Conference 7.286::digital

>    Do you think that a public company should be in the business of picking
>    a president.  Why do you think they did it ?  Should Digital pick one ?

	I think that sometimes a company will endorse someone or some issue
	because they believe the outcome of a vote will have a matterial
	effect on the company. What Digital does should be left up to the 
	BoD.

				Alfred

    The idea of "a company" endorsing a candidate seems to me highly
    presumptuous.  "A company" can't endorse a candidate; the seven
    (or however many) members of the BoD can, if they wish, pick a 
    candidate and say "the company" endorses the candiate, but it's
    really the personal opinion of 7 people.  One of the great things
    about democracy (the *greatest* thing about democracy, perhaps),
    is that their 7 opinions are in fact worth no more than any other
    7 opinions on election day.  If they want to offer their personal
    opinion *as their personal opinion* that's one thing, but passing
    it off as the Voice of Digital Equipment Corporation is a bit much.
    
    Personally, I would be rather offended if "Digital Equipment
    Corporation" endorsed a candidate, with its implication that we,
    as good worker drones, should support that candidate.  Whom I vote 
    for, whom you vote for, is nobody's business but ours.  
    (Just be sure YOU VOTE!!!)

    I concur that Digital cannot endorse "my vote" to a candidate.  Only I
    can do that.  However I can see companies endorsing/supporting
    issues/proposed bills, etc. that could have an impact on how a company
    does business either here in the U.S. or in a foreign company.  The
    company can represent the company but the company cannot represent the
    individual.
    
    CW

    Since Digital has not done this in the past, I don't expect that it
    will in the future.  What's this thing called the "Mass. Hi-Tech
    Council"?  Isn't that a good ol' political action committee?  Let them
    do it.

I do not take any issue with firms endorsing a condidate. Labor unions often do
the same thing. This is not to say that I would vote for a candidate endorsed
by my company. Many high technology firms have endorsed Clinton based on a 
feeing that he has a better grasp of high technology applications and how they
can help America compete in the 21st century. At the same time, some are
drawn to Bush because of his "free-trade" stance. Money magazine recently 
recommended that investors buy Apple if Bush wins and Humana Hospital if Clinton
wins. The baseline is that newspapers endorse candidates, labor unions endorse
candidates, companies organize political action committees, ect. I would be
interested in hearing why different economic sectors (auto, steel, high-tech,
transportation, communications) would endorse a particular candidate. It raises
the general level and quality of discourse and would force candidates to think
about something besides finger pointing and name calling. 

    I believe that the notorious level of lobbying and influence-peddling
    observed in US and state governments is a direct result of the fact
    that our form of government is outmoded.  We still pretend that
    geographic representation is adequate to protect the interests of
    citizens when it is clear that the employees of one distributed company
    have more interests in common than the residents of one neighborhood
    who work in different organizations.  The lack of a formal mechanism to
    deal with the substantial interests of organizations other than
    governments is a prime cause of the under-the-table activity.  We need
    to reform our government to provide formal represensation for these
    interests.
    
    When that happens, the question in the base note will become academic.
    
    Dick

    In the final presidential debate, Clinton stated that he had received
    the endorsement of the CEOs of several high-tech firms, including HP
    and Apple Computer.  Mr. Young of HP and Mr. Sculley of Apple are free
    to endorse whomever they choose.  Is Clinton's having received the
    endorsement of these two individuals sufficient reason to state that he
    has received the endorsement of the companies for which Young and
    Sculley are the CEOs? 

    We can't even pick a VP for Sales and Marketing and you want Digital to
    endorse a candidate for President????? |-)
    
    Keith R>

    I, for one, would not like DIGITAL to endorse any particular candidate. 
    I wouldn't listen to their reasoning anyway.  Each voter is supposed to
    have an independent mind, but that's how labor got so screwed up
    because they fell hook, line and sinker to whatever they Unions had to
    say.
    
    

    Shouldn't the title of this note also include Perot and Marreau (sp)
    as well least it appear that the conference supports only Bush and
    Clinton? :-)
    
    		Alfred

While the endorsement of a company probably doesn't mean alot, the endorsement
of CEO's like Sculley certainly can. If Ken Olsen endorsed a candidate for
president many of us would pause and give it thought. Same holds true for
those who work for Sculley, Kapor, and others. They have enough respect from
large numbers of people that they are listened to. That's what is important. 
No one expects every Apple employee to vote for Bill Clinton because John
Sculley endorsed him. No one expects every Teamster to vote for him because
their leadership endorsed him too. But if it turns some voters then when the
endorsee is sitting in the White House his ears are more likely to be turned
to those CEO's who jumped on the bandwagon than to those who didn't.

    
    Put Perot in the title of this note. We need everyone to believe
    it is possible. Don't believe the media that he can't be elected,
    the media are special interests too. 
    
    The same poll that identified Clinton 38%, Bush 31%, Perot 22% also
    had a question: Which candidate has shown the best plan for improving the
    economy? 67% answered Perot. Why aren't they voting for him? They
    think he doesn't have a chance. He does have a chance so long as you
    don't accept the force feeding that the media tries to give you. 
    
    
    	That said, Digital shouldn't endorse anyone, and neither did
    those other companies. But HP and Apple just want Gore to be elected
    to try to get the national computer network built. All computer 
    companies would benefit: it would create the largest single
    customer for computers: the federal government. Gore documented his
    plan in Scientific American last year. That's why these guys want 
    Clinton. They didn't endorse him until after the convention. 
    
    	Vote Perot. 

I believe the premise of .0 is incorrect.  Unless the basenoter quotes
actual text from some article, I think he or she jumped to a hasty
conclusion based on less than careful reading or listening. 

I have not heard any report about any "company" endorsing a candidate.  I have
heard about CEOs of some companies endorsing Clinton, as individuals.  

Unless anyone quotes to the contrary, then, I think this whole string is 
based on faulty thinking. 

nina 

I'd be surprised if there isn't one company endorsing a candidate:



Perot Systems.

Why shouldn't a company endorse a presidential candidate?  It seems
to me that the controlling body of the company ought to have some idea
of how the professed policies of any given candidate will affect
said company in any dimension that the company deems appropriate
for consideration.  An endorsement says no more than "on the whole,
we think the policies (or lack thereof) of Joe Foo will be the
best policies from the point of view of the well-being of this
company".

What would such an endoresement mean?  Well, as little or as much
as you, the individual voter, care to read into it.  In my opinion,
it wouldn't mean a whole lot.  Certainly, knowing DEC's endorsement
wouldn't affect my decision, regardless of whether it was a 
decision by Ken Olsen (remember him?) or "the board".  What's right
for business is not necessarily right for me.

But that's no reason to not allow companies to have their say -- just
because I think it's meaningless.  Nor is the contrary true -- that it
shouldn't be allowed because other people might think it means
something.

Politics is intimately connected with economics.  Companies are
economic agents.   To pretend that companies have no interest
in politics is hypocritical.

(Note, we're talking about "endorsement" here, not "donating 
 huge sums of money and perverting the democratic system").

What do you think to the practice of newspapers endorsing political
candidates?  I'm all for it -- you then know where they stand.
The fact that they have an opinion on one page of the paper shouldn't
affect their ability to deliver objective news on another page; in fact,
if they can't tell you overtly who thye think you should vote for,
they'll probably be trying harder to tell you covertly.  :-)

How do newspapers differ from other companies in this regard?

-dave (who won't be voting in November)

   <<< Note 2176.11 by FSDEV::MGILBERT "GHWB-Anywhere But America Tour 92" >>>

>endorsee is sitting in the White House his ears are more likely to be turned
                                        ^^^^^^^^
So you obviously feel that Ross will win ;-)

    but if a CEO or BoD endorses a candidate, aren't they also pledging the
    company?  Why else would a CEO or BoD endorse if they didn't see the
    potential for reaping huge profits from a program the candidate
    proposes and may get passed.  A CEO or BoD can say all they want that
    the endorsement is a personal one and get most people to believe that
    at face value, but a CEO's/BoD's personal endorsement could also mean
    for the benefit of THEIR company.
    
    Then again, an individual could then make the decision to work for a
    company that supports the opposite of their own beliefs or to work for
    someone else.
    
    Maybe it would be good to see who/what CEO's/BoD's endorse so the
    public can make their own choices of who to support and who to oppose.
    
    Ogre.

    Does anyone remember when the MCFL endorsed Weld for Governor?
    
    At least, that's how it was reported in the papers.  That's probably
    why a lot of Pro-Life folks were encouraged to vote for Weld.  
    
    I wrote to the MCFL about this.  In a written response, I was basically
    told that the MCFL *did not* endorse Weld and were not a political 
    organization.  So, why did the press report it that way?  Because *the 
    leaders of* the MCFL formed a political organization and THAT organization 
    chose Weld over Silber and Umina (Umina being the *only* pro-life 
    candidate on the ballot at the time).  It was the papers that turned it 
    into MCFL endorsing Weld -- which was not refuted or contested to my 
    knowledge by the leadership of the MCFL.
    
    This is also why I stopped contributing to the MCFL though I am pro-life.
    
    The point is, the papers will scream about corporations and large
    organizations endorsing particular candidates.  Under close
    scrutiny you may often find that it is not what it appears.  However, 
    you might reasonably conclude that the affect attained was the desired
    one -- making it appear that a prestigious organization has chosen a 
    particular candidate.
    
    The value of endorsements, if you were to put a price on it, is quite
    high because of the free and favorable publicity that usually results.
    
    Steve

    .13 is correct.  The articles I've read stated that a group of
    individuals were endorsing Clinton.  These people were senior officers
    of major high-tech firms, but they were endorsing Clinton as
    individuals, not as representatives of their companies.
    
    Ken
    

    
    
      Other entities such as the UAW  have regularly endorsed various
    political candidates.  The election results have shown that the
    Union endorsement meant little or nothing when the curtains were
    drawn in the polls...
    
      IMHO,  a corporate endorsement would carry very little meaning
    one way or another.
    
    
    
    						-al
    

    If there is no attempt to "influence" the vote... WHY then is the next
    round of layoffs/tfso's slated for "approximately November 2nd".

    I'm sorry but this can not possibly be coincidental... IN MY OPINION, I
    believe there will be a decision made, after the election and depending
    upon who wins..., on how deep the next round of cuts will be.

    My prediction is.... if Bush wins, cuts will be shallow and spread out
    over a period of time. If Clinton wins the cuts will be deep in the
    next rounds and deep each time following... taking less time to reach
    the ultimate goal.... If Parot wins... I don't have a prediction and I
    don't think anyone really knows how they would react.
    
    Just my opinion!
    
    Bob G.
    

Bob,

Could you explain why you predict different layoff strategies depending on which
person wins the presidential election?  I believe that conventional wisdom does
not apply this year in predicting the business climate in the next
administration.  A knee-jerk reaction to who gets elected without looking at
the true business climate would be a mistake.

Paul

P.S.  That Perot, not Parot.

P.P.S.  There are more people running for president, and on the ballot in all
	fifty states, than Bush, Clinton, and Perot.  What happens if Marrou
	wins?

    Let's see.... my reasons would be....
    
    Clinton has touted raising taxes on the "richest" of the population..
    Our business owners, CEOs, BODs, etc..... may just fit into such a
    catagory.. (maybe)... Not sure where he would recommend that "richest"
    line would be drawn.., $$$ wise..??
    
    Bush and the Republicans, on the other hand, is/are known for his/their
    "trickle down economics"... Which, as we all know, is suppose to give
    breaks to the wealthy, in the hope they will pass the saving on down
    the line... through their businesses and such... We all know this isn't
    happening... BUT this really looks good to "those who have"!!
    
    These may not be reasons that others would agree with... BUT that is
    kinda what "opinion" does... These are just that... "MY OPINION"..
    
    You know what the definition of "opinion" is... right..?
    
    
    
    	OPINIONS are like arm pitts.... everyone has two, and sometimes 
    	they both stink!!@#$%^&*()
    
    Bob G.
    

>P.P.S.  There are more people running for president, and on the ballot in all
>	fifty states, than Bush, Clinton, and Perot.  What happens if Marrou
>	wins?
If Marrou wins? That's hard to say. If Marrou were elected and could
really get some Libertarian ideas through Congress, then I'd say
the layoffs would be shallow. But I don't know how likely all that is.
(unfortunately).


Could someone please explain some possible reasons for why a CEO of
a major corporation (HP, Apple) would support Clinton? I've been trying
to think of some reasons with an open mind, yet I honestly haven't
come up with anything that makes sense.

BTW, I agree that a CEO stating their position on an election can and
does effect some amount of votes. In that sense, their votes can carry
more weight, eventhough everyone has just one actual vote.



Dave

           <<< Note 2176.24 by DECEAT::MURRY "Revolution Calling" >>>
                            -< inquiring minds... >-


>Could someone please explain some possible reasons for why a CEO of
>a major corporation (HP, Apple) would support Clinton? I've been trying
>to think of some reasons with an open mind, yet I honestly haven't
>come up with anything that makes sense.

There are lots of reasons that I can think of.  Maybe they feel he will
bring some change to the status quo.  Maybe they are democrats.  Maybe
money isn't the only thing they think about.  Maybe they are concerned
about the poor, and the AIDS victims, and the cities.

Could be a lot of things . . . 

>Maybe they are concerned
>about the poor, and the AIDS victims, and the cities.

...and not the future of their companies or employees, IMO.


The more I think about it, the more I think my question in
.23 is futile to ask here. It just comes back to the fundamental
differences in theories/philosophies/economies/whatever, and the
only outcome of such a debate would be wasted disk space and time.
I suppose we'll just see what happens on Tuesday...


Dave

    It could be that Digital is planning on having massive layoffs
    after the election, no matter who gets elected.
    
    By delaying the layoffs, Digital employees and their families will 
    tend to be more satisfied with status quo, and vote accordingly.  
    By implementing massive and widesreads layoffs BEFORE the election, 
    more people will tend to be fed up, disillusioned (DIGillusioned?), 
    etc, and would tend to vote for a change. After all, what has an 
    out of work person got to lose by voting for a change?
    
    My guess is that if the timing of the planned layoffs is intentional,
    it is being done more to effect the outcome of the election, rather 
    than as a reaction to it.  As I said, I think we should expect massive 
    layoffs after the election, no matter who wins.
    

    
    CEO's of high tech companies would be real glad to see someone who will
    try and do something about the poor education in this country and not just
    spout hot air!  Not every rich person in the country turns away from
    problems that will just get more expensive as we go along!  Smart folks
    tend to see environmental protection as a cost saver and business
    opportunity!  I can't think of why anyone in their right mind would
    vote for the status quo unless they too are ostriches!
    
    If Digital delays layoff's until the 9 week period arives in the new
    year, then they've done everyone being TFSO'd a nice gesture as regards
    the tax man. I know the govmint' would get a real extra healthy slice
    of mine if added to this years salary.  I've thought this to be a
    rather nice gesture since first announced.

	I can think of a couple of reasons to have the next round of layoffs
	after the first week in November. First is to give management time
	to understand the effects of the last quarters results and plan
	accordingly. Second to allow management time to understand the effects
	of the las t rounds of layoffs. One doesn't always feel the pain right
	away. Third is to allow people to get their lump sum in the new tax
	year. They get to keep more of it that way. Fourth is to delay by a
	few extra weeks paying those big checks - cash flow and all that 
	accounting stuff.

	If upper management thinks they can affect the election by when they
	lay people off they've got serious ego problems and a loose handle on
	reality at best. I hardly think that's likely. Hope not anyway.

			Alfred

Re: .24 and reasons behind Scully, Young and others backing Clinton:

There are a few other specific reasons why high tech CEOs like Clinton:

 1. He supports a permanent tax credit for investment in R&D.

 2. He advocates the creation of a civilian DARPA, which at least theoretically
    would mean faster introduction of new technolgies into industry instead
    of into building better smart bombs.

 3. He advocates govt investment in infrastructure, including a nation-wide
    "information network," which sort of sounds like the beginnings of
    the information utility that David Stone is talking about a lot these
    days.

IMO, these issues alone make a Clinton a better president for the computer
industry.  This is mainly why high tech CEOs are backing him.

Mike
 

    Bush's recent "VomitGate" trip to Japan, was advertised as being
    with many of America's top business executives. They were all from the
    auto. industry. No high-tech company was represented. Some people think
    this sent a message to the electronics industry.
    
    Also, regarding the trickle down theory. I'm being trickled on, but it
    is not with money. 
    
    - John	
    

Another reason why a CEO of a large corporation might support Clinton: He has a
better plan to stop runaway health care costs than either Bush or Perot.  

>    Also, regarding the trickle down theory. I'm being trickled on, but it
>    is not with money. 

When you find a way for money to just "trickle" onto you, let us all know! :-)


Re: .30

Sure, Clinton supports all those things. But he's shooting himself
(and the economy) in the foot by the other things he proposes with the
economy. IMO, Scully and Young are short-sighted in their views...

Should be interesting on Tuesday!


Dave

    There are also reasons why a company or even a CEO should not support
    a candidate too publicly. People who support other candidates may take
    that support out on the company. It has happened with a lot of other
    political issues in the past.

    		Alfred

    It is clearly obvious why CEO's of large corporations, especially high
    tech, may be backing Clinton. If he is allowed to impose the programs he
    has spoken of, family leave, health care, and other employer paid
    taxes, it will become prohibitive for entrepreneuers to start up and
    grow business'. And then guess what, the future SUN's, Apple's, NEXT's,
    SGI's (and DEC's)etc., etc. will be forced out of business. Thus, sort of a
    monopoly for only the very large corporations who are able to charge
    high enough prices to cover the taxes. If Clinton gets in watch and see
    how many small business' fold up shop in the next year!
    
    JW

    
    re:35
    
    
    Thanks for giving the correct answer.
    
    Mike

re Note 2176.35 by PDMONT::WILBURJ:

>     If he is allowed to impose the programs he
>     has spoken of, family leave, health care, and other employer paid
>     taxes, it will become prohibitive for entrepreneuers to start up and
>     grow business'. 

        "Prohibitive" is a gross exaggeration -- entrepreneurism
        flourishes in many countries with wide-ranging social and
        business policies.

        On the other hand, we just might have healthier, better
        educated, and more enthusiastic individuals and families --
        those are the most important resources upon which any
        successful business is built.

        Bob

    dreamers....

re Note 2176.38 by KELVIN::BURT:

>     dreamers....

        Like the personal name says....

    One danger to Digital and similarly situated large corporations
    is that mid-level corporations will be taking on a heavier tax burden,
    if Clinton is elected.

    That will reduce the available funds for "nice-to-have" things like
    the next upgrade ("We can make do a few more years with the good ol'
    88**") and for the more expensive service contracts ("You build good
    stuff, we'll risk the difference in price between services.")

    A congress-friendly President will make it easier for "special
    appropriations" to be passed as riders to various bills (which 
    themselves may not be really sound) with little threat of veto.

    The euphoric "honeymoon" may well be followed by rounds of inflation,
    or worse, "stagflation," that descended like a plague the last
    time we had a demo congress and a demo president.

    Add to that the tough international leaders that traditionally have
    made mincemeat of demo presidents' policies (Kennedy's Cuban crisis
    was an exception)...well, to be kind, the US of A won't fare well.

    IMHO

    Regards,

    John B.

    So, as I read all these replies, it boils down to a CEO's/BoD's
    endorsement is only personal in that the outcome of the company could
    depend on the election which to me sounds like they're company is doing
    the endorsing.
    
    Which could be interpreted to be saying that if my company's CEO/BoD is
    endorsing a candidate, then they are pledging my vote also.  Bad, very
    bad decision.
    
    Money, money, money is what it all really equals in the end; but money
    for who?
    
    Ogre.

     I believe the act endorsement, be it by a CEO, BOD, "company",
    union or any other body, is an insult to the human intelligence.
    Are we supposed to cast our our vote for somebody simply because
    somebody else is doing it? How many of you would vote for somebody
    simply because your spouse or friend does? Doesn't it seem that
    to vote based on endorsements by prominent people means that you
    value their opinion more than the opinion of people you *really* 
    know, or even more than your own opinion??
    
     Any CEO that "personally" endorses a candidate can not separate
    him/herself from implying that they are speaking for the corporation 
    that they represent. Even if the individual does not explicitly state
    they are representing the views of the corporation, most people,
    especially those without attachment to the corporation in question,
    will view the CEO's opinion as that of a body of people. What other
    practical reason would there be for endorsing anybody at all?
    	
     In my dusty memories of American history I remember one of the
    constitution writers (Thomas Jefferson I believe) expressed serious
    doubts about even having a functioning democracy with an uneducated
    public casting votes. "Uneducated" is a relative term with 
    politicians hoping they are more educated than the majority of their
    constituency. Exercising this theory of relativity is exactly the
    basis for selecting to wave endorsements in the public's face.
    
     Endorsements are not only wrong but also insulting and ignorant.
    Anybody that "endorses" a candidate is implying that a voter does 
    not have a functioning brain. Unfortunately, many times they are 
    right.
    
    
    Glenn

    Sure....they endorsed Clinton, but that was just because they
    don't want anybody to know they are really going to vote for
    Perot.
    
    
    

Why should free speech not apply to someone just because he is
a CEO? The article I read said that the (insert names here) endoresed
Clinton; it did not say that their companies did. (Or maybe the article
was just better written in the New York Times.)

They should be free to endorse anyone they want. Other CEO's have
endorsed Bush. I'm sure some have endorsed Perot. 

    I expect that the owners of a company may have rights under the law to
    take retributive actions if a CEO speaks for the company and says something
    objectionable -- perhaps by saying something like, "Company XXX
    endorses XXXX for President."  I'm sure they could hire a lawyer to
    take something like that to court.  All that takes is money, and it
    would force the CEO to back down or fight in court -- which takes
    money, perhaps more than is readily available to protect personal
    "rights."
    
    Steve  

Time to suppress debate:


	***	G E T	O U T	A N D 	V O T E	   ***

    re -.1 unless you are voting for Clinton, then stay home.

RE:-1

	Amen! ....in a non-secular sense!

Re: .48

Odd, .47 seemed like it was written from a Bush-supporter perspective.

		Steve

    It took me over an hour to vote this morning.  Usually, it takes 2 or 3
    minutes.  It was great to see so many people voting for once!!!
    

    How about a little speculation....
    
    Anybody remember back in 1964 (I think), a song about the similarities
    between Lincoln and Kennedy.
    
    Lincoln's sec. was Kennedy, Kennedy's sec. was Lincoln,
    
    Well Lincoln has 7 letters, Kennedy has 7 letters, Clinton has 7
    letters....
    
    I don't remember any more of them, but....
    
    

    Both Lincoln and Kennedy were shot and killed while in office.
    Both had VP's named Johnsons. 
    Kennedy and Lincoln took office 100 years apart.
    
    There is more.
    
    

    both assisins were killed a few days after the event

    Both were working on civil rights issues at the time of their
    assassinations....
    
    

    Let's try and keep this topic centered around Digital and avoid things
    that belong in another conference.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

	re .-1

	Sounds like a typical "my way or no way" Bush supporter.

	I hope you vote for Bush, but if your preference is for
	Clinton, Fulani, Marrou, Perot, or whoever, go and vote! If you
	can't in good conscience vote for anyone on the ballot,
	*write* *someone* *in*!

				Tom_K

>>                 <<< Note 2176.58 by STAR::BECK "Paul Beck" >>>
>>             -< 'Digital' has a Vice President named Johnson ... >-

Digital has sooooo many vice Presidents that we could probably match
any name you could come up with.

Yeah, but who pulled the trigger?

    RE .161
    
    Is there a *JOHNSON* on the B.O.D.?

Unfortunately continuing the digression, I'll point out that it is not true
that Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy.  This is a stubborn myth that has
been debunked a number of times over the years.

				Steve

However, _I_ will point out that

a.  Digital has a VP named Johnson (or some equivalent spelling)
b.  The founder lives in Lincoln
c.  One of the state senators is Kennedy

gee, can this be mere coincidence?  

				Nigel

  
  Re .53:
  
  > Both Lincoln and Kennedy were shot and killed while in office.
  > Both had VP's named Johnsons. 
  > Kennedy and Lincoln took office 100 years apart.
  >
  > There is more.
    
  Yes, there is.  The night before he was shot, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland!
  
  
  				-- edp

    
    Kennedy was once a pal of Marylyn Monroe ..?

Re .61:

>Yeah, but who pulled the trigger?

A few conference members probably subscribe to one or another of the "lone VP"
theories, but it seems a lot of folks suspect there's a conspiracy involved.
				/AHM

    .45 "All that takes is money, and it would force the CEO to back down or
    fight"
    
    	That gives Palmer free speach in our case!  As I recall we barrowed
    250M the second we were approved to do it and just in time for a 250M
    loss.......kind of makes you wonder if history will repeat its self,
    say
    in about two months.  Las Vegas is taking bets.
    
    By the way, for those who are about to respond with "But we have 1.3B
    in cash".  Take a look at where that cash is...not all is in the US. 
    Many  countries only let you take a percentage of your profits out of
    their country each year.  A smart thing to do.
    
    Sorry to switch ratholes.  The other was fun...Monroe, Maryland --
    Great one!
     

    OK..... now..... Clinton is in....! 
    
    What does this mean for Digital?
    
    What do you think it will mean for Digital?
    
    How will this effect the layoff situation?
    
    Bob G.
    

    
    	Re: .70
    
    	My answer to all three questions is "not much".  I think the
    problems that face Digital have much more to do with fundamental
    changes in how people use/buy computers (ie. the trend to PCs) and
    whether we are going to be successful adapting to that new model
    rather than who is in the White House.
    
    							-craig

re Note 2176.70 by BSS::GROVER:

>     What does this mean for Digital?
  
        Well, Gore in the Senate has been a leading proponent of
        national technical infrastructure development, especially in
        high-bandwidth networking.

        Digital has the competencies to be very involved.

        The will?

        Bob

    I suspect that our customers will delay or cancel plans for
    upgrades and may downgrade or not renew some existing service
    contracts as their tax-rate increases and government-required
    expenses are added.

    Later, our customer's will be required to increase "cost-of-living"
    raises to their employees as inflation accelerates, further
    reducing available capital. We will have the same pressures to
    match cost-of-living raises to the rate of inflation. The net
    result will be lower revenues and higher expenses. 

    It is to be hoped that some exciting high-technology initiatives
    will capture the imagination of Congress, such as an aggressive
    manned space program.  That is not entirely impossible as we have
    several un-manned missions in progress which could yield discoveries
    that could springboard into planetary exploration. 

    The special interest groups that supported Mr Clinton, however, will 
    tend to retard such programs (IMO). After all, it is in _their_ interest
    to maintain large and vocal unemployed or under-employed groups. Full
    employment would rid them of the need for their services.

    On the plus side, the national technical infrastructure could well
    provide relief. Major environmental projects could also provide some
    temporary opportunities. Oceanographic research and development 
    projects hold some progress...but the special-interest groups seeking
    program money (as opposed to DEVELOPMENT money) still wield awesome
    power.

    Maybe we should all "transition" to be lawyers...Mr. Clinton _likes_
    lawyers a lot. They are SURE to have lots of business. Wouldn't
    want to be a Doctor, anymore, though...

    Regards,

    John B.

>    It is to be hoped that some exciting high-technology initiatives
>    will capture the imagination of Congress, such as an aggressive
>    manned space program.  That is not entirely impossible as we have
>    several un-manned missions in progress which could yield discoveries
>    that could springboard into planetary exploration. 

>    The special interest groups that supported Mr Clinton, however, will 
>    tend to retard such programs (IMO). After all, it is in _their_ interest
>    to maintain large and vocal unemployed or under-employed groups. Full
>    employment would rid them of the need for their services.


	OK, let me make sure I understand this:

	1.  Projects such as manned space exploration create jobs
	2.  Certain special-interest groups have support
	    from those without jobs
	3.  These special-interest groups want to continue to
	    exist
	4.  Therefore, they're against full employment
	5.  Therefore, they're against manned space exploration

 	I suggest this is more likely:

	1.  People are starving, unemployed, etc, because the
	    economy is in dire shape
	2.  There's only so much money to go round
	3.  Solving the problems in (1) takes a lot of money
	4.  Manned space exploration takes a lot of money
	5.  Said special interest groups would prefer to see
	    the money spent on (3) rather than (4).

	I'm all in favour of spending the money to repair the
	infrastructure, but I don't think a space program is
	a necessary part of that infrastructure.

	Does this have much to do with DEC?  Nope...

    Well, IMO it does affect significantly DEC. High-technology jobs
    require the kind of equipment we provide. Our systems are especially good
    at scientific applications.

    One of the major problems (apparently) is UN-employment or
    UNDER-employment (by which I mean one needs to "moonlight"
    with more than one job to meet living expenses).

    By providing a large number of well-paying jobs (which an aggressive
    space program did in the 60s) ALL can move UP to better positions.
    You can reduce the number of unemployed, hence reduce the number of
    "starving" or under-nourished folks. Welfare programs really don't
    _reduce_ the number of poor...they just keep the poor fed and housed.

    JOBS are what can reduce the number of those needing welfare.

    You hit the nail on the head, though, when you said it takes a LOT
    of money. The downside is that if the government takes on the task,
    the money must come from appropriations. BUT, no single private 
    entity can afford to do the task on the scale the government can (and
    is needed) for manned space exploration on a large enough scale.

    Mr Clinton is not afraid of raising taxes...perhaps he is bold
    enough to raise enough taxes to fund a project (perhaps one of the ONLY
    projects) with a large enough scope to bring us close to full
    employment. That would provide a LOT of jobs, reduce the number of
    poor, and would require less to be spent on welfare programs (programs 
    which, as I previously stated, do nothing to _reduce_ the number of poor
    or unemployed.)

    Again, this has the potential for great impact to DEC.
    Space (especially), oceanographic research, even large bio-medical
    projects need the kind of hardware (and software) we make well.

    I thinks it is somewhat akin to the familiar saying "Give a man a fish and
    you feed him for a day. TEACH a man to fish and he is fed for life."

    Or, in military terms, "Reinforce success, not failure."

    Regards,

    John B. 

    Ah, but you seem to be claiming there are two choices (at least in
    your original note; not necessarily in the sequel).
    
    1. The Space Race
    2. Welfare
    
    I believe there are other choices which come under the heading
    of "(re)building a business infrastruture" which are not
    as remote as putting men on Mars.
    
    

    Don't know if this will help the conversation or not, but here goes.
    
    There has been discussion along the lines that it is ridiculous to
    embark on a mission like putting a man on Mars.  The arguments used are
    basically the same as those used against putting a man on the moon.
    I suppose they are the same as the arguments that may have been used
    thousands of years ago against building the pyramids.
    
    I am all for embarking on a project to put a man on Mars.
    
    I saw a show recently on PBS where scientists were trying to build a
    small pyramid using the same technology that they feel was used to build
    the pyramids in Egypt.  Those pyramids are aligned to true north, are
    built with great precision, and though the technology was "primitive"
    huge structures were built out of great rocks.  A lot of technology was
    developed to complete these feats in relatively short time.  The
    results included advances in technology and organization that lasted for
    thousands of years.  After some study, it occurs to one that the
    pharaohs were doing far, far more than creating burial sites for
    themselves.  They were uniting Egypt and molding it into a world power
    with unprecedented wealth for its people.
    
    We basically did the same thing by putting a man on the moon.  
    
    It is somewhat sad to point out that even a warped mind can use this
    principle to create a nation that is strong and wealthy.  Sometimes a
    nation can become so strong that it can nearly take over the world.  
    Hitler lead just such a united effort.  Hussein lead Iraq in such an
    effort and has taken his country into the nuclear age with, until the 
    action of several nations intervened, threatened to dominate the entire
    region.  As I recall, Hussein wants to fulfill prophecies concerning
    Babylon.  Both tyrants stirred their people with what seemed to be
    unlikely or frivolous causes to embark on great national projects.
    
    The Soviet Union tried it, but they were entirely too practical with
    their Five Year plans.  There was little if any passion of the people
    involved, from what I understand.
    
    I prefer being able to harness such strength within a Democracy rather
    than a tyranny.
    
    These large-scale projects of passion tend to spin off successful 
    organizations and technologies that endure for far longer than the 
    projects themselves.  The premise of putting a pharaoh in a glorified
    coffin or putting a man on the moon seem silly and frivolous.  But, 
    if the people are passionate about it and a united effort is made, the
    unforeseen benefits to society have historically been shown to more than 
    offset the expenses.
    
    Steve

    The failures of the Soviet planning can be attributed to having the
    government (read bureaucracy) grow to accomodate the new endeavors. 
    Our better luck may be due to using the government to contract work out
    to private enterprises.  I don't expect the government to do more than
    provide the goal and the infrastructure funding for those activities
    that won't be instant money makers.
    
    Dick

    I can go along with that.
    
    Steve

    .77

    >I am all for embarking on a project to put a man on Mars.

    you mean you are against putting a woman on Mars ?

    now, since we are on this rate hole, Iam against this Mars thing, it will
    not do us a doodle of useful thing, it is not worth it, spend the
    money instead of fighting our domestic problems, from health to 
    education to improve life in general here. 

    when every one if happy and healthy and prospers, then you can
    send anyone you want even to the Sun for all I care.

    /nasser
    

    >Taking offense at the term is up to you, but I have not used the term 
    >"man" with intent to offend as you accuse.
    
    gee wheeze, what is this about me accusing you of intending to offend?
    I was merely pointing it out, that is all, I was not accusing you
    of anything, as a matter of fact, I dont even like to watch LA law or
    anything related to laws and courts, it makes me nervous seeing all
    those laywers in one room.

    some projects are useful, others are not that useful, if you want a really 
    good national project that is technologically  challenging, and rewarding, 
    and have immediate direct and benefits to people, how about a national
    super-sonic rail systems, one that will link all the cities together?
    you can use super-conductivity to have elevated rail systems, very
    high tech stuff.

    we can also use the money on improving the health system, on better
    manufacturing plants , etc.. etc.. 
    
    these are some that just pooped to my mind, there are many more like that.

    it is all matter of priorities, that is all.

    /nasser

    Re: .76

    Good points. There certainly are more areas. To me, space development,
    especially manned exploration is attractive because of the tremendous
    potential for growth. 

    And, of course, any significant growth will require a good "business
    infrastructure."

    A (national ...or even international..) .goal of exploration of Mars
    is within the capabilities of our technology now and _could_ capture
    the imagination of a generation. 

    Growth is not infinite. We need to seek areas where _rapid_ growth
    toward difficult goals can be accomplished. As long as we keep our
    goals mundane our results will also be mundane. It is the spirit
    of risk and adventure that excites and attracts people.

    Sure, it is really neat if we develop a more capable network or
    a faster chip...but why? To make someone's inventory go faster or
    let someone read an encyclopedia from their workstation? Or maybe
    use that better network and faster chip to process data from places
    that have never been seen?

    Think big, and set challenging goals. Even if you fail, you may well
    accomplish much. If you think small, even if you succeed, you
    accomplish little.

    > when every one if happy and healthy and prospers, then you can
    > send anyone you want even to the Sun for all I care.
    
    Well, if we do this it had better be at night.
    
    
    Actually, I agree that a national project should be examined, because
    right now it appears that we in the USA don't know what we are trying
    to accomplish.  We work best together when we have a goal, even if most
    of us are not directly involved (eg.: Man on the Moon, World War II,
    Defeat of Communism, Elimination of Taxation w/o representation,
    reviving Star Trek, etc...).  When there is no national goal, the
    people examine their personal goals more closely and end up feeling
    very uncomfortable.  This, I think, explains the uneasiness over the
    current state of the economy even though it has been worse many times. 
    
    Wayne
    
    P.S. I DO think, however, that had the Founding Fathers seen Taxation
    WITH Represenation there would have been no revolution.
    

    I tend to agree with the national project supporters.
    However, I'd believe that sending a *human* to Mars would work
    out better than .80's national superrailroad... 
    (Just using two examples)
    Although I love railroads, I don't think that a project in
    which everyone could easily and quickly identify "what's in
    it for me" (or not) could ever serve the purpose of stimulating
    "generic" progress. (provided it does make it against the 
    various opposing lobbies)
    
    Mankind seems to be full of contradiction:
    
    We pretend to have a "cool, scientific, pragmatic" approach in
    justifying our actions.
    
    On the other end a lot has and is beeing done (good and bad) purely
    out of emotion.
    
    Extrapolated into recent history, I'd say that things were fine
    until the iron curtain fell down. Both sides knew perfectly
    where "the good and bad guys" were. 
    Emotional and rational thinking lived in harmony
    Today this has changed, the two ways of thinking are in opposition.
    (The rational thinkers tend to believe that they got it all
    figured out and things will be perfect when emotion has disappeared)
    
    Extrapolated into our industry and company, I'd say that 
    whatever is beeing tried to "fix things rationally" will
    fail if the emotional thing is missing.
    
    When K.O started this company, I'd suspect that his real
    goal was simply to:
    
                   "Have fun"
    
    He suceeded to "share the fun" with customers, stock-holders and
    employees.
    
    From my (European) point of view, it looks as if  Pr. Clinton
    was up for a little "fun having and fun sharing" which tends
    to be good news. 
    As to DEC, I am missing the word "fun" since quite a while
    and I am afraid I'll never here it again....
    
    /fred (alias Dr. Freud) :-)
    
    
    

Re .84:

>    Although I love railroads, I don't think that a project in
>    which everyone could easily and quickly identify "what's in
>    it for me" (or not) could ever serve the purpose of stimulating
>    "generic" progress.  ...

I assume the Apollo program stimulated generic progress.

Would you care to guess why the Manned Spaceflight Center is in Texas instead of
Massachusetts?
				/AHM

    re: Texas versus Massachussets...
    Not beeing American, but having been at both places, I'd suppose it's
    because of the climatic differences.....;-)
    
    .... where I admit that "climate" does not necessarily mean
         meteorological conditions...
    
    Too be more serious, the point I tried to make is that:
    Progress is fueled by energy
    energy is derived from motivation
    motivation needs enthusiasm
    enthusiasm is somewhat the naive and spontaneous expectation for
    the "better" or "best"..
    
    (perhaps I should really study some of Dr. Freuds... :-) )
    /fred
    
    /fred