4 ms·

Well, I will not subscribe to the new yourkers for just an article, but my anwser wold be hell no. Intervencion of govern in the free market.... maybe.

monocasa 8y ago
You can open it in archive.is, in an incognito tab, or from a Google search and see the whole article.
pjmorris 8y ago
I'd argue that the primary interventions of government in the free market involve the creation and support of currency, and the provision of property rights. It's hard for me to imagine a market of any significant size without those things. The absence of government intervention may not be what capitalism wants.
- major505 8y ago
  I'm ok with govern creating a small set of rules and enforcing them. But as litle as possible. Specially in types of business that aren't vital to population. I can understand certain rules like in insurance companies of some types of banking services. I'm not ok with intervencions, like the banks bailout of 2008, the the goverment just save banks that should have break. This kindo f intervention isn't fair form most of the market, and should be avoided.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >This kindo f intervention isn't fair form most of the market, and should be avoided. Even if it means a global market collapse and depression?
TACIXAT 8y ago
I've gotten downvoted for mentioning paywalls as well. I think this is a very valid call out though. While there are workarounds, I don't want to spend more than 2 seconds opening an article (most the time it isn't worth going to google cache, some archive, or doing the fb redirect). I dislike that it is effectively a dead link for many people and that it is being shared on the front page of a major aggregator. It is poor user experience to be opening dead links and really trains me against visiting certain sites. I would absolutely pay 5 cents to read an article. There is no feasible way to do this small of a transaction with our current payment systems. I will absolutely not subscribe for 5 dollars a month.
- krapp 8y ago
  >While there are workarounds, I don't want to spend more than 2 seconds opening an article (most the time it isn't worth going to google cache, some archive, or doing the fb redirect). And yet you wasted more time that that writing this comment, so we could waste more time that that reading it. If your time is so valuable that you can't be bothered to put in even the few seconds of minimal effort needed to engage with the topic at hand, perhaps your time is better spent elsewhere.
  - TACIXAT 8y ago
    Yes, I did spend time writing a comment about a topic I care about. I do not want to spend time circumventing a site's desired mode of operation for an article I am only moderately interested in. >so we could waste more time that that reading it No need to be nasty about it.

monocasa 8y ago

You can open it in archive.is, in an incognito tab, or from a Google search and see the whole article.

pjmorris 8y ago

I'd argue that the primary interventions of government in the free market involve the creation and support of currency, and the provision of property rights. It's hard for me to imagine a market of any significant size without those things. The absence of government intervention may not be what capitalism wants.

major505 8y ago
I'm ok with govern creating a small set of rules and enforcing them. But as litle as possible. Specially in types of business that aren't vital to population. I can understand certain rules like in insurance companies of some types of banking services. I'm not ok with intervencions, like the banks bailout of 2008, the the goverment just save banks that should have break. This kindo f intervention isn't fair form most of the market, and should be avoided.
- krapp 8y ago
  >This kindo f intervention isn't fair form most of the market, and should be avoided. Even if it means a global market collapse and depression?

TACIXAT 8y ago

I've gotten downvoted for mentioning paywalls as well. I think this is a very valid call out though. While there are workarounds, I don't want to spend more than 2 seconds opening an article (most the time it isn't worth going to google cache, some archive, or doing the fb redirect). I dislike that it is effectively a dead link for many people and that it is being shared on the front page of a major aggregator. It is poor user experience to be opening dead links and really trains me against visiting certain sites. I would absolutely pay 5 cents to read an article. There is no feasible way to do this small of a transaction with our current payment systems. I will absolutely not subscribe for 5 dollars a month.

krapp 8y ago
>While there are workarounds, I don't want to spend more than 2 seconds opening an article (most the time it isn't worth going to google cache, some archive, or doing the fb redirect). And yet you wasted more time that that writing this comment, so we could waste more time that that reading it. If your time is so valuable that you can't be bothered to put in even the few seconds of minimal effort needed to engage with the topic at hand, perhaps your time is better spent elsewhere.
- TACIXAT 8y ago
  Yes, I did spend time writing a comment about a topic I care about. I do not want to spend time circumventing a site's desired mode of operation for an article I am only moderately interested in. >so we could waste more time that that reading it No need to be nasty about it.