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

Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#71

Post by powersnail »

robertlagrant wrote: post #32
kaashif wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hollywood actors and famous football players are often very rich, but they sell their labor to get by. But there's a key difference. They don't need to continue to sell their labor, they can stop at any time and live on e.g. income from dividends. Or maybe they have enough cash they could literally not even invest it and still live fine. Although they may not own the means of production right at this moment, they e…

You tomorrow could start out as a carpenter, buy a hammer and own the means of production. It's not a high bar to clear.

Who's going to hire a carpenter who picked up a hammer yesterday? You can't just hammer away in your yard and expect income.

It's not a trivial bar to clear, if you want to own the means of production that happens to be a viable livelihood.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#72

Post by robertlagrant »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #43
robertlagrant wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You tomorrow could start out as a carpenter, buy a hammer and own the means of production. It's not a high bar to clear.

Ironically it's more often governments that interfere with this. Go to the library and read some books and you can learn how to be a plumber or an electrician, buy a toolbox and you're on your way. Presumably there is some kind of licensing exam? No, first you've got to find an existing tradesperson and apprentice under them, even if you could already pass the exam on your own. For a few weeks is it? Years, typically…

It's not ironic - governments are the main source of power behind protectionism in all its forms. More regulations are good for incumbents.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#73

Post by robertlagrant »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #40
robertlagrant wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You tomorrow could start out as a carpenter, buy a hammer and own the means of production. It's not a high bar to clear.

A hammer is a poor example of the means of production now that they're so easy to come by. The chokepoint is elsewhere. A more relevant example would be influence over the information that people consult when they're deciding which carpenter to hire. You need both a hammer and a place to swing it that gets you paid--and nobody is trying to restrict access to hammers to protect their position. This is why many of our…

In your example the means of production is an advertisement? How would the worker own the means of production? Hammer and newspaper? Or hammer and all the newspapers?

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#74

Post by version_five »

dang wrote: post #70
version_five wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, much better for everybody to be screwed in the name of equity.

Could you please stop taking HN threads further into ideological battle? We had to warn you about this just the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37699522 . It destroys what this site is for, so we end up having to ban accounts that keep doing it. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

That seems awfully harsh, the comment I replied to had done the usual "let's find some reason this is discriminatory" thing and I was pushing back on it. I'm happy to stop commenting.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#75

Post by dang »

version_five wrote: post #74
dang wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please stop taking HN threads further into ideological battle? We had to warn you about this just the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37699522 . It destroys what this site is for, so we end up having to ban accounts that keep doing it. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

That seems awfully harsh, the comment I replied to had done the usual "let's find some reason this is discriminatory" thing and I was pushing back on it. I'm happy to stop commenting.

It seems to me that your comment clearly broke the site guidelines and the GP comment clearly didn't. That's why I replied to the one and not the other. I also thought it best to note that we've already had to warn you repeatedly, and recently, to make sure that you have that information. I realize it sucks to get moderated, but this doesn't seem particularly harsh to me?

I don't want you to stop commenting! I'm just asking you to stick to HN's rules when you do.

Btw, there's a common bias that distorts basically everyone's judgment about this kind of thing (including mine, clearly): we underestimate our own harshness by, say, 10x, and overestimate the other's by another (say) 10x, and that compounds to a 100x distortion. I'd venture a guess that this is why your comment seemed to you like innocuous "pushing back", while it seemed to me like an obvious breaking of HN's rules. I don't know if that's helpful or not (probably not), but it's what came to mind.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#76

Post by Symbiote »

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #61
rsynnott wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is common in tourist-y areas everywhere. I was in Lisbon recently, and saw a number of places advertising that they accepted Sterling… at a rate of 1:1 with the Euro. A mere 15% FX fee.

What struck me as interesting is that one could do FX easily in a pub out in Blarney near the castle, while there’s not a single FX place in Cork City itself. Same thing in Galway - can’t find a FX place anywhere in the city, but if you head out to one of the tourist destinations you can do so at the pub. You can’t do foreign exchange at a bank or credit union anymore without an account.

There are 3 or 4. You may need to search "bureau de change"

http://www.locallife.ie/county-cork/bureaux-de-change.asp

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#77

Post by lmm »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #44
RecycledEle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the divide as being between those of us who created wealth by working vs. those who do not create wealth and instead play zero sum and negative sum games.

That's something else entirely. You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world. You could have a low-level white collar worker who isn't making very much money at all, all of it in wages, who decides to…

> You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world.

If they're making skilled capital-allocation decisions that most people couldn't, that's work. If they're being charitable in the allocation of their ill-gotten gains, that doesn't make them any less ill-gotten.

Rentiers inherently make their money in a zero-sum way; it's perhaps not the only way to be zero-sum, but it is a major one.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#78

Post by herczegzsolt »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #54
pierat wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please. And you're up-playing risk. Let's talk local. We have lots of cheap shit 3 story stick built apartments. ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-ameri... ) The ones opened are charging half of Boston for rents. And I'm not even in a megacity or state capitol. The same apartments are getting 10 year tax abatements, because they are "good for business" aka trickle-down. During the pandemic,…

> The same apartments are getting 10 year tax abatements, because they are "good for business" aka trickle-down. This promotes new construction. Not as well as zoning reform, but it does. Which lowers the rent (or at least makes it go up less fast). > And landlords are usually smaller, but again, they're another reason why housing is stupid priced: it's common to see a rental of a home priced at mortgage+30% . Well o…

Mortgage is not a cost accounting wise. Interest is a cost, but capital repayment is already "profit" which the landlord will keep at the end of the loan.

Let's say rent is mortgage + 30%. If we assume all the risks and costs (maintenance, insurance, etc) are eating up all of that 30%, they still make a whopping 200%+ profit in the long run.

In a fair business relation with 20-30% profit, the landlord would actually loose cash each month until the mortgage is over, with the expectation to realize profit when the property is sold. This rarely happens.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#79

Post by AnthonyMouse »

lmm wrote: post #77
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's something else entirely. You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world. You could have a low-level white collar worker who isn't making very much money at all, all of it in wages, who decides to…

> You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world. If they're making skilled capital-allocation decisions that most people couldn't, that's work. If they're being charitable in the allocation of their ill…

> If they're making skilled capital-allocation decisions that most people couldn't, that's work. If they're being charitable in the allocation of their ill-gotten gains, that doesn't make them any less ill-gotten.

Why do they have to be ill-gotten gains? Someone could invest money they've earned through productive work.

And could invest it in something charitably while still making money, e.g. you have the option to make 10% doing something anti-social or 5% doing something socially beneficial and you consciously choose the latter knowing you could make more by being less charitable.

> Rentiers inherently make their money in a zero-sum way; it's perhaps not the only way to be zero-sum, but it is a major one.

Do they? Suppose you have some money and you put it in some investment fund and then live off the earnings while having no real involvement with how the fund is managed. Meanwhile the businesses you invested in are off doing productive net-positive things with your money that wouldn't have been possible had you stuffed it in your mattress, while yielding you a positive return which is nonetheless smaller than the total amount of net good created by the business.

The best you can say is that the returns are zero-sum, even if the act of investing is positive sum. But isn't that true of anything? If you get a raise, that's zero sum. Someone else would have had the money in the alternative.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#80

Post by lmm »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #79
lmm wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world. If they're making skilled capital-allocation decisions that most people couldn't, that's work. If they're being charitable in the allocation of their ill…

> If they're making skilled capital-allocation decisions that most people couldn't, that's work. If they're being charitable in the allocation of their ill-gotten gains, that doesn't make them any less ill-gotten. Why do they have to be ill-gotten gains? Someone could invest money they've earned through productive work. And could invest it in something charitably while still making money, e.g. you have the option to…

> Why do they have to be ill-gotten gains? Someone could invest money they've earned through productive work.

Because your hypothetical was specifically about someone who doesn't do productive work?

> Suppose you have some money and you put it in some investment fund and then live off the earnings while having no real involvement with how the fund is managed. Meanwhile the businesses you invested in are off doing productive net-positive things with your money that wouldn't have been possible had you stuffed it in your mattress, while yielding you a positive return which is nonetheless smaller than the total amount of net good created by the business.

You're begging the question - why was it your money in the first place?

If it's value you've produced, yes you can partner with someone else to compound it. But if it's just privilege that you had, then you don't get any credit for allowing it to be used productively.

> The best you can say is that the returns are zero-sum, even if the act of investing is positive sum. But isn't that true of anything? If you get a raise, that's zero sum. Someone else would have had the money in the alternative.

If you do something that produces real value in the world then that's positive sum - if you turn some planks and nails into a table, that table is more valuable than the stuff that went into it, the world is better off.

Post reply on HN