81–90 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.
It would not collapse, but the inflows to the fund would. However, it would still likely provide for decades at least. Norway distributes the returns from the fund, not the fund money itself.
> Norway distributes the returns from the fund, not the fund money itself. Is that adjusted for inflation? To explain, suppose I have a stock that went up 10% last year (and paid no dividends, to keep things simple). If inflation was also 10%, there was no real return from my investment, and nothing should be distributed. If inflation was 2%, my real return was about 8%, and we could distribute that without touching…
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.
"If you dare to assert your right to privacy, thousands of people will lose their jobs!"
It relies on several layers of propaganda, and has no more basis in reality than trickle-down economics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the argument is that people say they care about privacy, but they really care about money. Online privacy laws will cost at least some people some money, and those people vote too. And their representatives know they vote.
I believe you're correct. At the same time, we allowed the problem of economic harm to grow worse by not dealing decisively with the problem of online privacy from the outset. For this same reason, an argument could be made that ripping the bandaid off now would be less painful than in the future. (And I'm not blind to the amount of pain this would cause. I realize that what I'm advocating would decimate our own indu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lobbyists are there to remind you of the costs and prevent from populism destroying civilizations What? We have different views on lobbyism. I think it should be forbidden for companies to lobby
You are always welcome to go stay in a country where there are no lobbyists
Funny how that works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this a trickle-down style of argument? Or that corporations are holy? Or that they always have the job takers interests at heart? Or that the elected representatives are elected by the 16% who don't want stronger privacy laws? I'm confused.
It's clearly a "corporations are holy" kind of argument, where it's implicit that if one breaks down the oligopoly that is oppressing the market and disallowing innovation, the entire economy will go down, since the oligopoly is the entire economy. But I don't think the OP noticed that.
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.
That sounds like flagship corporations have a horrible business model if employees are highly-payed to invade privacy. I'm sure, those companies have enough smart people to figure out some way to create high-paying jobs that do not rely on invasion of privacy. [Added] ...if only they were incentivized to do so
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Norway distributes the returns from the fund, not the fund money itself. Is that adjusted for inflation? To explain, suppose I have a stock that went up 10% last year (and paid no dividends, to keep things simple). If inflation was also 10%, there was no real return from my investment, and nothing should be distributed. If inflation was 2%, my real return was about 8%, and we could distribute that without touching…
Inflation is usually priced pretty efficiently into securities on top of whatever growth. However, it gets a bit more complex when you are trading securities in multiple currencies. I am not sure how Norway handles that, but they almost certainly have a team of currency traders to manage it.
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.
The real real truth is that most consumers are totally content with the current state of things, and spend virtually zero time worrying about online privacy (yes, people exist outside tech bubbles). If google pushed to a privacy subscription model, where you could pay for google services and have all your privacy protected, people would get mad and tell google to "bring back the free stuff!". I'm surprised people her…
Consumers also love the lottery and casinos, even though they both have a negative ROI.
Consumers think they're getting something for free, but the bill for their "free service" comes the next time they go to the store and pay $10 more, spread over dozens of items they buy every month, to pay for marginal cost of advertising.
The price is hidden so well that our lizard brains don't connect the two, that's what makes the entire scheme so effective, but it definitely isn't "free".