Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

english.martinvarsavsky.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 127 posts

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#41

Post by kiiski »

ivanca wrote: post #25
kiiski wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about nations, not people, so I don't think "GDP per capita" is relevant. USA has by far the highest total GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin...

Per-capita is way more important, a rich man doesn't need more than one toothbrush and it's detrimental for a country when other men can't afford a single one.

The question is "which country is the richest and most powerful". If we use the per capita statistics, Luxembourg is. That doesn't sound quite right, does it? If we look at the totals instead, the top ranks are USA, China, Japan and Germany. If you ask me, that seems more like what we're looking for.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#42

Post by coliveira »

bogs_carut wrote: post #34
mjburgess wrote: post #13

Europeans arent as unreflectingly captialistic and "frontier"sy. Americans have always seen success in business as an crowning achievement. Europeans have traditionally found this kind of pre-occupation with monetary success somewhat crass or trivial. > Europeans don’t realize that if a company that went from nothing to connecting 7 million homes is not celebrated... That's total BS. You dont need a culture of fanati…

This post contains a lot of loaded rhetoric. Are you implying that the sort of people who assume the degree of risk required to build a financially-successful business (specifically of the "home-run" magnitude implied by a multi-billion-dollar acquisition, IPO, etc) are merely "self-aggrandizing money-chasers?" Companies of that scale sometimes have the ability to improve society. There's also the potential for abuse…

The idea of great risk for great reward is a myth. The risk that the founder of Facebook assumed for example was close to nil, because he didn't have any job or money to start with. He risked the precious time that he would otherwise use to party at some Harvard fraternity. Similarly for so many other tech founders. They just happened to do well something that they liked at the right time. There are many small business that represent a much bigger risk for their owners, in terms of financial investment and loss of income.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#43

Post by genofon »

spindritf wrote: post #24
genofon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" richest and most powerful country in the history of the world..." not even close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-modern_great_powers

Does any of those countries come close to the GDP of, say, Alabama ($160bn)? Sure, comparing the value of organic wine form Rome to a car from Detroit is not straight-forward but technological progress and compound interest generally ensure that powers of today absolutely dwarf those of even a hundred years ago, not to mention a thousand years ago, or two. The ancient empires had troubles feeding their populations at…

GDP is a modern concept made to measure today's economy. But if you talk about power US is the most powerful country but not dominant (see Syria and Crimea).

The British empire at his peak held one fifth of the worlds population. The Roman empire conquered everything was worth conquering and he was providing free food and gigantic games to his poor citizens. If you consider modern Europe his GDP is very similar to the US, although his political situation is more fragmented.

So back to the OP in each era the economic conditions improved, and there was a place where this improvements was more evident, a country who was richer and more powerful than the others. US is one of these nations but it's not something exceptional in history as the OP suggested.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#44

Post by bogs_carut »

ivanca wrote: post #25
kiiski wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about nations, not people, so I don't think "GDP per capita" is relevant. USA has by far the highest total GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin...

Per-capita is way more important, a rich man doesn't need more than one toothbrush and it's detrimental for a country when other men can't afford a single one.

Insofar as domestic policy is concerned, per-capita is relevant.

Foreign policy, which is decided by governments that tax the aggregate population (and thus draw from the GDP)? Not in the slightest.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#45

Post by bjornsing »

Well the big difference between those two stories (Google buys ONO and Vodafone buys ONO) is that one would imply change (for the consumer - for founders both is of course a big change) and the other doesn't. Who cares if the corporate overlord at ONO is called Richard Alden (ONO "founder" in Varsavsky's eyes) or Vittorio Colao (Vodafone CEO)?

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#46

Post by genofon »

bogs_carut wrote: post #39
genofon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" richest and most powerful country in the history of the world..." not even close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-modern_great_powers

None of those pre-modern great powers could compete either economically or militarily with the modern United States. Of course, they might have been relatively more powerful in relation to their contemporaries, but that hardly implies anything relevant about the modern era.

well it's pretty obvious that a gun is more efective than an arrow.

US is the most powerful country now, but it isn't dominant (see Syria, Crimea, etc..) and it not as dominant as the British Empire or the Roman Empire was at their time

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#47

Post by melvinram »

coliveira wrote: post #42
bogs_carut wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post contains a lot of loaded rhetoric. Are you implying that the sort of people who assume the degree of risk required to build a financially-successful business (specifically of the "home-run" magnitude implied by a multi-billion-dollar acquisition, IPO, etc) are merely "self-aggrandizing money-chasers?" Companies of that scale sometimes have the ability to improve society. There's also the potential for abuse…

The idea of great risk for great reward is a myth. The risk that the founder of Facebook assumed for example was close to nil, because he didn't have any job or money to start with. He risked the precious time that he would otherwise use to party at some Harvard fraternity. Similarly for so many other tech founders. They just happened to do well something that they liked at the right time. There are many small busine…

You're disproving your own point. In the same paragraph, you say "The idea of great risk is a myth" and "There are many small business that represent a much bigger risk for their owners". Think about it.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#48

Post by borski »

coliveira wrote: post #42
bogs_carut wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post contains a lot of loaded rhetoric. Are you implying that the sort of people who assume the degree of risk required to build a financially-successful business (specifically of the "home-run" magnitude implied by a multi-billion-dollar acquisition, IPO, etc) are merely "self-aggrandizing money-chasers?" Companies of that scale sometimes have the ability to improve society. There's also the potential for abuse…

The idea of great risk for great reward is a myth. The risk that the founder of Facebook assumed for example was close to nil, because he didn't have any job or money to start with. He risked the precious time that he would otherwise use to party at some Harvard fraternity. Similarly for so many other tech founders. They just happened to do well something that they liked at the right time. There are many small busine…

Risk is relative. For a broke college student to quit school, move across the country, have no (or little) income, all for an idea that they have no clue will work is a huge risk. In the same vein, someone quitting their job after having already committed to car payments, house payments, and alimony is also a huge risk.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#49

Post by genofon »

odonnellryan wrote: post #30
genofon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" richest and most powerful country in the history of the world..." not even close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-modern_great_powers

I don't agree with you. To quickly cite another WikiPedia Entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_f... How many of those figures are of the US? Not trying to start a pissing contest. Sorry.

the OP is talking about nowadays US, so no Rockefeller, Ford and friends.

As it's difficult to compare richness through history I was focusing on relative power. Can someone challenge US now? yes: Russia, China, Europe. Some past empires didn't have any counterpart because they were too powerful for anyone.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#50

Post by bogs_carut »

coliveira wrote: post #42
bogs_carut wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post contains a lot of loaded rhetoric. Are you implying that the sort of people who assume the degree of risk required to build a financially-successful business (specifically of the "home-run" magnitude implied by a multi-billion-dollar acquisition, IPO, etc) are merely "self-aggrandizing money-chasers?" Companies of that scale sometimes have the ability to improve society. There's also the potential for abuse…

The idea of great risk for great reward is a myth. The risk that the founder of Facebook assumed for example was close to nil, because he didn't have any job or money to start with. He risked the precious time that he would otherwise use to party at some Harvard fraternity. Similarly for so many other tech founders. They just happened to do well something that they liked at the right time. There are many small busine…

It's only a myth if you're examining the situation from a singular angle -- that of monetary risk.

There's a great deal of risk and uncertainty involved in foregoing the completion of a degree, a potentially-salaried position at a stable firm, and so forth in favor of starting a company that is statistically unlikely to succeed.

Post reply on HN