(Casino Gambling) Isn't in the local news.
al Guacamole
Every year a bill which the local gambling lobby supports goes fwd
in the legislature. They hire some previous legislator or
administration official to lobby. But looks like this year, the
bill may not have been entered or it never left the committee.
It might have been because Las Vegas is doing very badly lately
because of our poor economy. Was in the Star Bulletin yesterday
that there have been hundreds of layoffs in that industry lately in
Las Vegas. How much worse would it be in Hawaii if our economy is
based on casinos? It's a falacy that casino gambling is always good
for our economy-- not to mention it does great harm to our society
by luring compulsive gamblers into bankruptcy and crime to cover
their losses.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210345...@news.lava.net...
Let me suggest that the tourist industry is also not dependable.
al Guacamole
On May 9, 6:40 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Let me suggest that the tourist industry is also not dependable.
Obvious. But the casino industry is not the silver bullet for Hawaii.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210437...@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 9, 6:40 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me suggest that the tourist industry is also not dependable.
>
> Obvious. But the casino industry is not the silver bullet for Hawaii.
>
>
Is there any industry that would be the silver bullet for Hawaii?
Here is something for you to think about.
1. Island people go to Vegas and Reno in such large numbers that the
casinos cater to the people from Hawaii. Is that "helping" the economy of
Hawaii, that these people go somewhere else to spend their money?
2. Casinos employ a whole lot of people. And the people who work for the
casinos make good money. How many good paying jobs would be created "if"
casinos were allowed to operate in Hawaii? How many other jobs would be
created just from businesses that service these casinos?
3. Would legalized gambling in Hawaii, help or hurt the tourism
industry in
Hawaii? Would more or less people come to Hawaii if there was gambling in
Hawaii?
4. If there was legalized gambling in Hawaii, wouldn't casinos be built in
Hawaii, and would that not create a whole lot of jobs....good paying jobs I
might add.
Richard
al Guacamole wrote:
> On May 9, 6:40 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me suggest that the tourist industry is also not dependable.
>
> Obvious. But the casino industry is not the silver bullet for Hawaii.
>
>
As If there is ANY "silver bullet". The success or failure of the State
(or, for that matter, the country) is no different in principal than
that of any investor. Diversification is key. Anytime you put all your
eggs in one basket, you risk losing it all with one misstep. Hawaii will
probably always be an attractive travel destination, but excluding
unrelated businesses is foolhardy.
You must also build a solid foundation...this begins with education.
More, and better education. Most importantly, for the state, you must
take steps to attract business...ALL business. How? What are the
obstacles to business in this state? High land costs. High Union Labor
costs. Taxes. Regulation....just for starters.
What if the state, that ultimately controls land use, took steps to make
large areas available for residential, light industry, office, and
especially mixed use so that small business owners could live right
where they work? Making large new areas available will lower the land
prices for everyone (which is exactly why they DON'T do this, in cahoots
with the Big 5), lowering the cost of doing business.
What if we eliminate Unions? As a group, union workers are less
productive than non-union counterparts. This, in conjunction with higher
wages and more benefits, compounds the overall expense to business,
driving up costs.
Taxes and Regulation go hand in hand...let's simplify this and shift
more of the responsibility BACK to the individuals where it belongs,
instead of government "protecting" every squeaking wheel that rolls by.
The government should focus on infrastructure and education. Let the
market self-regulate business.
Eddie
>
>
>"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>news:1210437...@news.lava.net...
>>
>> On May 9, 6:40 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>Here is something for you to think about.
>
>1. Island people go to Vegas and Reno in such large numbers that the
>casinos cater to the people from Hawaii.
California hotel is the only casino/hotel I know of that seems to
cater to the people of Hawaii. And imho that place is a dump,
compared to the newer up-scale casinos.
> Is that "helping" the economy of
>Hawaii, that these people go somewhere else to spend their money?
You mean *lose* their money. Well, I guess they also spend, for
accommodations, food, etc.
>
>2. Casinos employ a whole lot of people. And the people who work for the
>casinos make good money. How many good paying jobs would be created "if"
>casinos were allowed to operate in Hawaii?
Probably none. Good paying that is. As you may or not know unskilled
labor earns mostly minimum wage in Hawaii. Why would the casinos pay
more? There would be little or no competition to increase wages.
AFAIK there are no unions in the casino industry. Lack of competition
is what keeps wages low in Hawaii. I was a cop there, (HPD) working
for the lowest paid department in the U.S. In the mainland if the
wages are not high enough you simply went to the nearby department
that paid more. Each city in the San Jose Bay Area pays comparable
wages (about 70K to start) If a city offered, let's say, 50K they
would have no applicants. Remember, in Honolulu there is only one law
enforcement agency. No sheriff, no highway patrol, no University
police, no school district police, etc. (State police are only
security at the Capitol iirc) With no competition you work at low
wages, take it or leave it. Where else you gonna go? To the mainland
of course, like me.
>How many other jobs would be
>created just from businesses that service these casinos?
>
>3. Would legalized gambling in Hawaii, help or hurt the tourism
>industry in
>Hawaii? Would more or less people come to Hawaii if there was gambling in
>Hawaii?
About the same. Remember the bulk of the visitors to Reno and Las
Vegas come by car. And there are organized tour buses that make
junkets from every little burg in CA. Plus train service. And of
course low fares by air. We normally pay around $100 each for two
nights hotel and air. Try doing a package to Hawaii from CA for that.
>
>4. If there was legalized gambling in Hawaii, wouldn't casinos be built in
>Hawaii, and would that not create a whole lot of jobs....good paying jobs I
>might add.
I doubt if that will ever happen. And forget "good paying" - ain't
gonna happen.
I don't understand why cruise ships that cross the Pacific do not
allow gambling on their ships when Hawaii is a destination. We
cruised on an 11-day NCL cruise that sailed South from Hawaii a couple
of thousand miles (to Fanning Island) and because of the no-gambling
law in Hawaii the ship could not have a casino operating. What the
hell does Hawaii's law have to do with gambling on a ship when it's in
international waters two thousand miles away? I can see closing down
the casino when 12 miles from Hawaii, but *two* thousand?
Eddie
>
al Guacamole
On May 10, 6:30 pm, Eddie <hawaii...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 18:35:01 -0500, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >2. Casinos employ a whole lot of people. And the people who work for the
> >casinos make good money. How many good paying jobs would be created "if"
> >casinos were allowed to operate in Hawaii?
>
> Probably none. Good paying that is. As you may or not know unskilled
> labor earns mostly minimum wage in Hawaii. Why would the casinos pay
> more? There would be little or no competition to increase wages.
> AFAIK there are no unions in the casino industry. Lack of competition
> is what keeps wages low in Hawaii. I was a cop there, (HPD) working
> for the lowest paid department in the U.S. In the mainland if the
> wages are not high enough you simply went to the nearby department
> that paid more. Each city in the San Jose Bay Area pays comparable
> wages (about 70K to start) If a city offered, let's say, 50K they
> would have no applicants. Remember, in Honolulu there is only one law
> enforcement agency. No sheriff, no highway patrol, no University
> police, no school district police, etc. (State police are only
> security at the Capitol iirc) With no competition you work at low
> wages, take it or leave it. Where else you gonna go? To the mainland
> of course, like me.
That's the price of paradise. People don't stay here for the wages.
Unless the low wages in these new diversified businesses are enough to
meet basic survival needs and some enjoyable lifestyle, these
businesses have no hope of thriving here. Higher wages would go to
people with families who can get into management. For example,
yourself, if you could get a promotion (OK someone would have to
retire or die?), then you might decide to stay for the 70K pay with
more responsibilities. And if you can get one promotion, then you
might decide to hope for upper management in future years?
> >4. If there was legalized gambling in Hawaii, wouldn't casinos be built in
> >Hawaii, and would that not create a whole lot of jobs....good paying jobs I
> >might add.
>
> I doubt if that will ever happen. And forget "good paying" - ain't
> gonna happen.
> I don't understand why cruise ships that cross the Pacific do not
> allow gambling on their ships when Hawaii is a destination. We
> cruised on an 11-day NCL cruise that sailed South from Hawaii a couple
> of thousand miles (to Fanning Island) and because of the no-gambling
> law in Hawaii the ship could not have a casino operating. What the
> hell does Hawaii's law have to do with gambling on a ship when it's in
> international waters two thousand miles away? I can see closing down
> the casino when 12 miles from Hawaii, but *two* thousand?
I agree Eddie. Oahu doesn't have the land are. There have been hopes
for resort development from Diamond Head through downtown Honolulu to
Sand Island. This area would support the large area needed for Las
Vegas style casinos. I doubt that that kind of development would
happen. I can see some expansion. In the future, we will probably have
more of the same Waikiki stuff to attract the wealthy rich from the
Far East and other areas around the Pacific.
I don't particularly like casino gambling here even in the form of
ship casino gambling. I think that it would cause a lot of social
problems in the islands. But also it would compete with Waikiki.
al Guacamole
On May 10, 1:35 pm, Richard <northshore_beach...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> You must also build a solid foundation...this begins with education.
> More, and better education. Most importantly, for the state, you must
> take steps to attract business...ALL business. How? What are the
> obstacles to business in this state? High land costs. High Union Labor
> costs. Taxes. Regulation....just for starters.
You have a good point. But we are not cheap whores and should probably
try to get business here that would be appropriate for the resources
that are available. We can afford to be discriminating.
We definitely need a better educational system. But that is more of a
social problem that is probably just as troublesome. There are many
from Hawaii who are smart and well educated that are living on the
mainland and looking for a job to return to Hawaii.
> What if the state, that ultimately controls land use, took steps to make
> large areas available for residential, light industry, office, and
> especially mixed use so that small business owners could live right
> where they work? Making large new areas available will lower the land
> prices for everyone (which is exactly why they DON'T do this, in cahoots
> with the Big 5), lowering the cost of doing business.
>
> What if we eliminate Unions? As a group, union workers are less
> productive than non-union counterparts. This, in conjunction with higher
> wages and more benefits, compounds the overall expense to business,
> driving up costs.
>
> Taxes and Regulation go hand in hand...let's simplify this and shift
> more of the responsibility BACK to the individuals where it belongs,
> instead of government "protecting" every squeaking wheel that rolls by.
> The government should focus on infrastructure and education. Let the
> market self-regulate business.
Land, Unions, Taxes, Regulation.... none of these are real obstacles
to a new business here that would be appropriate to Hawaii resources.
You chide big business, but they do have the resources to explore new
business ideas here. There just needs to be a way to make them more
responsive to their shareholders and do the prudent investments of
their large profits to secure their place amid serious competition in
the state.
The real problem is leadership and innovation. We need more of that.
If we continue to diversify with our startups through our Act 221 tax
credits law, at some point we will have the people here that can
sustain a high tech industry.
Jerry Okamura
"Eddie" <hawa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1210480...@news.lava.net...
>
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 18:35:01 -0500, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>>news:1210437...@news.lava.net...
>>>
>>> On May 9, 6:40 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>Here is something for you to think about.
>>
>>1. Island people go to Vegas and Reno in such large numbers that the
>>casinos cater to the people from Hawaii.
> California hotel is the only casino/hotel I know of that seems to
> cater to the people of Hawaii. And imho that place is a dump,
> compared to the newer up-scale casinos.
>> Is that "helping" the economy of
>>Hawaii, that these people go somewhere else to spend their money?
> You mean *lose* their money. Well, I guess they also spend, for
> accommodations, food, etc.
>>
>>2. Casinos employ a whole lot of people. And the people who work for the
>>casinos make good money. How many good paying jobs would be created "if"
>>casinos were allowed to operate in Hawaii?
> Probably none. Good paying that is. As you may or not know unskilled
> labor earns mostly minimum wage in Hawaii.
Because if Vegas is the example, they are union shops.
Why would the casinos pay
> more?
Because if they become union shops, which is highly likely, they will
either
pay or the workers will go on strike.
There would be little or no competition to increase wages.
> AFAIK there are no unions in the casino industry.
Huh? No unions in the casino industry? You obviously don't know about the
casino industry. The union is well established in the Las Vegas casino
industry.
Lack of competition
> is what keeps wages low in Hawaii.
Lack of businesses that pay a good wage is the reason that wages are low in
Hawaii, not lack of comptetition.
I was a cop there, (HPD) working
> for the lowest paid department in the U.S. In the mainland if the
> wages are not high enough you simply went to the nearby department
> that paid more. Each city in the San Jose Bay Area pays comparable
> wages (about 70K to start) If a city offered, let's say, 50K they
> would have no applicants. Remember, in Honolulu there is only one law
> enforcement agency. No sheriff, no highway patrol, no University
> police, no school district police, etc. (State police are only
> security at the Capitol iirc) With no competition you work at low
> wages, take it or leave it. Where else you gonna go? To the mainland
> of course, like me.
>>How many other jobs would be
>>created just from businesses that service these casinos?
More jobs would be created because casinos would bring in more people.
More
people means that casinos would have to hire people to work in the casinos.
More people means that there will be jobs outside of the casino industry
who
would benefit. More casinos mean more people working to provide the
services that casinos need to operate. Casinos are buildings. Buildings
need to be built by people in the construction industry. When you build
things, you need to buy things that are required to build these structures.
That means jobs for those who work in the construction industry, and jobs
for those who service the needs of the construction industry. It means
more
taxes, which translates to bigger government, which means more people
employed by government.
>>
>>3. Would legalized gambling in Hawaii, help or hurt the tourism
>>industry in
>>Hawaii?
The asnwer to that quesiton can be found in places that have legalized
gambling.
Would more or less people come to Hawaii if there was gambling in
>>Hawaii?
No question about that. There would be more people not less people.
> About the same. Remember the bulk of the visitors to Reno and Las
> Vegas come by car. And there are organized tour buses that make
> junkets from every little burg in CA. Plus train service. And of
> course low fares by air. We normally pay around $100 each for two
> nights hotel and air. Try doing a package to Hawaii from CA for that.
Well, yes. They have a very populated state next door, called California.
And yes, it is expensive to come to Hawaii, but it hasn't stopped people
from Hawaii from flying to Reno or Las Vegas. There are enough people who
fly to Vegas, that their is a hotel that specifically caters to people from
Hawaii. To be successful, that means there has to be a large enough number
of people who are spending the money to go to Vegas from Hawaii. Are you a
gambler? Well I am, and you cannot be in either Reno and Vegas and not see
people from Hawaii in their casinos.
>>
>>4. If there was legalized gambling in Hawaii, wouldn't casinos be built
>>in
>>Hawaii, and would that not create a whole lot of jobs....good paying jobs
>>I
>>might add.
> I doubt if that will ever happen. And forget "good paying" - ain't
> gonna happen.
A lot of those jobs would be union jubs. It is as simple as that.
> I don't understand why cruise ships that cross the Pacific do not
> allow gambling on their ships when Hawaii is a destination. We
> cruised on an 11-day NCL cruise that sailed South from Hawaii a couple
> of thousand miles (to Fanning Island) and because of the no-gambling
> law in Hawaii the ship could not have a casino operating. What the
> hell does Hawaii's law have to do with gambling on a ship when it's in
> international waters two thousand miles away? I can see closing down
> the casino when 12 miles from Hawaii, but *two* thousand?
>
Because the cruise company in this particular case, did not think that they
had to offer such a service?
Jerry Okamura
Let me suggest that while it is true that unions require business to pay
hgiher wages, and while that does affect the decision for many
industries to
avoid establishing a business in Hawaii (along with the fact that we are in
the middle of a very big ocean), unions are not a big problem with casinos.
they are money making machines, which can well afford to pay their workers
what they pay them.
"Richard" <northshor...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1210462...@news.lava.net...
Eddie
>
>> Probably none. Good paying that is. As you may or not know
>> unskilled
>> labor earns mostly minimum wage in Hawaii.
>
> Because if Vegas is the example, they are union shops.
>
> Why would the casinos pay
>> more?
>
> Because if they become union shops, which is highly likely, they will
> either
> pay or the workers will go on strike.
Ha! HPD is unionized (SHOPO) and so far HPD is still the worst paid
dep't in the U.S. (for its size) Are you aware that officers in
local cities make up to $108,000 top pay?
>
> There would be little or no competition to increase wages.
>> AFAIK there are no unions in the casino industry.
>
> Huh? No unions in the casino industry? You obviously don't know
> about the
> casino industry. The union is well established in the Las Vegas
> casino
> industry.
Really? What is the going rate for a starting blackjack dealer?
>
> Lack of competition
>> is what keeps wages low in Hawaii.
>
> Lack of businesses that pay a good wage is the reason that wages are
> low in
> Hawaii, not lack of comptetition.
High cost of living will not attract business as they would need
talented and educated people who would rather stay in the mainland.
Ever see the housing prices in Oahu? My SIL is plumber. Wages for
plumbers in HI are much less that here in San Jose. Let's face it,
Hawaii forever will only be a tourist mecca. Tourist want to only do
the touristy things, swim, surf, sun and visit the very few
attractions there.
>
>
> No question about that. There would be more people not less people.
Sure, just wait till they see the classifieds for rental and for sale
properties.
>
>
> Well, yes. They have a very populated state next door, called
> California.
> And yes, it is expensive to come to Hawaii, but it hasn't stopped
> people
> from Hawaii from flying to Reno or Las Vegas. There are enough
> people who
> fly to Vegas, that their is a hotel that specifically caters to
> people from
> Hawaii. To be successful, that means there has to be a large enough
> number
> of people who are spending the money to go to Vegas from Hawaii.
> Are you a
> gambler? Well I am, and you cannot be in either Reno and Vegas and
> not see
> people from Hawaii in their casinos.
People who want to do nothing but gamble will not pay thousands to go
to a casino and just sit there and play. Their primary reason to go
would be to see the islands, secondary maybe, to gamble. Casinos in
Hawaii would not attract pure gamblers from the mainland.
>>>
>
>
>> What the
>> hell does Hawaii's law have to do with gambling on a ship when it's
>> in
>> international waters two thousand miles away? I can see closing down
>> the casino when 12 miles from Hawaii, but *two* thousand?
>>
> Because the cruise company in this particular case, did not think
> that they
> had to offer such a service?
All cruise ships have casinos. They simply shut them down when
cruising Hawaii, whether they're local, such as the one's who cruise
only in Hawaii or the one's that originate in the mainland or
originate in Hawaii and must, because of Jone's Law, visit a foreign
port during its cruise.
Eddie
>
al Guacamole
On May 11, 7:45 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Let me suggest that while it is true that unions require business to
> pay
> hgiher wages, and while that does affect the decision for many
> industries to
> avoid establishing a business in Hawaii (along with the fact that we
> are in
> the middle of a very big ocean), unions are not a big problem with
> casinos.
> they are money making machines, which can well afford to pay their
> workers
> what they pay them.
Most of the new high tech startups in Hawaii are non-union. Don't know
of any that aren't, and why you would worry that the few workers that
are unionized in other industries would jeopardize a non-union shop.
Jerry Okamura
"Eddie" <hawa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1210570...@news.lava.net...
>
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:45:01 -0500, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> Probably none. Good paying that is. As you may or not know
>>> unskilled
>>> labor earns mostly minimum wage in Hawaii.
>>
>> Because if Vegas is the example, they are union shops.
>>
>> Why would the casinos pay
>>> more?
>>
>> Because if they become union shops, which is highly likely, they will
>> either
>> pay or the workers will go on strike.
> Ha! HPD is unionized (SHOPO) and so far HPD is still the worst paid
> dep't in the U.S. (for its size) Are you aware that officers in
> local cities make up to $108,000 top pay?
Don't you think there is a difference between what government can pay and
what a casino can pay? In order to pay someone who works for the
government, they have to get money from taxpayers. Politicians know that
taxpayers don't like to pay taxes. Taxpayers want the service, but they
don't like to pay for the service. On the other hand, casions are money
making machines, and they are more able to pay their workers the money they
want.
>>
>> There would be little or no competition to increase wages.
>>> AFAIK there are no unions in the casino industry.
>>
>> Huh? No unions in the casino industry? You obviously don't know
>> about the
>> casino industry. The union is well established in the Las Vegas
>> casino
>> industry.
> Really? What is the going rate for a starting blackjack dealer?
Don't know, but it is a fact that they all belong to a union. So, they are
paid more than if they were not unionized.
>>
>> Lack of competition
>>> is what keeps wages low in Hawaii.
>>
>> Lack of businesses that pay a good wage is the reason that wages are
>> low in
>> Hawaii, not lack of comptetition.
> High cost of living will not attract business as they would need
> talented and educated people who would rather stay in the mainland.
> Ever see the housing prices in Oahu? My SIL is plumber. Wages for
> plumbers in HI are much less that here in San Jose. Let's face it,
> Hawaii forever will only be a tourist mecca. Tourist want to only do
> the touristy things, swim, surf, sun and visit the very few
> attractions there.
>>
>
That is a problem in Hawaii. But casinos make a lot of money, and they can
pay workers more because they make a lot of money. Besides, you are only
concentrating on people who work at casinos. You neglect the other jobs
that are created when a casino is operating. Look at places like Las Vegas,
or Atlantic Cities. The casinos also include hotel oprations, and within
those hotel/casino opertions are top notch restuarants, retail shops, all
requiring workers. Hotels cannot opeate without supplies. That means there
is also a whole lot of businesses which are created just catering to the
needs of the hotel operation.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210570...@news.lava.net...
>
Let me suggest that is really not the issue. I worked as an engineer on the
mainland before I retired. I earned a good living, and never belonged to a
union. The problem in Hawaii, is the fact that we are in the middle of the
ocean, and operating a business is not cheap. Most high tech companies can
run their business from any State, or for that matter any country. So, a
high tech company in Hawaii, is in competition with other companies. A
company that is operating in a low tax, low regulation, low cost of living
area, has a built in advantage over a company that operates in Hawaii, which
is not a low tax, low regulation or low cost of living State.
al Guacamole
Jerry.... companies founded in Hawaii must have a reason for being
here. The answer is obvious when you ask their founders. If the
company can innovate and create marketable products, it still does
well here as well as anywhere else.
al Guacamole
> news:1210570...@news.lava.net...
>> Ha! HPD is unionized (SHOPO) and so far HPD is still the worst paid
>> dep't in the U.S. (for its size) Are you aware that officers in
>> local cities make up to $108,000 top pay?
>
> Don't you think there is a difference between what government can
> pay and
> what a casino can pay? In order to pay someone who works for the
> government, they have to get money from taxpayers. Politicians know
> that
> taxpayers don't like to pay taxes. Taxpayers want the service, but
> they
> don't like to pay for the service. On the other hand, casions are
> money
> making machines, and they are more able to pay their workers the
> money they
> want.
Except when the economy goes sour. Then casinos have to lay off many
of their employees.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210689...@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 12, 7:35 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Eddie" <hawaii...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:1210570...@news.lava.net...
>
>>> Ha! HPD is unionized (SHOPO) and so far HPD is still the worst paid
>>> dep't in the U.S. (for its size) Are you aware that officers in
>>> local cities make up to $108,000 top pay?
>>
>> Don't you think there is a difference between what government can
>> pay and
>> what a casino can pay? In order to pay someone who works for the
>> government, they have to get money from taxpayers. Politicians know
>> that
>> taxpayers don't like to pay taxes. Taxpayers want the service, but
>> they
>> don't like to pay for the service. On the other hand, casions are
>> money
>> making machines, and they are more able to pay their workers the
>> money they
>> want.
>
> Except when the economy goes sour. Then casinos have to lay off many
> of their employees.
>
"If" the economy sours "people" do get laid off. It does not matter if they
are working for a casino or they are working for some other business.
Jerry Okamura
[moderators note: Pls trim excessive quotes. Thank you.]
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210689...@news.lava.net...
Well, yes if they are successful they are happy as clams.
al Guacamole
On May 13, 7:25 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> Except when the economy goes sour. Then casinos have to lay off many
>> of their employees.
>
> "If" the economy sours "people" do get laid off. It does not
> matter if they
> are working for a casino or they are working for some other business
Casino gambling is no better than any other kind of business. It's no
silver bullet for Hawaii. Proponents promise more than reality.
al Guacamole
On May 13, 7:25 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> Jerry.... companies founded in Hawaii must have a reason for being
>> here. The answer is obvious when you ask their founders. If the
>> company can innovate and create marketable products, it still does
>> well here as well as anywhere else.
>
> Well, yes if they are successful they are happy as clams.
Success depends more on what you sell, how well you serve, than on
business problems. So why worry about disincentives when the
incentives and execution of a good business plan are more important.
Maren at google
On May 13, 7:25 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message news:1210689...@news.lava.net
> ...
>
>> of their employees.
>
> "If" the economy sours "people" do get laid off. It does not matter
> if they
> are working for a casino or they are working for some other business.
some businesses are more important to people even if the economy goes
sour.
I still got to eat. I bet you that a supermarket will lay off a lot
fewer people than
a casino.
The other thing that struck me is that Jerry said "if" and Al said
"when" :-).
The economy is somewhat cyclic, so it will go up and down. I still see
"help
wanted" signs around Hilo. Can't be that bad.
Maren
HiloBeads: Beads - Beading Supplies - Hand-made Jewelry
http://www.hilobeads.com/
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210732...@news.lava.net...
Okay, if it is not a silver bullet, what is the silver bullet?
Jerry Okamura
"Maren at google" <m.pu...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote in message
news:1210732...@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 13, 7:25 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1210689...@news.lava.net
>> ...
>>
>>> Except when the economy goes sour. Then casinos have to lay off many
>>> of their employees.
>>
>> "If" the economy sours "people" do get laid off. It does not matter
>> if they
>> are working for a casino or they are working for some other business.
>
> some businesses are more important to people even if the economy goes
> sour.
> I still got to eat. I bet you that a supermarket will lay off a lot
> fewer people than
> a casino.
Well, that is pretty obvious. The more people you employ the more people
can get laid off. Of course the flip side of that, is that also means that
the casino has got a whole lot of people working for them.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210732...@news.lava.net...
No, success means you stay in business and don't go broke trying to stay in
business.
al Guacamole
On May 13, 4:40 pm, Maren at google <m.pur...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote:
> The other thing that struck me is that Jerry said "if" and Al said
> "when" :-). The economy is somewhat cyclic, so it will go up and down. I still see
> "help wanted" signs around Hilo. Can't be that bad.
>
> Maren
Jerry's a proponent of casino gambling in Hawaii. You're right that
even in Hawaii we have our ups and downs. Even in the worse of times
people who have rare skills and abilities are needed. It really takes
being unemployed for someone like Jerry to acknowledge that we do have
hard times in Hawaii. We need to be more realistic about our economy
here.
al Guacamole
On May 14, 6:20 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1210732...@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 13, 7:25 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>>> Except when the economy goes sour. Then casinos have to lay off many
>>> of their employees.
>
>> "If" the economy sours "people" do get laid off. It does not
>> matter if they
>> are working for a casino or they are working for some other business
>
> Casino gambling is no better than any other kind of business. It's no
> silver bullet for Hawaii. Proponents promise more than reality.
>
> Okay, if it is not a silver bullet, what is the silver bullet?
The point is that there is no silver bullet. We need to diversify our
economy to make it more robust.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210814...@news.lava.net...
Being "realistic" is recognizing that legalized gambling in Hawaii,
has some
advantages that may out weigh the disadvantages. Being "realistic" is
recognizing the simple fact that the cost of living is high in Hawaii.
Being "realistic" is recognizing that this state is not the friendliest
state to businesses. Being "realistic" is recognizing that rules and
regulation and "mandates" on what business can and should do, does not
help
the business. Being "realistic" is recognizing the people in the
state have
a hard time finding a good paying job that is sufficient to be able to
afford the things that most people in most states take for granted.
al Guacamole
On May 14, 3:20 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> Success depends more on what you sell, how well you serve, than on
>> business problems. So why worry about disincentives when the
>> incentives and execution of a good business plan are more important.
>
> No, success means you stay in business and don't go broke trying to stay in
> business.
Those who don't have a winning plan, or who can't execute one, are the
successful ones. Dumb luck has very little to do with this.
al Guacamole
On May 15, 4:15 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Being "realistic" is recognizing that legalized gambling in Hawaii,
> has some advantages that may out weigh the disadvantages. Being "realistic" is
> recognizing the simple fact that the cost of living is high in Hawaii.
> Being "realistic" is recognizing that this state is not the friendliest
> state to businesses. Being "realistic" is recognizing that rules and
> regulation and "mandates" on what business can and should do, does not
> help the business. Being "realistic" is recognizing the people in the
> state have a hard time finding a good paying job that is sufficient to be able to
> afford the things that most people in most states take for granted.
Unfortunately, you have a difficult time being "realistic". Seems that
you're more biased and prejudgemental than realistic. The economic
benefits are probably less than the tourist business, and the downside
is that casino gambling can do great harm to our society and community
and existing businesses here already.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210904...@news.lava.net...
You are being contradictory. Allowing gambling WOULD diversify the economy.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210985...@news.lava.net...
What I said has nothing to do with whether we have legalized gambling or
not. What I said is the fact. Can you prove that what I said is incorrect?
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210985...@news.lava.net...
How can you be successful, "if" you can't "execute" a winning plan? I think
you meant that those with a winning plan are more likely to be successful.
Of course the problem with that, is when you develop a plan, you never know
it is a "winning plan" until you have already committed time and money, and
started the business. Then and only then do you really know whether you had
a "winning plan" or you did not have a winning plan. "If" everyone could be
successful, "if" they only had a winning plan, then everyone with such a
plan would be successful, which is obviously not the case. As foir "dumb
luck" not being a factor, think Bill Gates.
Alvin E. Toda
On Fri, 16 May 2008, al Guacamole wrote:
> On May 14, 3:20 pm, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
>>> Success depends more on what you sell, how well you
>>> serve, than on business problems. So why worry
>>> about disincentives when the incentives and
>>> execution of a good business plan are more
>>> important.
>>
>> No, success means you stay in business and don't go
>> broke trying to stay in business.
>
> Those who [...] have a winning plan, [and] who [can]
> execute one, are the successful ones. Dumb luck has
> very little to do with this.
typos above fixed by [] brakets. I really meant to say
the above rather than the negation. maybe this is
obvious?
Lawrence Akutagawa
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1211048...@news.lava.net...
c'mon Alvin - surely you're not falling back on your tried and true "you
have to read my mind to know what I really meant to say if only
because what
I wrote is so obviously not what I meant?" That is, "What I really
meant to
say is not what I did indeed write, but what I intended to write -
which I
clearly and obviously did not write...and you the reader really do
know what
it is that I really intended to say even though I did not at all say
what I
really meant to say." So when are you going to supply all us readers
with
those sheep entrails, tea leaves, crystal balls, coffee grounds, etc
etc etc
with which we can devine that which you really meant to say? Or are
you
going to call on the local kahunas on our behalf to do the necessary
interpretation of what you write?
And you say you are a former engineer? With such lack of writing
precision
and such plentitude of inexactitude and vagueness? With such reliance
on
the mind reading capabilities of your readers?
Maren at google
On May 17, 7:55 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1210904...@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 14, 6:20 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
>> news:1210732...@news.lava.net...
>
>> On May 13, 7:25 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>>>> Except when the economy goes sour. Then casinos have to lay off
>>>> many
>>>> of their employees.
>
>>> "If" the economy sours "people" do get laid off. It does not
>>> matter if they
>>> are working for a casino or they are working for some other business
>
>> Casino gambling is no better than any other kind of business. It's no
>> silver bullet for Hawaii. Proponents promise more than reality.
>
>> Okay, if it is not a silver bullet, what is the silver bullet?
>
> The point is that there is no silver bullet. We need to diversify our
> economy to make it more robust.
>
> You are being contradictory. Allowing gambling WOULD diversify the
> economy.
agree. But I'm not sure it would be to the better. I don't go to Vegas
and I don't
gamble, but I wonder whether people who go are more going for the
gambling
or more for having rock fever? I for one have no interest in one or
the other,
causing squabbles in my family because I said I'm not going to the
mainland
(not Vegas) for just a week.
While not having read all the messages in this thread, I have no
interest
in casino gambling or any gambling, other than very small scale
investing
(which I consider gambling of sorts), but we definitely need to
diversify
further.
Maren
HiloBeads: Beads - Beading Supplies - Hand-made Jewelry
http://www.hilobeads.com/
Blog at: http://hilobeads.blogspot.com/
Jerry Okamura
"Maren at google" <m.pu...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote in message
news:1211211...@news.lava.net...
People from Hawaii go to Nevada for the gambling more than because
they have
rock fever. You can go anywhere to solve the rock fever problem.
al Guacamole
On May 17, 8:15 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
> <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> What I said has nothing to do with whether we have legalized
> gambling > or not. What I said is the fact. Can you prove that
> what I said is
> incorrect?
No what you have stated is an opinion. We are here in this ng to
discuss opinions. The facts are not in dispute.
al Guacamole
On May 17, 8:15 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> How can you be successful, "if" you can't "execute" a winning plan?
> I think
> you meant that those with a winning plan are more likely to be
> successful.
> Of course the problem with that, is when you develop a plan, you
> never know
> it is a "winning plan" until you have already committed time and
> money, and
> started the business. Then and only then do you really know whether
> you had
> a "winning plan" or you did not have a winning plan. "If" everyone
> could be
> successful, "if" they only had a winning plan, then everyone with
> such a
> plan would be successful, which is obviously not the case. As foir
> "dumb
> luck" not being a factor, think Bill Gates.
You have some common sense here to see what I really meant to say.
You're right that just having a plan doesn't mean that it will be
executed. However, you need to convince investors to invest in your
plan, and if you have a bad one, then it will be brought out soon
enough.
But even if your marketing is off, or you encounter other problems,
it should become obvious at an early date so that your investors
can offer their help and suggestions to modify the business plan. I
think that it's more usually the case, that things get real bad
before those in charge confess up to their shareholders and
investors. Because of our isolation in Hawaii, this is probably
more important than elsewhere. There is less flexibility for the
startup in trouble.
I've read a little about Bill Gates. He has had a definite vision
about what he wanted to accomplish with Microsoft. And he had help
from his family on the business end. As for his business strategy,
few people have blamed him for just luck in his accomplishments.
You've chosen the wrong guy for luck in running a company. There
are probably a lot more CEOs that are negligent and leave the
running of the company to others as long as mediocre returns come
in. This is why we had those Enron scandals.
Lawrence Akutagawa
"Maren at google" <m.pu...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote in message
news:1211211...@news.lava.net...
>
/snip - follow dah thread/
>
> agree. But I'm not sure it would be to the better. I don't go to Vegas
> and I don't
> gamble, but I wonder whether people who go are more going for the
> gambling
> or more for having rock fever? I for one have no interest in one or
> the other,
> causing squabbles in my family because I said I'm not going to the
> mainland
> (not Vegas) for just a week.
>
> While not having read all the messages in this thread, I have no
> interest
> in casino gambling or any gambling, other than very small scale
> investing
> (which I consider gambling of sorts), but we definitely need to
> diversify
> further.
>
kind off topic, but given the kind of good deals I understand
available to
the Hawaii folks who go to Las Vegas - check the terms and conditions of
those offers. I understand from some firends and relatives who come
here to
the mainland from Hawaii using such offers that it is not necessarily a
strictly Hawaii - Las Vegas thing...there is room for a trip (even an
extended one) to elsewhere on the mainland like to San Francisco or Los
Angeles. If you folks like nature, see if you can use such LV offers
just
to get here to the mainland rather inexpensively. Spend the required
time
(if any) in LV, using as a base for day trips nearby (Red Rock Canyon,
Valley of Fire, even Death Valley). Then use LV as the starting and
ending
point for a tour of the Southwest. There are some sights there you
certainly won't see the likes of anywhere in Hawaii. Zion, Canyonlands,
Bryce, Captiol Reef, Monument Valley, Bisti, Mesa Verde, Arches, Dead
Horse
Point, Chaco Canyon, Little Wild Horse Canyon, Canyon De Chelly,
Antelope
Canyon, the Goosenecks, Horseshoe Bend....the list goes on and on.
And coming back to the main topic, my personal observation is that a
goodly
number of friends and relatives who like to gamble do not go to either
Reno
(from northern California) or LV (southern Califonia) now that so many
indian casinos have opened over recent years in California. They
prefer to
go to these indian casinos - closer and cheaper (especially with the
price
of gas being what it is these days) to get to than the Nevada places.
(Of
course, there is some irony in that a number of these indian casinos are
managed by Nevada concerns.) So I guess my question to those advocating
gambling in Hawaii is - from exactly where do you see the gamblers come?
Lawrence Akutagawa
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1211251...@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 17, 8:15 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
>> <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> What I said has nothing to do with whether we have legalized
>> gambling > or not. What I said is the fact. Can you prove that
>> what I said is
>> incorrect?
>
> No what you have stated is an opinion. We are here in this ng to
> discuss opinions. The facts are not in dispute.
>
Hey Alvin - fascinating comment from you, the person who said and
presented
as factual that Yamamoto was physically present in the Japanese fleet
that
attacked Pearl Harbor, that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor with
waves of
airplanes and battleships, that everyone in the South is a Republican,
that
the student-teachier ratio average in the islands is 25, that
honeybees are
attracted to vehicles about to go on the Super Ferry, that ethanol
does not
involve carbon dioxide, that I misquoted you, that the US militray all
by
its lonesome decides where R&R bases are located in foreign lands, etc
etc
etc. Wassmatta, Alvin? Don't like facts? Don't like being asked to
substantiate that which you say? Don't like being pointed out as
being a
whole lot less than precise and logical but rather being very much
ambiguous
and vague and - well - loosey goosey in what you say? Rather just
stay in
the realm of opinions not substantiated by facts? You do like it in
that
fantastic world of yours where facts don't exist, don't you?
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1211251...@news.lava.net...
I asked can you prove that what I said was incorrect.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1211251...@news.lava.net...
These CEO's of large companies are just human beings. They do not walk on
water, or have some sort of crystal ball that tells guarnatees that they
will be successful. And because they are human beings, some are honest and
some are not honest. You cannot dream u way to prevent that from happening.
al Guacamole
On May 20, 7:30 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1211251...@news.lava.net...
>
>> On May 17, 8:15 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
>>> <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> What I said has nothing to do with whether we have legalized
>>> gambling > or not. What I said is the fact. Can you prove that
>>> what I said is
>>> incorrect?
>
>> No what you have stated is an opinion. We are here in this ng to
>> discuss opinions. The facts are not in dispute.
>
> I asked can you prove that what I said was incorrect.
My reply is "so what"? Why would I want to answer the question.
al Guacamole
On May 20, 7:30 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> I've read a little about Bill Gates. He has had a definite vision
>> about what he wanted to accomplish with Microsoft. And he had help
>> from his family on the business end. As for his business strategy,
>> few people have blamed him for just luck in his accomplishments.
>> You've chosen the wrong guy for luck in running a company. There
>> are probably a lot more CEOs that are negligent and leave the
>> running of the company to others as long as mediocre returns come
>> in. This is why we had those Enron scandals.
>
> These CEO's of large companies are just human beings. They do not
> walk on
> water, or have some sort of crystal ball that tells guarnatees that
> they
> will be successful. And because they are human beings, some are
> honest and
> some are not honest. You cannot dream u way to prevent that from
> happening.
Baloney, in theory, they are accountable to their shareholders.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1211336...@news.lava.net...
Well, yes. What has that got to do with what I said.
Jerry Okamura
Lawrence Akutagawa
seems to have fallen through the cracks, so being resubmitted. If it is
being rejected, reject msg to akuno...@hotmail.com
****************
Now, now, Alvin - the reason you don't want to answer the question is
painfully obvious to all of us who have seen you in action over the
years.
To answer Jerry's question means you have to substantiate your answer
with
facts...you know - references, links, citations, and real honest to
goodness
stuff like that to provide the requested proof. And facts - as we all
know - you avoid like the plague. So if you really want to know "Why
would
I want to answer the question" - well, now you know.
And by the way - I did correctly quote you, did I not? If I did not,
please
by all means correct me - I don't want you to once more accuse me of
misquoting you.
al Guacamole
On May 21, 4:15 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> Baloney, in theory, [corporations] are accountable to their
>> shareholders.
>
> Well, yes. What has that got to do with what I said.
They can't lie to their shareholders-- which means essentially the
general public for a publicly held corporation. You state that they
can lie with impunity. Of course not.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1211750...@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 21, 4:15 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
>>> Baloney, in theory, [corporations] are accountable to their
>>> shareholders.
>>
>> Well, yes. What has that got to do with what I said.
>
> They can't lie to their shareholders-- which means essentially the
> general public for a publicly held corporation. You state that they
> can lie with impunity. Of course not.
>
When did I say they can lie with impunity?
al Guacamole
On May 25, 1:45 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> They can't lie to their shareholders-- which means essentially the
>> general public for a publicly held corporation. You state that they
>> can lie with impunity. Of course not.
>
> When did I say they can lie with impunity?
Jerry, you need to re-read what you've written. In fact, only a few
are thought to be lying because so few get caught. They can't do it
with impunity because it's a criminal matter.
al Guacamole
On May 25, 1:45 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> They can't lie to their shareholders-- which means essentially the
>> general public for a publicly held corporation. You state that they
>> can lie with impunity. Of course not.
>
> When did I say they can lie with impunity?
I'll quote you on CEOs of US Corporations who presumably belong to
responsible companies...
"These CEO's of large companies are just human beings. They do not
walk on water, or have some sort of crystal ball that tells guarnatees
that they will be successful. And because they are human beings, some
are honest and some are not honest. You cannot dream u way to prevent
that from happening."
Here you imply that they can get away with lying. That's not how the
system is intended to work. It's a similar to you saying that
criminals are "just human" and will break the law, and there's no way
to "prevent" that. I point out that we "prevent" that by having
deterrence. They screw up and in theory, the law says that they get
punished.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1212162...@news.lava.net...
I DID NOT SAY THEY THAT WOULD LIE. I said that being human, they will make
mistakes and like all human beings some will not tell the truth.
Jerry Okamura
[moderators note: Comeon guys... bring it back to topic.
soc.culture.HAWAII, remember?]
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1212162...@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 25, 1:45 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1211750...@news.lava.net...
>
>>> They can't lie to their shareholders-- which means essentially the
>>> general public for a publicly held corporation. You state that they
>>> can lie with impunity. Of course not.
>>
>> When did I say they can lie with impunity?
>
> Jerry, you need to re-read what you've written. In fact, only a few
> are thought to be lying because so few get caught. They can't do it
> with impunity because it's a criminal matter.
>
"If" lying was a criminal matter, just about every politican would be in
jail, and so would many who post messages on the various newsgroups.
aest...@hotmail.com
On May 10, 1:35 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
>> On May 9, 6:40 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Let me suggest that the tourist industry is also not dependable.
>> Obvious. But the casino industry is not the silver bullet for Hawaii.
> Is there any industry that would be the silver bullet for Hawaii?
> Here is something for you to think about.
> 1. Island people go to Vegas and Reno in such large numbers that the
> casinos cater to the people from Hawaii. Is that "helping" the
> economy of
> Hawaii, that these people go somewhere else to spend their money?
> 2. Casinos employ a whole lot of people. And the people who work for
> the
> casinos make good money. How many good paying jobs would be created
> "if"
> casinos were allowed to operate in Hawaii? How many other jobs would
> be
> created just from businesses that service these casinos?
> 3. Would legalized gambling in Hawaii, help or hurt the tourism
> industry in
> Hawaii? Would more or less people come to Hawaii if there was
> gambling in
> Hawaii?
> 4. If there was legalized gambling in Hawaii, wouldn't casinos be
> built in
> Hawaii, and would that not create a whole lot of jobs....good paying
> jobs I
> might add.
I was surprised THE VEGAS MINUTE would be a regular feature of a tv
news program.
al Guacamole
On May 30, 6:35 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> I'll quote you on CEOs of US Corporations who presumably belong to
>> responsible companies...
>
>> "These CEO's of large companies are just human beings. They do not
>> walk on water, or have some sort of crystal ball that tells
>> guarnatees
>> that they will be successful. And because they are human beings,
>> some
>> are honest and some are not honest. You cannot dream u way to
>> prevent
>> that from happening."
>
>> Here you imply that they can get away with lying. That's not how the
>> system is intended to work. It's a similar to you saying that
>> criminals are "just human" and will break the law, and there's no way
>> to "prevent" that. I point out that we "prevent" that by having
>> deterrence. They screw up and in theory, the law says that they get
>> punished.
>
> I DID NOT SAY THEY THAT WOULD LIE. I said that being human, they
> will make
> mistakes and like all human beings some will not tell the truth.
Jerry... very few of us lie in court-- much less if we can be
convicted of a criminal offense as was Ken Lay of Enron. What you
claim to say is obvious in general. Why use it when we are discussing
something specific like this?
I suspect that lying like this is more common than most people
realize, and it would be great if there were a way to kick out a
dishonest CEO. Especially in Hawaii it would be great for our economy
if the CEOs of our Hawaii corporations were more accountable and
responsive to their shareholders. For example, we could require that
shareholders with 5% or more of the company could request a seat on
the board. If they suspect mistakes and misconduct, then they could
get the CEO fired without a messy proxy fight.
Jerry Okamura
[Mod note: Take this to email guys.... there is nothing about Hawaii in
this argument...]
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1212255...@news.lava.net...
Very few of us will ever be charged with a crime. So, we will never know
what we would do in a court. And becuase the subject was not about Ken
Lay,
it was about CEO's of large companies in general.
>
> I suspect that lying like this is more common than most people
> realize, and it would be great if there were a way to kick out a
> dishonest CEO. Especially in Hawaii it would be great for our economy
> if the CEOs of our Hawaii corporations were more accountable and
> responsive to their shareholders. For example, we could require that
> shareholders with 5% or more of the company could request a seat on
> the board. If they suspect mistakes and misconduct, then they could
> get the CEO fired without a messy proxy fight.
>
The odds are that "if" someone owns 5% or more stocks in a company, they
have a chance of being on the board, "if" that is what they want to do, and
"if" they have the qualifications to be on the board.
aest...@hotmail.com
On May 10, 1:35 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
al Guacamole
On May 31, 10:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:
> The odds are that "if" someone owns 5% or more stocks in a company,
> they
> have a chance of being on the board, "if" that is what they want to
> do, and
> "if" they have the qualifications to be on the board.
Jerry, you are changing the topic. In this ng we talk about Hawaii
issues. I have proposed an idea for Hawaii Corporations. Yet you
respond on US companies in general-- as if you never saw the
difference in the proposal. It is hard to change federal law. So I am
proposing something for Hawaii companies that will make them more
honest to their shareholders and at the same time, putting some
accountability in the system. If Hawaii corporations can flourish with
world class leadership with such a simple change in the state law,
then perhaps more corporations here would want to incorporate locally
to benefit from the association with other successful corporations.
BTW, you response indicates that "if" fy requirements make it unlikely
that the shareholder can get on the board-- esp. if the CEO is also
the Chairman of the board. Perhaps that also should be ended if the
Chairman of the board can manipulate the company and board to ignore
legitimate concerns of shareholders. For example,he could prohibit a
board member from looking at the company books or to talk to auditors
of the company. An expert in accounting and legal and business matters
is dangerous for the misconducting management to have sniffing around
for evidence of their wrongdoing.
Too often, corporate management looks at company funds as their own
personal piggy bank. Hawaii corporate managers will find their hands
slapped hard or find themselves looking for new jobs if they slip up
or can't do their jobs. Corporate management is no place for someone
who can't produce. You see this in Icahn's recent purchase of Yahoo
stock. Whether or not his turn-around people can influence the board
and sideline the founders if they refuse to change, will be something
that time will tell. In the case of Hawaii corporations, it would be
nice if say the Bank of Hawaii which may hold 5% of a local
corporation could do something with lagging performance of a Hawaii
corporation by changing the management. A proxy fight or hostile
takeover may come too late as it has for Aloha Airlines.
This kind of talk has even be said of the telephone company before
they became acquired by mainland companies. This Hawaii kind of thing
of dynasties in corporate management (nepotism in corporate
management) is a thing of the past. Telecommunication's a competitive
business and the best leadership is needed for the company. Looks like
the latest owners of our telephone company are looking for a quick
profit and a quick out. They promised to hold the company for 2 years
before they flip it. Looks like that's what they plan to do. I guess
the juries still out on Kaui's citizens buying out HEI Kauai electric
to see if a citizen's board can operate it any more efficiently and
save money. More likely, unless they can find a good leader, or figure
out how to get give-aways to Kauai Electric from govt, they'll find
that they can do no better, or do worse, than HEI.
Jerry Okamura
[moderators note: Not applicable, Alvin and Jerry. We've used the
example, "Just because there are McDonalds in Hawaii, does not make it a
Hawaii topic." This subject has gone off topic way too long. Please
stop. Thank you.]
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1212628...@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 31, 10:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The odds are that "if" someone owns 5% or more stocks in a company,
>> they
>> have a chance of being on the board, "if" that is what they want to
>> do, and
>> "if" they have the qualifications to be on the board.
>
> Jerry, you are changing the topic. In this ng we talk about Hawaii
> issues. I have proposed an idea for Hawaii Corporations. Yet you
> respond on US companies in general-- as if you never saw the
> difference in the proposal. It is hard to change federal law. So I am
> proposing something for Hawaii companies that will make them more
> honest to their shareholders and at the same time, putting some
> accountability in the system. If Hawaii corporations can flourish with
> world class leadership with such a simple change in the state law,
> then perhaps more corporations here would want to incorporate locally
> to benefit from the association with other successful corporations.
I did not think I was changing the subject. It was about public
corporations, which can be formed in Hawaii. And when it is formed in
Hawaii, the same rules apply to that corporation, that would apply to a
corporation formed in another state, when it comes to this subject matter.
>
> BTW, you response indicates that "if" fy requirements make it unlikely
> that the shareholder can get on the board-- esp. if the CEO is also
> the Chairman of the board. Perhaps that also should be ended if the
> Chairman of the board can manipulate the company and board to ignore
> legitimate concerns of shareholders. For example,he could prohibit a
> board member from looking at the company books or to talk to auditors
> of the company. An expert in accounting and legal and business matters
> is dangerous for the misconducting management to have sniffing around
> for evidence of their wrongdoing.
I said that any shareholder can try to get on the board, but that if you are
a major shareholder, you have a much better chance of being on the board.
As for your CEO comment, that only applies "if" he owns a lot of shares in
the company. If he does not, then his control of the company depends on
what the major shareholders allow him to control. And while it would not
hurt to have different experts with different skills to be on the baord,
they do not have the time or the money to conduct a thorough audit of the
books. They can "suspect" whatever they want to, but they have no proof
until there is a thorough audit of the books, and in order to do that, you
have to bring in some outside auditor, with a very large team of workers (if
it is a large company) in order to do a good and thorough audit and even
then, you may not find the evidence you seek.