Is the article really about the sharing economy, or rather about discrediting Lessig and the people who believe publicly funded research should be public? Seems a little odd the way it relates Uber and AirBnB with Lessig.
The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival
61–70 of 93 posts
Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they don't. You are just presenting false equivalence while ignoring the magnitude of the reality distortion field that republicans push with no close equivalent from democrats. - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... - Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming (and b…
[flagged]
> I think the OP might have been referring to the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office.
IME, The regular anti-war protestors continued the same recurring protests at the same locations during Obama's term that they had been carrying out under Bush (the same ones are, in many cases, still carrying them out under Trump.)
Media focus may have changed, but that's about alignment of the facts with pre-conceived media narratives, not the underlying reality.
Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival
#63The "Sharing Economy" was always a lie. It was always about illegal acts rebranded. Illegal rebranded taxis. Illegal rebranded hotels. etc
I mean, you get more than that, no one looked at Uber and went "ooh, illegal taxis". They looked at it and went "ooh I can use it from my phone with the push of a button and it's cheaper". The whole point of the "sharing economy" is to compete on efficiency, ease of use and price. Ridiculous, anti-competitive laws were in place in these systems, I applaud their death.
> no one looked at Uber and went "ooh, illegal taxis"
I can disprove that all by myself, since that's exactly how I reacted when I first heard of Uber.
Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival
#64> Why didn’t we see it coming? How did sharing economy companies manage to evade scrutiny for so long? Plenty of people saw it coming. As much as fellow members of my generation enthusiastically embraced the sharing/gig economy for survival, most of them acknowledged that the companies were in the end going to be worse. They were just less worse than having no income. Those that thought this were the future were just…
The job market might have been terrible 5 years ago, but this is not the case today. 3.7% unemployment in the U.S. Lowest since 1969.
Yes, but US labor force participation rate is 63%. Down 3% from 2007 and the lowest since 1977.
Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
For most intents and purposes, that's who started it. anti-communistic fervor was, and is, a massive boondoggle.
Truman started Vietnam because of anti-communist fervor? Seriously? That was his fault and not Johnson's (who was actually president at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin)? That's... a pretty strange interpretation of history.
> Truman started Vietnam because of anti-communist fervor? Seriously? That was his fault and not Johnson's (who was actually president at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin)?
The US was fighting in Vietnam, against VC, before the Gulf of Tonkin. The French fight against the VC from 1950 was paid for by the US and supported by US military advisers and equipment, and the US took over the French military role in 1955 (which is why 1955 is the usual cited start date of the Vietnam War, though even that is arguably late); there was a major escalation in direct US troop involvement in the Vietnam War under President Kennedy.
Johnson didn't start the US involvement in the war in Vietnam, unless you think he was running US foreign policy (including directing the military) out of his Senate office, independent of the White House.
Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they don't. You are just presenting false equivalence while ignoring the magnitude of the reality distortion field that republicans push with no close equivalent from democrats. - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... - Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming (and b…
[flagged]
> wasting money to require registration for the draft
But... that's a bipartisan thing, not a Democratic thing: no Republican Administration (which could do this alone, as an executive action) or Republican majority Congress has proposed ending registration since Carter reopened it as an executive action to prepare for potential war in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
In fact, bipartisan legislation creating a committee to consider expanding the uses of the draft was passed in 2016.
> war on drugs
Again, not a Democratic policy.
> DARE program
Not a Democratic policy (and it works quite well to improve it's targets opinions of law enforcement; it doesn't do anything about drug abuse.)
> three strikes (voted in CA, a heavy democratic state)
About half of states and the federal government have three strikes laws, and they are not more supported by Democrats than Republicans.
Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival
#67> Why didn’t we see it coming? How did sharing economy companies manage to evade scrutiny for so long? Plenty of people saw it coming. As much as fellow members of my generation enthusiastically embraced the sharing/gig economy for survival, most of them acknowledged that the companies were in the end going to be worse. They were just less worse than having no income. Those that thought this were the future were just…
The job market might have been terrible 5 years ago, but this is not the case today. 3.7% unemployment in the U.S. Lowest since 1969.
Labor participation rate is a better number to follow. The headline you are quoting assumes you have a job once your unemployment runs out.
Look around any city and see the homeless. It’s been increasing, and not just in SF.
Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Truman started Vietnam because of anti-communist fervor? Seriously? That was his fault and not Johnson's (who was actually president at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin)? That's... a pretty strange interpretation of history.
> Truman started Vietnam because of anti-communist fervor? Seriously? That was his fault and not Johnson's (who was actually president at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin)? The US was fighting in Vietnam, against VC, before the Gulf of Tonkin. The French fight against the VC from 1950 was paid for by the US and supported by US military advisers and equipment, and the US took over the French military role in 1955 (which…
I didn't know we had advisors there starting in 1950 (under Eisenhower). I was dating from Tonkin. Still, those were (mostly?) advisors rather than front-line troops. Per Wikipedia, ground combat troops first came after Tonkin, which means under Johnson.
Still, in no case is it reasonable to say that Truman started it.
Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
And, to be fair, the ones paying money to stay in those mini-hotels. (And, to be clear, "the ones making money" includes local businesses benefiting from increased tourism, and their employees.)
And to be clear, the local businesses would benefit from tourists staying in real hotels just as much, if not more, than the ones staying in AirBnBs, because such tourists are more likely to dine out and do things around town. But restaurants dislike tourists because most tourists tip less than Americans, so a high concentration of these "mini-hotels" is detrimental to restaurants and their staff.
tipping culture and minimum wage in the US is detrimental to restaurants; not the tourists buying the food!
Re: The Sharing Economy Was Dead on Arrival
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Truman started Vietnam because of anti-communist fervor? Seriously? That was his fault and not Johnson's (who was actually president at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin)? The US was fighting in Vietnam, against VC, before the Gulf of Tonkin. The French fight against the VC from 1950 was paid for by the US and supported by US military advisers and equipment, and the US took over the French military role in 1955 (which…
I didn't know we had advisors there starting in 1950 (under Eisenhower). I was dating from Tonkin. Still, those were (mostly?) advisors rather than front-line troops. Per Wikipedia, ground combat troops first came after Tonkin, which means under Johnson. Still, in no case is it reasonable to say that Truman started it.
> Still, those were (mostly?) advisors rather than front-line troops.
Initially, but that stopped being true well before Tonkin.
> Per Wikipedia, ground combat troops first came after Tonkin
Not sure which Wikipedia page you got that from but see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Assistance_Command,...
Which discusses, among other things, the 1964 MACV/MAAG-Vietnam reorg due to the scale of combat deployments straining the advisory-oriented command structure, and a similar issue prompting a naval command structure reorg in 1966.
(Those reports were under Johnson, but thet largely addressed strains produced by the ramp up under Kennedy.)
> Still, in no case is it reasonable to say that Truman started it.
Sure, Eisenhower or Kennedy are more reasonable.