hogFeast

20 ms·

121.
by hogFeast 5y ago
I think the point is that the economy has become more-oriented towards financial outcomes. Companies are doing things which boost their stock price but don't actually result in a greater level of overall economic activity beyond higher
122.
by hogFeast 5y ago
I will give you some actual facts here (because you appear to be genuinely interested, I can only speak about England which industrialized first). Urbanisation happened over a long period of time and was very far advanced in the UK (and in
123.
by hogFeast 5y ago
It can possibly be because that is what history is. It is the study of things which are not the present. It is irrelevant whether yesterday is like today because history is not about yesterday. Again, if you are interested about this subjec
124.
by hogFeast 5y ago
I studied this at university. I have done the research. I am telling you do not (your only evidence is that you think it was like the place you grew up...seriously?). Keith Wrightson is the basic textbook used on this subject (Omrod has wri
125.
by hogFeast 5y ago
You have missed the point totally. The "cohesive narrative" stands alone. History exists only on its own terms. You cannot look at something that happened in history and say: we can do this because it happened then. It is not absu
126.
by hogFeast 5y ago
I am not sure why you think you can compare to a rural place. One, the number of children then was far higher, and there was no school. Two, I don't think you understand that incomes were so low back then that they could not afford eve
127.
by hogFeast 5y ago
Again, this is exactly my point. This isn't history. This is specifically not what history is for. History does not inform that process because the past is not like the present. They are orthogonal. Attempting to inform your view of th
128.
by hogFeast 5y ago
Quite right. I think we are seeing proof of what you are saying with the childcare cost crisis in most developed nations. A good proportion of early years childcare (and often later) was "free". Now that it is being transferred in
129.
by hogFeast 5y ago
Where were you taught that? Fairly basic logic should indicate to you that it wouldn't have been possible for people to work as much. There was no manufacturing. The vast majority of people who worked, worked in agriculture. You cannot
130.
by hogFeast 5y ago
No, it is a comment about overcrowding. The point is: there was no way to move lots of people into these areas to do work and maintain living standards. Buildings also cost labour to produce, now that society is rich, can everyone just buy
131.
by hogFeast 5y ago
It would depend on the underlying event. The reason we have financial markets isn't to predict things, it is to fund things that need funding, and the price mechanism guides that for better or worse. Creating an artificial prediction m
132.
by hogFeast 5y ago
Most cities used to have all the industry located in the centre. It led to huge slums (because there was insufficient supply and massive demand) and everyone leaving the city when the slums got cleared. Even if you have great transportation
133.
by hogFeast 5y ago
I was forced to torpedo a previous career because a relative got sick, and then I got sick...moving to the city wasn't a good idea but the only choice in that industry, so I had to move on (I grew up in the city in question, utter hell
134.
by hogFeast 5y ago
Right, but the point is that prediction markets remove the subjectivity, and I am saying they don't. They are just wrong in different ways. Rewarding individuals? So we swap one set of "experts" for another? The point of this
135.
by hogFeast 5y ago
I don't think prediction markets make sense. The information about whether a country will become a dictatorship is usually private, and impossible to obtain. It isn't like a betting market where the relevant information is public.
136.
by hogFeast 5y ago
Yep, I have been there. Example (sorry to use another finance story): the market today is overvalued by any logic. Valuation, 0% returns for next ten years. Equity risk premium, max 2% real. Contributions that are valued most heavily are co
137.
by hogFeast 5y ago
That is what has always confused me about "prediction markets". The reason why non-experts perform as well as experts is because there is a huge level of randomness in actual outcomes, and very little information that can help pre
138.
by hogFeast 5y ago
I studied politics and history. In my experience, there is also a bias towards writing exceptionally partisan things. I used to write things that were hedging, and which were summaries of the argument. Invariably, these papers scored signif
139.
by hogFeast 5y ago
It doesn't work this way. If Alphabet wanted to prove they lasted three years, they would have found a way to prove it. Auditors don't go around challenging on things like this. In particular, they don't go around challenging
140.
by hogFeast 5y ago
Boris Johnson actually did something similar. Iirc, he gave an interview where he bizarrely and repeatedly mentioned the fact that he likes to paint wine boxes like buses...over and over. And it was thought (and, most likely, leaked) that h
141.
by hogFeast 5y ago
The funniest part of this is that you have people with no fundamental understanding of companies attempting to perform fundamental analysis...the solution which doesn't seem to have occurred here is...perform fundamental analysis. All
142.
by hogFeast 5y ago
I don't think I really said this wasn't the case. What I said is that corporations comprise the most popular/most watched videos (which is true, if you look at the video rankings). That can happen simultaneous with good, inde
143.
by hogFeast 5y ago
No, that is not right. He got paid $20bn last year, and is getting paid more this year. One thing that tends to be confusing for people is that a dollar amount is not being paid, so if you issue shares 100 shares at $100/shares, and th
144.
by hogFeast 5y ago
I think point 2 is actually quite important. YouTube used to be a source of genuinely innovative content. It is now far more corporate and anodyne, and the most popular videos are largely big production companies, and part of that is copy-s
145.
by hogFeast 5y ago
The Musk package is financial genocide. The guy owns a ton of shares already, his incentives were totally aligned...think about this way: he owns 17% of the company already so 17% of the package comes from Musk himself, the rest comes from
146.
by hogFeast 5y ago
The point totally missed here. The logic for share awards initially was to align the interests of shareholders and managers. The problem here is: you have founders often with supervoting shares, they usually have a huge role in appointing t
147.
by hogFeast 5y ago
The best part is saying that you have learned so much about why you shouldn't be mean to companies on Twitter, and how embarrassing that behaviour is...and doing it in a whiny email to a customer. Some people go through life "lear
148.
by hogFeast 5y ago
Yes, that is what I meant by the transmission (indeed, there was a huge difference between QE in 2010 and QE in 2014). There is also a huge difference in QE now, and 2010. Each time the structure changes and the impact on transmission chang
149.
by hogFeast 5y ago
The reason why it is "controversial" is because people believe we did the same thing in 2010, and no inflation occurred. Very broadly this is true, M2 peaked at 10% in 2008 and was 6% for most of the decade but the actual transmis
150.
by hogFeast 5y ago
The mantra of every unreasonable person.

More ›