51–60 of 84 posts
This reads like a spoiled brat who just realized something is going on in the world, but is wholly unable to understand the real world repercussions of his “genius” suggestions.
Modern online ads are a tool for selling low-quality goods to impulsive people at high prices. Do we really need them?
From the blog: "Three policy proposals: A 500% tax on advertising. It’s a zero sum game with no benefit to society. If you are paying for eyeballs, you pay a 500% tax. Force companies with these trash addictive business models to find a way to work for the average person, not pimp them out. 1% tax on the full amount of every trade. Fuck off worthless HFT mega brain drain. Fuck off short termism in markets. Separation…
I'm also curious, what has Title IX got to do with the rest? It has nothing to do with churches, does it?
> Continue to let huge ad companies (stop calling them tech companies) rent seek and nickel and dime you on everything +1 for calling FAANG ad companies
Wasn't a lot we could do about the others.
From the blog: "Three policy proposals: A 500% tax on advertising. It’s a zero sum game with no benefit to society. If you are paying for eyeballs, you pay a 500% tax. Force companies with these trash addictive business models to find a way to work for the average person, not pimp them out. 1% tax on the full amount of every trade. Fuck off worthless HFT mega brain drain. Fuck off short termism in markets. Separation…
I read it. Its at best unhelpful and misguided and at worst actively harmful to the stated goals. Ultimately he is advocating for a political solution for what he believes is an economic problem. The issue here is that the cause of the problems he wants to resolve is not an economic problem at all, but a political choice. The proposal of preventing companies from purchasing property, for example is a clear cut exampl…
I think the larger point he is making is that if someone doesn't do something about unbridled "Corporate Capitalism", there will be blood in the streets. Government might be the only actor capable of going toe to toe with such a behemoth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Ultimately he is advocating for a political solution for what he believes is an economic problem. >Three policy proposals: >A 500% tax on advertising. [...] >1% tax on the full amount of every trade. [...] How is that a "political solution to an economic problem"? What would a non political solution look like to you? Why is it bad that it's a political solution to an economic problem? If it works, it works.
A non political solution would be the transition away from capitalism to a different kind of relation between labor and society. It should be clear at this point that capitalism can tolerate a pretty broad spectrum of political arrangements, from 'socialist' countries to dictatorships, and especially everything in between. You can change your frontend to be all kinds of ways, and that will create vastly different use…
Bank accounts, bonds, stocks, crypto are all in the perception category. The first three try to model a real world process but they are not the real world. The latter is perceived to be outside the bounds of the real world.
In fact, people try to abuse flaws in the simulation (the model). The real world decays but money does not. So during a recession people flood into the security of money, that money is supposed to be the perception of the real world, people are flooding into a perception of security that doesn't exist. Strangely enough, the real world keeps getting worse but its perception keeps getting better.
Bit of an ego on that guy.
> Continue to let huge ad companies (stop calling them tech companies) rent seek and nickel and dime you on everything What is he referring to here, out of curiosity? Does a company like Google own an apartment complex, or is it some sort of on-site housing programme?
This isn't referring to housing. Rent-seeking is a broader term related to charging people for something that they have no reason to pay for and no ability to avoid. I see why the confusion arose though, "actual" housing is also mentioned in the article in a different context.
This reads like a spoiled brat who just realized something is going on in the world, but is wholly unable to understand the real world repercussions of his “genius” suggestions.
As someone who (partially) relies on online advertising to make a living (in eCommerce, not tech), I think kneecapping the industry does make some sense. Modern online ads are a tool for selling low-quality goods to impulsive people at high prices. Do we really need them?