muzz

62 ms·

661.
by muzz 12y ago
Who has painted Rand Paul that way?
662.
by muzz 12y ago
There were many articles about this years ago, particularly of the abuse in Tenaha, Texas http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-pro...
663.
Private Bus Service “Magic: Solving Your Commute”(magicbus.io)
6 points by muzz 12y ago|1 comments
664.
by muzz 12y ago
Yes, things like economic opportunity
665.
Venture Capitalists Get Paid Well to Lose Money(blogs.hbr.org)
30 points by muzz 12y ago|3 comments
666.
by muzz 12y ago
Dominance of large players is indeed a reason for less "dynamism". The flaw would be to assume that more dynamism, in and of itself, is better. For example it could come from many small players reinventing wheels (i.e. each Mom-a
667.
by muzz 12y ago
That too, but the patent system hasn't changed since 1980, whereas enforcement of laws against monopolies declined.
668.
by muzz 12y ago
Or it could be that there are fewer anti-monopoly laws, and that's resulted in huge megacorporations, especially in areas like banking.
669.
by muzz 12y ago
The second paper is somewhat of a canard. There are fewer "firms" than 30 years ago largely because of fewer small players in areas like retail and construction (for example, fewer Mom-and-Pop shops and more market share to WalMar
670.
by muzz 12y ago
Do you think that companies don't factor the potential costs when deciding where to locate and where to expand?
671.
by muzz 12y ago
If an area actually provides a better environment for business, there would be no need to throw taxpayer money at businesses to attract them.
672.
by muzz 12y ago
California attracts lots of well-educated people from India and China, although it certainly does lose natives who seek cheaper areas.
673.
by muzz 12y ago
Not sure where GP or GGP is headed, but it's clear where tech companies are expanding jobs-- in the Bay Area.
674.
by muzz 12y ago
Amazing how the kind of "predictions" mentioned in the article are still deeply held
675.
by muzz 12y ago
Not sure who downvoted you, but this is indeed the essence of one of the counterpoints against regulation-- that if we regulate an industry, the innovation in that industry will simply occur elsewhere in the world, outside of US regulation.
676.
Venture Capitalists Are Not a Disease(slate.com)
2 points by muzz 12y ago|0 comments
677.
by muzz 12y ago
And anyone who's passed by any of the construction sites and seen the big "Peery - Arrillaga" banners
678.
by muzz 12y ago
Businesses however are doing the exact opposite-- they are expanding and hiring within the Bay Area.
679.
by muzz 12y ago
> Stupid question but why don't big companies like Google and Apple just move the bulk of their office outside of San Francisco where there are no regulations and they could just build everything they need there. Because they'v
680.
by muzz 12y ago
> Eventually pressure would be too high for local authorities to change laws and with one stroke of pen bubble will burst. Yes, if you believe that ~100 cities in the Bay Area are somehow preventing housing from being built with laws, th
681.
by muzz 12y ago
Sadly the author seems intent on mischaracterizing Mountain View here. The rejected project was 1,000 units in an area that is otherwise all office buildings. 6 times that number of units were approved by the city and are being built, yet t
682.
by muzz 12y ago
Agreed, but how many people make enough for it to be their full-time jobs? 65% of Etsy sellers make less than $100/yr: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/11/08/etsy_economi...
683.
by muzz 12y ago
There is a reason why they are at historic lows-- it is the decision of market participants. Your concern is essentially that market participants will somehow do a complete 180, for no stated reason.
684.
by muzz 12y ago
Yes, Altman's point #2 is essentially the Reinhart-Rogoff fallacy that was widespread a few years ago, before being debunked.
685.
by muzz 12y ago
Here is a chart of that percentage over time: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYOIGDA188S
686.
by muzz 12y ago
Interest payments as a percentage of GDP are actually much lower now than they've been in the past: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYOIGDA188S
687.
by muzz 12y ago
Interesting to note that Zoning is never mentioned. In 2006, housing was constrained by "Nobody is making land." (#8 in the Who Disagrees section). Now it is somehow "zoning" that prevents housing from being built, and
688.
by muzz 12y ago
Agree with most points, except Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had their smallest market share at that time, as private lending was taking market share (and as we later found out, was driving the subprime lending).
689.
by muzz 12y ago
Agreed. Not sure why more people don't question when someone says something will benefit the "middle class" are they just saying that out of their own self-interest?
690.
by muzz 12y ago
People generally applaud things they already agree with, be it Jon Stewart's audience or Marc Andreessen's.

More ›