Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

NY Times on 38 Studios offers "Curt Schilling, Rhode Island and the Fall of 38 Studios," a very lengthy and detailed look at the startup studio that ended up costing baseball star Curt Schilling and the state of Rhode Island a lot of money. Nobody comes out looking too good after all this, as the article details the na´vetÚ of game development neophyte Schilling taking on the most ambitious type of game in undertaking an MMORPG, and the sketchy history of politics in Rhode Island ("Rhode Islanders are used to being played by their politicians. What makes them cringe is the suspicion that virtually all their elected leaders might have been played by someone else."). They touch on an interstate rivalry with Massachusetts which played a part in Rhode Island's overreach here, and the behind-the-scenes machinations to facilitate the state's hefty loan to the company, which prompted the one dissenting voter to say: "Scandal finds money." The article is filled with detail on problems inherent in this situation, such as 38 Studios needing to control costs at the same time they were trying to live up to the pumped-up promise that they would bring new jobs to the state and how former 38 Studios CEO Brett Close urged releasing Amalur in smaller phases, rather than "trying to build the skyscraper horizontally and then standing it up." They sum up the current legal proceedings between Rhode Island and Schilling, and offer this interesting take: "At bottom, 38 Studios may be that rare political scandal that grew not from any lies that anyone told the public, but from the stories that desperate politicians told themselves." Thanks nin via Kotaku.

Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at the bottom of the form.

39. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 16:15 RollinThundr
Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 16:01:
RollinThundr wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 15:47:
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:55:
Certainly the debt is a concern, but it's not an immediate one. As in, it won't kill us tomorrow, or the next day, or even the next year. After WWII, we had a debt ratio of over 110% and paid it down over the course of 30 years, so the current level of ~75% is clearly not "life threatening", as it were. Now if we use the debt as an excuse to cut services and enact austerity measures, then yes, that's a problem as it will contract the economy significantly. The real issue that will cause significant long term damage is the vast inequality in the economy. People with significant sums of money simply spend less of it as a total percentage than people with more "middle" amounts. They tend to hoard it in various ways. The poor (but not utterly broke who obviously have *no* money) and middle classes have to spend a large % of their income or holdings to survive and spending goes up as their net worth and income go up (to a point) keeping money in the system and increasing fluidity, causing the economy to grow (and in the long run, reducing our debt / gdp ratio). Everyone benefits. Even the rich, it's just not as immediate or direct as they'd like. Think of it as a trickle-up economy... The current distribution will ultimately harm them, too.

We won't last another 30 years going the way we're going. We'll be lucky to last another 10 without it all collapsing on itself. The smarter move would be to start addressing the problem now before we pass the point of no return.

This isn't about rich vs poor like the democrats want you to believe. What we're doing is not sustainable and a total collapse is coming whether anyone likes it or not if we keep spending the way we are. Taxes isn't going to help as much as you think either. Tax the 1% 100% and you're still not even making a dent.

Actually, it would make a dent. The deficit in 2012 was approximately 1,100 billion.
According to the IRS, the top 1% earned 1,300 billion in 2009.

So, that's a dent. But also ludicrous. Obviously no one wants them paying 100%, and it ignores the fact that tax is paid on a marginal rate basis, something too many people discussing taxes don't understand, plus taxes are important for a health of spending power perspective and this is the stronger argument for a raised marginal tax rate.

I'm not arguing raising taxes btw. Just that raising taxes on the rich alone isn't going to really do much without making massive cuts to spending across the board.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
      ;)   ;)   :(   :(   :o   :o   %)   %)   :)   :)   :|   :|   ;P   ;P   X|   X|   :D   :D   More
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you have a signature set up, it will be automatically appended to your comment.
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
          Email me when this topic is updated.

Special Codes

  • b[bold text]b
  • i[italic text]i
  • u[underline text]u
  • -[strikethrough text]-
  • c[code text]c
  • +[bullet point]+
  • q[quote text (indented)]q
  • [quote="Author"]quote text (indented)[/quote]
  • [url=Link]text[/url]
  • r{red text}r
  • g{green text}g
  • b{blue text}b
  • m{maroon text}m
  • s{secret text (shows in the background colour)}s

Forum Rules

  1. Disagree all you want but attacks of a personal nature will not be tolerated.
  2. Ethnic slurs and homophobic language will not be tolerated.
  3. Do not post spam, links to warez sites, or instructions on how to obtain pirated software.
  4. Abusing the forums in any manner that could be construed as 'griefing' will not be tolerated.


Blue's News logo