Lis asked a question about the poll showing Prop 8 pulling ahead in California:

So, as you are all aware, in California, there is a ballot initiative to forcibly divorce a bunch of my friends, and forbid them from marrying the people they love and want to spend their lives with, and tear apart and destroy families.

And, while polling all along had shown that most Californians were opposing such blatant evil, a recent poll showed that 47% of Californians SUPPORTED the destruction of families, with only 42% opposing it.

Lis asked me a question about that, and I just found out the answer.

She asked me, "Are cell phones included in that most recent poll?"

No. No, they weren't. All the polls which showed the forces of sanity and goodness ahead DID include cell phones; the ones that show reactionary hatred ahead don't.

Okay, folks on my friends list: how many of you don't own a land line? Or know people who don't own a land line?

Of the people who don't own a land line, are there any generalizations you can make about them?

In California, there are a heck of a lot of CPO -- Cell Phone Only -- voters. And CPO voters skew younger and more liberal.

Nationwide, the exclusion of CPO voters skews polls about 3% toward McCain. And, in California, it's likely higher.

The difference between including and excluding cell phones may be 5% or more in CA. So 42% to 47%? Which is within the margin of error of the poll? And is probably skewed 5% more conservative than it ought to be?

Means absolutely jack shit.

There's no usable information there, not for either side. It's entirely noise. It tells nothing either worrisome OR encouraging. It's just noise.

Some questions about the "credit crunch," which I THINK I am STARTING to understand. . .

I'm throwing this to my friends list, which contains many smart people, several of whom are actual, gen-u-wine people working in finance -- actual economists, as well as people who run their own businesses and so forth.

Okay. I'm starting to get a sort of a handle on the "credit crunch."

Here's what I've got, so far:

Can people who actually study this stuff tell me if I've got this more or less correct?
( Read more... )

Okay. So, that's my understanding of what's going on. First, is that vaguely close to reality?

Second, if that IS vaguely close to reality, WHY don't companies have cash? What is the benefit of not being able to pay your bills without borrowing money? I mean, I understand why you would borrow money to start with -- before you start a company, you have to get your seed money from somewhere, and that means borrowing it from someone. (Even if you're borrowing it from yourself. I mean, if you're putting your personal fortune into a company, it's like the company is borrowing from you.)

But once you're a company, and you're humming along, getting cash, buying stuff and paying people, and making stuff, and selling stuff and getting cash -- why not take some of that cash and use THAT for the next round of buying stuff and paying people, instead of using credit for it?

It costs money to use credit -- you need to pay people for the service of them lending you money. Why is it worth paying extra to use credit, instead of sticking to a cash basis?