291–300 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am Danish, I think I'll manage to know the difference between the country I was born and raised in and the country were a lot of my friends are from. Denmark is a tax haven for holding companies.
And I am Danish too. If Denmark is indeed a tax haven it should be fairly easy for you to document that, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For historic reasons states have built systems that prevent normal governments from inventing money at scale: Independent Central Banks. It's of course an important ongoing debate in economics whether this is still appropriate, but it's unrealistic to expect governments to so dramatically alter the fundamental structure of monetary policy. That said, of course it's even more unrealistic to expect them to do so absent…
> For historic reasons states have built systems that prevent normal governments from inventing money at scale: Independent Central Banks. Could you explain this? I think the CB system does not quite prevent money creation, it just makes it less transparent. Inventing a jargon to nice sounding words to hide the creation of money (yes I look at you "quantative easing") also does not help. If govts wanted to limit thei…
However, the growth of the country is very hard to measure (directly taking the growth of the GDP would not necessarily match it), so there is no consensus on what the inflation should be exactly, which gives the authority in charge of creating money some leeway on exactly how much money to create. If this authority was the government, it would be tempting to have the inflation be slightly higher than the country's growth, in order to "trick" people into believing that they got slightly richer and have them spend more. And this could work for some time, but at some point people would become wary of the government and as a result would spend less, slowing down the economy. So it becomes a game (in the sense of game theory) between the government and the consumers, and the solution is to have an independent entity in charge of money creation, so people can know with more certainty that the "right" amount of money is being created.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government has unilateral ability to invent jobs and even invent money if the goal is to help workers keep their jobs and/or remain fed and housed. So I feel that no company should get a bailout. If they fail, they fail, and the government can scoop up the workers and create an agency or just government-staked company that does the same thing, find some work in the country that needs doing and put the workers on…
The government can’t invent jobs that bring in more revenue than they cost though. If everyone does unsustainable jobs with printed money, you’ll have hyperinflation and then collapse. > If they fail, they fail, and the government can scoop up the workers This is a government forced failure. That’s a great way to turn every small business owner (a huge part of the middle class) against the pandemic containment effort…
Why not? Is there some reason why a private medical researcher is somehow better than a government medical researcher?
This submission broke HN's rules by editorializing the title. Doing that eventually causes your account to lose submission privileges on HN, so please don't do that. " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Cherry-picking a detail from an article and making that the title is editorializing—in fact it's the leading form…
Consider this story: https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17486110/metabolism-diet-fast-w...
The HTML is "Metabolism and weight loss: debunking myths in the metabolic chamber - Vox".
The big bold text at the start of the article is "What I learned about weight loss from spending a day inside a metabolic chamber".
Is one of those preferred, or is either acceptable?
This submission broke HN's rules by editorializing the title. Doing that eventually causes your account to lose submission privileges on HN, so please don't do that. " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Cherry-picking a detail from an article and making that the title is editorializing—in fact it's the leading form…
Probably a stupid question, but what does the rule mean by "title"? Consider this story: https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17486110/metabolism-diet-fast-w... The HTML is "Metabolism and weight loss: debunking myths in the metabolic chamber - Vox". The big bold text at the start of the article is "What I learned about weight loss from spending a day inside a metabolic chamber". Is one of those preferred, or is either accep…
What the rule means by "original title" can be any one of the candidate titles that an article itself provides. That can be the main heading on the page, but often that is misleading or baity, especially with media sites. The HTML doc title, as you point out, is often a good alternative [1]. Often a subtitle is better than the main title. Other good candidates can be the URL, a photo caption, or a phrase from the opening paragraph.
When the original title is misleading or linkbait, HN's rule says to change it. In such cases it's far better to replace it with representative language from the article itself [2] than to make up one's own language for it. On HN the principle is to let the content speak for itself, so we try wherever possible to avoid putting words in an article's mouth. When undoing the dirty work of a headline writer [3], put the author back in charge. Don't knock headline person off their perch in order to grab it yourself.
When the obvious options for a good title all fail, you can nearly always find one in the text itself. In fact, it's strikingly rare for media articles not to include, somewhere on the page, an accurate and neutral phrase that says what the article is actually about. I wonder if this is not coincidence, or good writing, so much as SEO. In other words, the very same forces that make headline writers churn out bait to entice users may be driving authors or editors to include accurate summaries to bait search engines. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to hunt for the latter to replace the former.
In cases where none of the options for a title produces a good one, including scouring the article body, it's ok to make up a title as a last resort—again, using representative words from the article itself as much as possible.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
This submission broke HN's rules by editorializing the title. Doing that eventually causes your account to lose submission privileges on HN, so please don't do that. " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Cherry-picking a detail from an article and making that the title is editorializing—in fact it's the leading form…
What if the cherry picked detail is the interesting detail worth discussing on hn?
Besides, editorializing is expressing an opinion, which is not something this title is doing - or am I seeing this wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do a majority of publicly traded companies not pay dividends? I've noticed before that for many companies by identifier (ISIN, SEDOL, CUSIP, take your pick) that there are no dividend histories. The only example that I know the reason why is Amazon. [If you buy Amazon stock you either 1) expect dividends at some later stage or 2) plan on selling the stock for a higher price.]
Some companies 'reinvest' profits in their operations and don't pay dividends. Others avoid dividends, as dividends are profits that are taxed twice. (Once for corporate income taxes, and again for individual income taxes.) Selling the stock for a higher price has opportunity for favorable tax treatment at the lower long-term capital gains vs dividends taxes as regular income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For historic reasons states have built systems that prevent normal governments from inventing money at scale: Independent Central Banks. It's of course an important ongoing debate in economics whether this is still appropriate, but it's unrealistic to expect governments to so dramatically alter the fundamental structure of monetary policy. That said, of course it's even more unrealistic to expect them to do so absent…
> For historic reasons states have built systems that prevent normal governments from inventing money at scale: Independent Central Banks. Could you explain this? I think the CB system does not quite prevent money creation, it just makes it less transparent. Inventing a jargon to nice sounding words to hide the creation of money (yes I look at you "quantative easing") also does not help. If govts wanted to limit thei…
It seems to me it would be a lot more useful if we create money and the government spends it (e.g. on infrastructure, or by distributing it directly to people most likely to spend it), rather than indirectly creating it through QE (which in mechanism, if not in effect seems quite different from printing money), etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is some truth to that line of thought. Either it is legal to avoid taxes, then no distinction should be made. Or it is illegal, in which they should be persecuted. But making this distinction as a means to "punish" certain companies seems to conflate two unrelated issues.
Bailouts are a reward. Not getting a reward is not a punishment. If you buy a lottery ticket and win, your neighbor was not punished for not buying a ticket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is some truth to that line of thought. Either it is legal to avoid taxes, then no distinction should be made. Or it is illegal, in which they should be persecuted. But making this distinction as a means to "punish" certain companies seems to conflate two unrelated issues.
Bailouts are a reward. Not getting a reward is not a punishment. If you buy a lottery ticket and win, your neighbor was not punished for not buying a ticket.