61–70 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The economy grows or shrinks with productivity but advertising specifically is zero sum. Coke vs Pepsi makes a great deal of difference to those specific companies and little else. If anything it’s slightly negative due to inefficiency because the winner isn’t the best product.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could say that Norway's flagship corporation has a horrible business model. The Norwegians have never held a referendum whether they should stop drilling , but they are so environmentally conscious that it's not unlikely. Should Norway stop drilling and let its sovereign fund collapse (along with the value of many global companies where it invests)? Is there any State that is purely moral?
Excellent example. In general, people's "revealed preferences" often contradict their stated preferences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The economy grows or shrinks with productivity but advertising specifically is zero sum. Coke vs Pepsi makes a great deal of difference to those specific companies and little else. If anything it’s slightly negative due to inefficiency because the winner isn’t the best product.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could say that Norway's flagship corporation has a horrible business model. The Norwegians have never held a referendum whether they should stop drilling , but they are so environmentally conscious that it's not unlikely. Should Norway stop drilling and let its sovereign fund collapse (along with the value of many global companies where it invests)? Is there any State that is purely moral?
Wrt. privacy here at least, I don't think you need to be moral or ethical per se. It's more a matter of incentives: carrots and sticks. Regardless of what the rules are, corporations will react to them. So if regulation simply maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people the rules will likely end up protecting privacy. So what we see here is that some high paying jobs create a bunch of powerful group…
The greater good for the greater number of people is a nice concept, but I don't think it has been true for much of the US's history. The thing was started with lines like 3/5 of a person included in it while totally ignoring half of the population based on gender.
The real truth is that strong privacy laws would cause economic harm to flagship corporations. That would have a ripple effect on the economy as those corporations are responsible for thousands of high-paying jobs. The elected representatives know that people care more about the economy (specifically what's in their wallets) than about privacy.
I think you are close but not quite. The real problem is that tech giants rule the SP500 now and Congress all have portfolios laced to the gills with stocks. My only hope is that eventually the rich realize they make more money betting on the market going down than up, the stock market does mean reversion, and we break up the obvious tech monopolies that are causing the dystopia we all find ourselves living in right…
But more to the point, which tech company has a monopoly at all and which one is based on structural issues and not network effects and how do you propose to break them up? Better question is where is the consumer benefit of breaking up any of them and how would you slice them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could say that Norway's flagship corporation has a horrible business model. The Norwegians have never held a referendum whether they should stop drilling , but they are so environmentally conscious that it's not unlikely. Should Norway stop drilling and let its sovereign fund collapse (along with the value of many global companies where it invests)? Is there any State that is purely moral?
I see what you are trying to say, but I'm not quite sure why Norway's sovereign fund would collapse just because the Norwegians would stop adding more money to the fund? And why would the companies they invest in collapse? The companies in the S&P500 don't collapse, when I stop making regular new payments into my retirement fund.
However, it would still likely provide for decades at least. Norway distributes the returns from the fund, not the fund money itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an interesting argument I've heard from various quarters but have never seen any evidentiary material supporting it. Do you have any reliable sources that explore this correlation?
Yeah, just ask your favorite merchant how much it hurt their business and how many business shut down or lay off people due to Apple Tracking ban
In a party based assembly(UK, Canada) the party leader tells each party member how to vote = the party line. Members can not vote against the party = out. In the US assembly(Congress and Senate) each members votes as he/she wishes. In all houses the votes(hands) are visible. This turns a vote into a currency. A lobbyist can see he gets what he has paid for and the 'bag' is passed. Every US voter has what both the Sen…
" In a party based assembly(UK, Canada) the party leader tells each party member how to vote = the party line. Members can not vote against the party = out. I " Im not sure about UK and Canada, but the general statement is plainly wrong.
MPs, MPPs, MLAs, etc., that belong to a party typically don't deviate from the party line, even if it means going against their own constituents' wishes and interests, especially for prominent issues.
A party typically has a member who acts as what's called the "party whip", and whose role is to ensure the rest of the party's members vote as the party wishes them to, and to punish those who might not.
Voting against one's own party doesn't guarantee that that a representative will be kicked out of caucus, but it certainly has resulted in expulsions in the past (Nunziata, Casey, and Karahalios are cases I can think of off the top of my head).
I think it's reasonable to believe that Canadian politicians represent their party and themselves to a greater degree than they represent their constituents.
On the one hand, it is a clear indication that citizen's wishes are ignored. On the other, US is supposed to be a republic and politicians are supposed to be smarter than to give in to the mob, who will always vote itself whatever it currently wants. The problem is that while 84% ( I am taking that number at face value for the time being ) say they want stronger privacy laws in aggregate, as individuals they differ o…
The ad tier of services like Hulu makes more than the paid tier.
This is just another clueless populist article. The key to actually ask people "What are you willing to give up for X"? Are you ok being more annoyed with popups asking your permissions every time? Are you ok with a recession in Ad-based ecosystem (merchants, ad brokers, stock market depression, fewer IPOs) that may result due to this? Would you be OK with paying for services instead of an Ad model? (and before Virtu…
Your argument is that because the industry is massive it now shouldn't be controlled even though it can be harmful because it might increase costs, or it might create annoyances.
Try to apply the same argument to other industries which are regulated due to their potential harm to see how flimsy this argument is. Food could be much cheaper if there were few regulations on quality control, cars could be much cheaper if safety devices weren't required.
> Are you ok with a recession in Ad-based ecosystem (merchants, ad brokers, stock market depression, fewer IPOs) that may result due to this?
Totally ok, it will free up brilliant minds working on this to figure out new, and potentially better ways that fit into a more privacy-focused regulatory framework.
> Edit : Expected nothing better than downvotes from massively brainwashed HNers with ZERO independent thinking. The irony isn't lost that they are the 84% ers
Refrain from this bullshit here.