socrates1998

The more I read about WeWork, the more insane it is to me. I don't really blame the charlatans at WeWork, it's hard to blame people for taking money on a product. And they probably do think it's a good business plan.

No, I blame the people giving them billions of dollars. These "investors" are complete idiots. It's shocking to me how little they understand about the companies they invest in.

One look at WeWorks "business plan" and I knew it was all bullshit. It's just ridiculous that so many "smart investors" gave them money.

Ugh, such a waste of money.

I can't fathom how private companies still think that they can make the CCP happy AND their western customers.

The CCP holds values that are completely untenable to western values. As time goes on, companies who don't know this will lose massive brand value in the western world.

The NBA has managed to tight rope this so far, but I doubt they can hold it together for very much longer. The CCP is still calling for the Houston Rockets GM to be fired 10 months after he tweeted vague support for the Hong Kong Democracy movement. They still refuse to show NBA games domestically because of it.

One vague tweet in support of democracy.

I avoid all of these app's and order directly from the restaurant themselves.

1) All of them add to the cost of the bill way more than I think is a good use of my money.

2) Driver's don't get paid very well.

3) Restaurants get screwed.

Sure it might mean I have to go out and pick up the order instead of getting it directly delivered, but it's really not that big of a deal.

"The First Principle" by Osho. About eastern meditation and the difficulty of achieving nirvana. A lot about the paradox of trying to achieve inner peace, but only actually being able to experience it when you don't try to obtain it.

"Philosophy and the Matrix". Part of a pop culture series that takes popular art and has different philosopher break down it into different philosophies. A good way to realize that the same work of art can mean vastly different things depending on the frame of reference.

"Tribe" by Sebastian Junger. The seemingly disconnect that people felt happier when they were experiencing a traumatic event, like war, mainly because they were relying on each other and counted on each other.

"The Social Leap" by William von Hippel. How we went from just another mid-sized ape on the plains of Africa to the most successful large mammal on the planet earth in a few million years. His theory is focused on the social adaptations of early hominids and how that affects us to this day.

For now... Didn't Yahoo say this as well like 8 years ago?

I think for the most part, it's this idea that things will go back to normal soon. And there wasn't anything structurally wrong with the economy like it was in 2008. Right now, the hardest hit people are mainly people with zero stocks (bartenders rarely have a decent portfolios).

The Fed has made bonds and savings almost worthless with all the money being pumped into the economy, so why not try to get in on this opportunity?

I think this all fools gold. We are going to hit 20% unemployment and earnings are going to take a massive hit. The stock market might not tank, but it also could break even.

At the point that people think the stock market isn't worth the risk, that's when you will get another big sell off.

In a weird way, both shorting stocks and going long stocks are both very risky positions right now.

If you don't know what is going on, then why on earth would you risk so much money?

IB fucked up, no doubt, but these idiots are trading shit they know nothing about.

Don't trade on margin.

You are the one who started the flamewar by accusing me of something I didn't say. It was clear in my comment that every time I said "this place" I was referring to the restaurant. I used the phrase "this place" three times in my original comment, all three referring to the restaurant.

Just apologize for accusing me of something that I didn't do and I will move on.

1) I was referring to the restaurant. 2) I'm from Montana.

You should just apologize that you didn't understand my comment rather than try to over explain it.

I was born in Montana. I lived in Montana. That restaurant probably hasn't made a profit in 30 years and they are asking $250k for it.

This place isn't just in the middle of nowhere, it's in Eastern Montana, not even the nice part of Montana (the west).

This place shouldn't exist. A mildly interesting story, but small town Montana is a rough existence even if you live in pretty part.

I would not recommend anyone buying this place unless you don't mind throwing away $200k on it.

Edit: All the down votes are coming from people who have never been to Eastern Montana. I have. Multiple times. I lived in Montana. Eastern Montana has nice, polite people, but it's got almost nothing going for it economically other than oil.

There is a reason why people (especially young people) are leaving Eastern Montana for the past several decades.

Oil and Gas companies are going to kill themselves because they made the critical error when they decided they were Oil and Gas companies and not energy companies.

I don't why none of the large Oil and Gas companies aren't leading the way to renewables?

You would think at least one or two of them would strategically realize that as the tech gets better, wind and solar will gradually become the main energy source.

And you can either hold on to your dying market (not dying now, but it will eventually).

NONE of them seem to have any real vision for a post oil and gas world.

My guess is that they are fixed on making sure that solar and wind power stays a small percent of energy consumption rather than being a market leader.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future more damming evidence comes out that proves the major oil and gas companies have been trying to fuck the solar and wind industries for decades now.

In my city, mid-sized city in a larger metropolitan area with a few million people, I tried to work at one of the We-Work type places and found it completely overpriced.

If I can work from anywhere, then I don't see the advantage to renting an office for the day. The real appeal for an office is that you can leave stuff there and use it for a multitude of things. We-Work type places seem to be good for one thing, giving a desk to remote workers that don't like working at coffee shops or libraries?

Do sales people like them?

What exactly are the type of professionals that like We-Work type offices?

Yes, but if you have known a lot of under grad Chinese students, you will know they often don't learn much of anything.

So you think it's okay for Chinese students to abuse and harass the protesters? I don't know what you point is?

Chinese students should be allowed to think however they want, but their behavior is unacceptable in a western democracy.

I am not sure that these international Chinese students are good for our universities. I feel like the universities sold out to them because they pay full price tuition.

This is latest example of them not understanding even basic behavior in western country.

It's almost impossible for westerners to conceive of living in a society without a strong and independent judicial system and without being able to vote for their political leaders.

Westerners in general deeply value their political voice and freedoms.

And since the Chinese government doesn't value these at all, then you can't blame us for thinking that the Chinese government does very few things right.

The Chinese aren't evil, they are violating the WTO agreement and the US is using it's economic power to check them.

And comparing the USA and Britain is insane. It's like comparing brothers to complete strangers.

"Soured their relationship" Really? Is that what you call letting the CCP filter search results?

Google made far too many concessions in my opinion and still got fucked.

If the Chinese protect their domestic market from American companies, then there is no point to staying on good terms with them.

Look what happened to Google. Google made all these concessions to the CCP and still got fucked.

China can't dangle the carrot of the Chinese market if they don't let American (or Japanese or European) companies have decent access to them.

China teases access, then pushes out the company after they steal their technology and intellectual property.

The world is finally wising up to this scam.

Cars are a big one. But, also, just by keeping their currency low compared to the US Dollar, the Chinese put a naturally high tariff on everything.

The Chinese, by being labeled a "developing country" in the WTO agreement are allowed to have unequal tariffs on imported goods.

Really, it's not one thing with China, it's a list of problems:

1) Artificially controlled (and low) currency, making Chinese goods cheaper than American goods.

2) Specific tariffs on American goods (cars)

3) Industrial espionage of technology (Huawei)

4) Trademark theft (Apple and other luxury brands have literally fake stores all over China)

5) Intellectual property theft (DVD's, movies, ect..)

6) Geopolitical rivals. They often refuse to cooperate with US led efforts around the world.

7) Domestic Chinese political oppression. China is a police state and getting worse.

I think Americans are finally done with it. Why should we put up with all this? For cheaper cell phones?

What we can get from China, we can get from other countries without all the bullshit.

China has violated the WTO agreements for a decade and a half.

There are countless examples of industrial espionage as well as trademark theft. The Chinese refuse to do anything about it.

Americans finally wised up to this and the Chinese are now scrambling to find a solution, but the CCP has painted themselves into a corner.

Any concession to the US will be seen as an ultimate slap in the face to Chinese pride. The CCP has propped up it's legitimacy by blaming all their problems on "foreign influence". The US and the Japanese being the main two antagonists.

Well, if you tell your people that the US is fucking you, then you give in to them, then that makes you look weak and ineffective.

And it will hurt the CCP's political situation very badly.

China isn't necessarily bullying the US, it bullies other countries. My point was that China isn't good at international relationships. They have squandered the relationship with the US and have bullied other smaller countries to the point that even Vietnam would much rather deal with the US than with China.

Look at the India relationship, it's awful. China has no clue how to create positive and mutually beneficial relationships around the world.

It sees everything as a zero-sum game. The US, despite it's flaws, is excellent at building and maintaining deep economic and political relationships around the world. Europe, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, all have had benefited massively from their relationships with the US.

China's CCP has had 50 years to develop ties with Vietnam and the Vietnamese hate the CCP.

Great article. I worked at a Forex trading firm and this is a great way to explain China's dilemma.

Really, this is kind of what happened to every other east Asian economy the past 60 years. They grow at a rapid pace for about two decades, then hit a ceiling as their low currency value becomes a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Like the author explains, this is the Japanese model. And every country who has copied it as done so less effectively than the Japanese.

First Japan, then Korea, then Taiwan, now China.

For me, the fundamental advantage in this trade war with the US is that the Chinese are replaceable for the American economy. Sure, there will be some pains as companies move their factories from China to Vietnam (or wherever), but ultimately, there are other places in the world with cheap labor.

There is no other America in the world. China's number one customer is America and China doesn't seem to realize this. If you don't keep your relationship good with your number one customer, then you will lose them eventually.

And that's what's happening.

The Chinese have to get better at international relations or they will be more isolated as time goes on.

No one wants to deal with a partner who bullies them around. Especially when there are better deals on the table.

This seems like a good step in the right direction. I think what really needs to change is the legal system. There is way too much protection of corporations via liability.

It's so easy for corporations to completely screw over the public, make a lot of money, then go out of business when they public wises up to it.

There are tons of examples throughout America of this. Mining companies are probably the worst.

The legal system needs to catch up this.

If you are poor, should you really be going to Venice?

A reasonably priced lottery would give middle income people access and an even playing field against wealthy people.

This system, combined with a limit on tourist infrastructure would cut down on excessive visitors and make it sustainable.

For me, Venice is too far gone to change without significant pain to the local economy.

The point of pricing isn't to completely eliminate tourism, it's to lower it.

The goal is to find a price point that cuts down, but doesn't eliminate tourism.

And while it would attract a higher wealth tourist, you can easily adjust the system to a lottery type where you have a certain percent of people who just buy access and others who won a lottery.

They do this out west for river access during the summer. They don't want a whole bunch of people river rafting and destroying the river, so they have a lottery that you have to buy a ticket for. You lose the money if you don't win a license. This creates revenue without increasing the number of tourists. And it also creates a system where people who really want to go there, will buy a ticket without a guarantee of a spot. And,when they do go, they tend to be much better quality tourists since.

I know people who have been buying tickets for almost a decade and haven't gotten a spot.

Something like this is very effective at keeping up revenue and decreasing the number of tourists.

Local people really need to price out a lot of the tourists. You really need to implement a high tax/price, this would cut down on the tourists and allow locals to reap more benefits.

I don't know if it is still like this, but when I was in Cinque Terra in the Italian Riviera, there was a lot that seem to be structured into the place to have tourism, but not let it overwhelm the place.

Building development was strictly controlled, so the hotel/hostel we stayed at was pretty simple and converted apartment building.

There wasn't a ton to do in the towns, like jet skiiing or parasailing, so the appeal of the place didn't feel like a resort place. It really felt like people mainly made wine there with a few converted buildings that tourists stayed at.

For me, the main draw of the place aside from the natural beauty was the lack of things that seem to cater to tourists.

The second night I was there, we ran into a post-wedding party with locals at a bar who outnumbered the tourists probably 25-1.

And that felt normal. Like, we were there seeing how these people lived and just got to enjoy the lifestyle and beauty for a few days.

Contrast this to Venice, which was almost 100% tourism to me. It felt like a museum. Locals seemed almost out of place. While the buildings weren't new, everything in the town seemed to revolv around selling stuff to tourists.

Once again, you have zero suggestions for how to school 99% of the population.

Homeschooling isn't feasible (or preferable) to a majority of the population, so unless you suggest something else, then you are just complaining.

It's like you are bitching about having a military, but you don't suggest another way to protect our country.

Not any reliable data, it's admittedly anecdotal. I have been in education for about 15 years and haven't seen any quality homeschooling. Students would have been much better off going to a decent public school.

And homeschooling isn't feasible for the vast majority of the population, so using homeschooling as solution is ridiculous.