This is my favorite paragraph, because it is key to make people realize why GDP growth does not necessarily improve people's lives.
1,104 karma · joined January 4, 2008
This is my favorite paragraph, because it is key to make people realize why GDP growth does not necessarily improve people's lives.
[1] "The Modern World: Global History since 1760" https://www.coursera.org/course/modernworld
[2] "A History of the World since 1300" https://www.coursera.org/course/wh1300
$ echo a b c d
a b c d
$ echo !!:2:p
echo b
$ echo !!:2
-bash: :2: bad word specifier # there was only 1 argument in last command
However: $ echo a b c d
a b c d
$ echo !!:2:p
echo b
$
<up-arrow pressed once will give the following prompt>
$ echo bBack to the OP, when the top 1% has 24% of income (and 40% of wealth), that means there's a lot of luxury in the US which could instead be used to improve the life of some other less fortunate citizens. The economics rhetoric is clearly failing: the current wealth distribution is certainly not the most efficient distribution of resources if one is to include "quality of life" in the equation.
[1] http://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/economicpolicyreformsgoingfor...
That sounds like a lot of money, even considering the amount of publications. What would be the lion's share of the cost?
It is Walmart – not the government – which pollutes in somebody else's garden. And North American consumers are certainly to blame as well for shopping at Walmart and thus contributing to increase its clout.
If consumers could see the details of the whole supply chain (from collecting the raw materials all the way to putting the product on the shelf), companies with no concerns other than maximizing profits – like Walmart – would lose their customers in no time.
Indeed, there was both a human (e.g. low salary for those workers, incredibly long working days for those Asians manufacturing the cheap product) and an environmental cost (e.g. pollution in countries where the anti-pollution laws are non existent, carbon emitted during transport). Those costs are not factored into the figure one can see on that price tag.
It’s true that we do spend a lot more than the average family. Yet the one truly expensive line item in our budget is our airplane (which, by the way, was manufactured in France by Dassault Aviation SA), and those annual costs are mostly for fuel (from the Middle East). It’s just crazy to believe that any of this is more beneficial to our economy than hiring more teachers or police officers or investing in our infrastructure.
That's an excellent counter-example of trickle-down economics.
In 1993, the Clinton administration repealed the Glass-Steagall Act under pressure from Wall Street because Clinton wanted to secure Wall Street's financial support for his coming reelection. Wall Street money effectively contributed to shape the financial system in Wall Street's favor, that is, towards less financial regulation.
With this perspective, I see the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act regulation as an example of co-optation.
The Anglo-Saxon model claimed that free markets would create prosperity; many voters feel instead that they got a series of debt-fuelled asset bubbles and an economy that was rigged in favour of a financial elite, who took all the proceeds in the good times and then left everybody else with no alternative other than to bail them out.
But it's painful to see The Economist recasting the problem along the lines of state interference (especially at the end of the article: Western governments have failed their citizens once) whereas the issue here is the co-optation of the political sphere by the financial sphere (the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under Clinton in 1993 being only one example).
I'm guessing Perez cycles (covering an 'installation period' and a 'deployment period') would be laid out as such:
1870-1920 (from severe recession towards the Belle Epoque)
1920-1980 ("canal and railway manias ending in panics, the roaring twenties ending in the crash of 1929", followed by the booming post-war era)
1980-2030 (dot com bubble ending in the 2000 NASDAQ crash, and financial bubble ending in the 2008 crash, probably followed by a booming period in the forthcoming decades):)
Although indeed there is no mention of 'lifestyle business' and 'VC-funded business', I read the OP as a voice for the former, in the context of the current (and interesting) debate between the two. Linking to and siding with Daniel Haran (the author of 'YC is cult', a pro lifestyle business) tend to support this.
I object to your reasoning that if I criticize someone who is doing X (combating and casting enemies), I must also be doing X.
I understand what you mean, and I'm sorry if you meant to criticize as opposed to 'combat'. However, your How can anything manage to be this incoherent, ignorant, dysfunctional did not sound right to me, hence my first reply to your comment.
We all get that the 'lifestyle business' runs with different assumptions than the 'VC-funded business'. It really is two different worlds. Why not just accept, then, that the 'lifestyle business' crowd has their own assumptions (just like HN has its own), instead of casting it as the new enemy?
On another (but related) line of thought, since the 'lifestyle business' crowd is in general older (compared to the HN crowd) and not a marginal group (it's quite a movement), don't you think it deserves some attention, instead of combating it?
With the-largest-the-higher convention, you have a very telling visualization of the evolution of the streams with time.
And I thought Google Analytics graphs were the best. There's always room for innovation!
“If Endeavor had been an investor, rather than an independent, objective, non-profit enabler, it would not have been trusted by the business elite, or the entrepreneurs,” she insists. “Trust is everything.”
It is a good reminder, as often we're going too deep into the rabbit hole while writing code, forgetting in so doing the real business requirement.
Working on the business core resonates with Agile principles.
While this is a trend, it might not always be true.
In France, Mediapart (mediapart.fr) is a website with a focus on investigation-journalism, built on principles such as independence from political/media groups.
Subscription fee: 9 euros (14 usd)/month. The project founders are hopeful to reach a sustainable number of subscribers (which is 65 000, 3 years from launch; they currently have 8000 subscribers after 4 months).
Conclusion: a high-quality customized product for a niche, although online, could justify the price - directly paid by the users - for that product.
source: last sentence in this article from Nicholas Carr: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
Github, the social network for hackers.