kerry, same message, this time with a bit of white guilt thrown in. Sorry, I gave at the office.


RE: proof
By foolsgambit11 on 10/5/2008 6:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
You can be doing well and still want to do better, either personally or as a society. Maybe the reason Gore and Kerry (and now Obama) had essentially the same message is because there's a large portion of the population who feel that there are some things we could do better on as a nation. They expect greatness of America, and are disappointed when we fall short in certain areas. Maybe instead of rephrasing the Phil Gramm 'nation of whiners' critique, you could give specific examples of Democratic platform or policy you disagree with. You know, something constructive. Because as it stands now, there are major items of Republican policy (deregulation (blame falls to a lesser extent, but still some, on Democrats as well), War On Terror handling, the existence of the War On Terror, the loss of American respectability in the world, Iran non-proliferation, &c.) which lend themselves to trying another direction, just because we know the current direction isn't working too well. So without even getting into the specifics of Obama's policy suggestions on these topics, I've given an argument for change - change on topics where McCain is fundamentally in line with Bush doctrine.

Now, to my own non-constructive comment (which I swear is satire, thereby elevating it to the level of constructive comment by demonstrating the non-constructivity of your comment):

McPalin (to play your 'toy with names because that somehow discredits their policy ideas' game) plays the same game, though. They play to people who only see bad things on the horizon. It just depends on what you see on the horizon. Do you see turban-clad, freedom-hating fanatics clutching hands with baby-killing, Jesus-hating tree huggers and baby-making, job-stealing border jumpers on the horizon? Vote McPalin!


RE: proof
By BansheeX on 10/4/2008 3:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The simple truth? A pure capitalist or pure communist society cannot exist. Corruption prevails and the foundation of the society crumbles. There has to be a balance and right now the scales are teetering back and forth, with a mix of capitalist and communist ideologies and a heavy sprinkle of corruption. And the sad part? There aren't many other better places to be living in. Welcome to the American Dream.


They can exist, but they can't exist for long. Although people realize this, they are consistently wrong about the balance itself. Societies with small governments are indeed rare throughout history. The only thing keeping a government from getting more and more pervasive in the markets is the will of the majority, and a constitution (until politicians realize they can ignore it with impunity). What's weird is, the majority of Americans opposed the bailout, but the majority of their representatives voted for it. Democracy is not a very effective system either, it turns out. Get a lot of money, join a major party, get on a podium, make some motivational speeches, and you're in. Even if you suck, you've got a good chance because a lot of people refuse to vote for anyone not in the two major parties. They still vote for people who subsidize, they still vote for people who want income taxes and special tax credits borne of them, they still want inflationary money. They're clueless, they're voting for collusive enablements over and over again. Hell, you have to fail a test in basic economics to get an economics degree in this country. Why do you think all these people with doctorates in economics couldn't see or prevent all this crap from happening? Because they're all taught the equivalent of astrology instead of astronomy. When inflation filtered into real estate after the tech stock bubble burst, nobody but Mises-type guys like Schiff saw it because the inflaters who are calculating inflation exclude many products from inflation calculations to understate how much they're doing it. Food, fuel, and houses, for example. They even categorize inflation as if the products themselves are causing it. In reality, dollars created at no labor or material value can raise prices anywhere, and shift between them to create devastating booms and busts. It should be obvious, but to idiots like Swonk, they're completely oblivious into thinking its real labor-backed demand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucDkoqwflF4


RE: proof
By foolsgambit11 on 10/5/2008 7:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's weird is, the majority of Americans opposed the bailout, but the majority of their representatives voted for it. Democracy is not a very effective system either, it turns out.


Democracy can be effective. But it's unwieldy in large or dispersed populations. That's why we don't have democracy. We have a republic. What is more, we have a republic where the founding fathers specifically wanted a system that would insulate the legislative body from the whims of the mob. Now whether you think our representatives are voting as they do because they are more knowledgable than the average person on these matters or because they are corrupt and out of touch with America is a matter of opinion. An opinion that is difficult to separate from whether they voted the way you would have, admittedly, but an opinion that in any case says little about how well the government functions. Evaluating how well a government functions is about results, not intention. So until we know the results of the bailout, we should withhold judgement.


RE: proof
By rudolphna on 10/4/2008 10:08:07 AM , Rating: 2
The country would probably be in much better shape if the government WERENT interfering =P Left with nothing but the greedy companies and shareholders to run the economy? I shudder at the very thought of it.


RE: proof
By Myg on 10/4/2008 11:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
Well, you could look forward to alot of public hangings at the angry mod's demand...


RE: proof
By Myg on 10/4/2008 11:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
Correction: mod-mob


RE: proof
By mmatis on 10/4/2008 7:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of public hangings wouldn't be so bad. Clean out some of the sewage running this country. Supreme Court "justice" spouting Rwandan law to justify a Court decision? Hang the filthy cow! But the putrid pigs aren't about to let that happen...


RE: proof
By SiliconAddict on 10/5/2008 3:42:02 PM , Rating: 1
Idiot. If the economy fails we all fail. The two are tied. If the economy fails the government becomes unstable, because it can no longer function.

Socialism is not an evil word. Socialism in its pure state doesn't work. Period. Good concept. Hell I'd say that it very much conforms to what the Bible teaches. However it doesn't work in its pure form.
Capitalism also in its pure state doesn't work as we are seeing. Greed from a corporate, that isn't run by ethics and morals, trumps the good of a society and an individual and as such will fuck over ANYONE in the name of profit.

Hell I would say that a _touch_ of socialism is exactly what this country needs right now. However most Americans are greedy bastards, who don't give a shit about their neighbor or anyone other then themselves. As such people may claim they are patriotic, but at the end of the day they aren't willing to aid their country by aiding their fellow Americans. Because IMHO the heart of America IS the citizen. We make this country great. remember life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness?
You don't need to give everyone a life on a silver platter, but there is NO reason why people shouldn't be given the basics.
EVERYONE. And I do mean everyone deserves a home, clothing, medical care, and a good meal. when a company, be it a bank, or a manufacturer, thinks of the bottom line over its employees I do NOT believe that such concepts incorporate the notion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sure it does for the people invested in said company, but at the expense of the workers. If you think about it this is very much a type of caste system in place. Something I KNOW the founding fathers would be horrified to think is happening in this country.

you say freedom to success or fail based on YOUR actions. There is no YOUR actions in a corporation. there is a collective who's only goal is to make money. And when a company grows large enough to impact all of society there is a point that letting something like that fail is unacceptable when it impacts the whole. Oh and might I add that Fannie and Freddie were setup by FDR through his New Deal initiative, and removed from fed oversight in the 60's and turned into a private corp. Over the years government oversight has been removed because that is the will of the repub party. Because god forbid there is government oversight of a publicly traded company. And here we are. No oversight led to this disaster. Greed to make better profits and put citizens further and further in debt trumped doing what is right for the citizens of this country.

There should be a balance between capitalism, socialism, and several other isms (Other then fascism, which seems to be taking root here.) in the US. The problem is idiots see everything in black and white. A purely capitalistic country would have the government run like a business in the long run. Again though. Businesses don't care about people, they care about profits.


RE: proof
By Russell on 10/5/2008 8:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
What you are describing isn't socialism. What you are describing is much closer to fascism.


RE: proof
By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 8:37:27 AM , Rating: 2
How is it fascism? Please explain because you are very much off base here.


RE: proof
By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 8:34:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is just more proof that we are living in a socialist country now.
Welcome to the rest of the world.. and its a mix, obviously the U.S is not communist. I have always thought a mixed system is the way to go.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki