taki1

no, no, no. I'm all about individual rights!

Each person, whatever their sex is, should have the right to work at a place if they are as qualified as other candidates.

If there's a lady who wants to land a job at Child Care Center, and - let's say a Black transgender gay communist - they should have exactly the same chances. But these horrible sexist mothers will allow only other women, preferable white, to take care of their kids! Males stand almost no chances, not to mention race minorities, not to mention sex minorities.

This is a true middle-ages dramatic situation of these gays. And again - I'm talking on the individual level. Even if only one gay out of the population of 20% gay in the US currently wants to have a job at a Child Care Center he should have exactly same chances as a single white straigt woman.

Wouldn't you agree? I hope you are not a xenophobic racist homophob because that what you are if you give preference to some white woman working at a Child Care to Black Transgender Gay (fe)male.

not to mention how hard it is for gays to land a job in early years education. So backwards! The worst are these mothers. Once they see a male working in a Child Care Center there is going to be lawsuit, that's for sure. Gay male employee at Child Care Center? I hope there will be some progress too!

"Economists people" -- is that still English?

how are you so sure about plural too, huh?

Econ -> Econs , no?

and just one question: who the hell are the "econ" people?

They allow them 3-month vacation in India once a year?

The difference is we all need to pay for public sector mistakes. We are all forced to pay for them. Poor, rich, doesn't matter. And the amount of money in public sector is much higher almost by definition.

In private sector, let's face it. Someone owns that business. The owner looses money if they are ineffective. Not all of us. Not all taxpayers. That's part of the reason why private business are better at not loosing too much money. Because this is Owner's money. He/she will make sure not too loose too much. Not to waste it. If he/she doesnt, more cost effective competition will take their place.

You get it backwards.

austenallred 1 day ago | parent

>> If interest rates are at 7% (savings account returns you 7% annually) who will invest in risky start-ups?

> Well, they're not.

Well, in 2000-2006 house prices weren't going down. Wait a sec! In 1800-2006 house prices in the US weren't going down. Sure thing, do nothing but invest in housing in the US in 2006! I love that type of logic.

Interest rates can change very soon. The interest rates will go up. Sooner than many think.

>Interest rates are so extremely low right now that they don't even keep up with inflation.

If you use the same formula to calculate inflation that was used in Reagan times we have had inflation in 5-10% year-to-year basis for the past few years now.

> In several banks and several countries, the interest rate is actually less than zero. Or, in other words, banks charge you to store your money for you.

Real interest rates are in negative territory: i.e. you can borrow at lower rate than the rate of inflation. That's the only logical reason behind investors buying into treasuries or swiss debt with negative return: because investors understand that we currently have real interest rates that are negative vs. cnbc and government propaganda of low inflation. The only reason they invest in these is because they know we live in high inflation times. In times of high inflation (like nowadays) it is extremely hard to find investment that beats inflation, so investors tend to invest in "anything", they just don't want cash. Cash is toxic. Investors are afraid of cash. They want anything but cash. Even taxi start-up with valuation higher than all taxi companies in the world - Uber - is better than Cash. Everything is better than cash in high inflation times. People invest in Uber because cash is worthless. Not because Uber is a good value stock. Are you trying to tell me people invest in $32B "worth" "business" like Uber because there is no inflation? Good joke.

> Given that, is investing in technology really that bad of an idea? You have to put your money somewhere.

"You have to put your money somewhere." you said it brother. Why I have to? If inflation is low as you claim? Why? Because even Uber is less risky than inflated USD. That's why. You have to put your money somewhere -- catch phrase heard often in high inflation times. Really. Not deflation times or even close to deflation. In deflation times you "dont have to put your money somewhere". Because your money gives you nice return without actually doing anything with it. If I can get the same amount of food, gas, housing, healthcare and vacation for the same amount as I did in 2010, why the hell I need to invest in risky taxi drivers start-up with $32B valuation? You don't make any sense brother! Apply some common sense here!

>VCs are mostly funded by large stashes of money - some of it among the oldest and most secure money in the world - called limited partners (LPs).

I'm tired of hearing about "the most secure money in the world". Heard enough of it when working for Capital Group back in 2007/08. They finally shut up when their "assets" (very secure, very) went from $2T to $500B.

> Think endowment funds, that type of thing. Those funds will diversify their investments across multiple aspects of the economy. For simplicity sake, we'll say 50% real estate, 40% stock/bonds, and 10% into VC funds. VCs take a small chunk, and invest the rest in tech companies.

Why? If inflation is so low? What for? Just keep it in the bank. With low inflation there is 0% logic in doing what you propose - investing in real estate, stock, bonds. Not to mention things that are start-ups with $32B valuation in taxi "niche". You'll see - we'll lough from this soon enough. You invest in Uber, because you recognize there is no return on cash (high inflation).

> In that way, some of the most inssttitutionalized money in the world will, yes, be invested in Uber. Really.

Till the day even idiots at Fed who believe in their own cooked inflation numbers open their eyes and see they need to stop the madness. Raises the interest rates. Then the bubble pops. Like it did every time before. Really.

Inflation is at 5-10% if we measure it the same way we have always measured it till Reagan times. Then the Government started cooking books, but if we agree to use the same formula to calculate inflation as the one we used before 1990s, we are at 10% right now my friend. We have been for a few years. So in real terms we have had negative interest rates. By definition this makes investors to put money in anything but cash. When you think about it, this is why investors are so keen to keep money in things like Swiss Government debt that has negative return. Why would you ever do that if real interest rates werent in fact negative?

If interest rates are at 7% (savings account returns you 7% annualy) who will invest in risky start-ups?

If you can just go to a bank branch deposit cash and get back 7% -- are you going to go and invest in Uber instead? Really? Because it has "great valuation" ?

The creditors from UK and Netherlands were really pissed off and still are. So mainstream is rewriting the history now?

Somehow never was true with Iceland. They never repaid and they are just fine. Actually better than fine. I still remember all this fear-mongering coming from mainstream (i.e. the Economist) that the world will come to an end for Iceland if they don't repay. Nothing happened. They are in much better position than Greece. But they said no to EU demands. They said no to IMF demands. They showed big finger to bankers. And that's the lesson for Greece. They should quit Euro (Merkel will never allow because others would follow suit) and debase currency. Do exactly as Iceland did.

Couldn't agree more. Government Bonds (like US Treasuries) can go to zero. Really. Like any other investment. German and French Governments demanding from Greece paying off debt like the bonds are still in 2007 is insane. If bankers took risks bought an asset class without doing their homework and then the asset class goes to zero, our response is to pretend it is not zero and pay off bankers? I'm sorry but I thought capitalism is all about risk and reward. They took their risks, they made mistake, the Market should put them back into their place, so others can learn on it. But none of this counts when you can call up die Frau (Merkel) and extort money.

His post isn't ideological. Yours is.

> But the people who're governing young taxpayers now will no longer be governing those taxpayers when they get older and will suffer from diseases caused by today's policies

That's definitely a problem. Problem with democracy though and not capitalism. The policies are designed to have 4 year lifespan because elections are held every 4 years. Actually, it is quite a big flow when you think about it. Politicians are not only incentivized to look short-term at their policies but also to design them in the way where long term negative effects are desirable if one can be sure that the opposition party will take over after next elections.

That's why Western democracies are watching places like China carefully where you can design long-term policy and still benefit from capitalism. I believe that the main reason behind the US to introduce more and more authoritarian policies (i.e. militarization of police force) is because they see that it works well for China. I mean marrying soft authoritarian form of government (like in China) with capitalism might be superior (economically and socially more effective) compared to having liberal democracy combined with capitalism.

too much regulation. No patents, no approvals, and you don't need 50k+ employees and years to find out a drug doesn't work. Under current system we wouldn't be able to approve aspirin for goodness sake. It just wouldn't go through FDA:

http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/spotlight/spotlight_inda...

Haven't we had enough of high prices and stagnation in pharma already?

this is because of over-regulation. Destroy regulation, i.e. patents, and then then tell me drugs aren't cheap.

no patents, but also no regulation. Now, this is what gave us antibiotics and aspirin. The current over-regulated system can give us only stagnation.

Or even simpler: these are not people from the Government perspective. We are talking about tax payers here. You'd rather have more taxpayers than less, right?

If a Government needs to spend $100k in tax payer money to save somebody's life and this somebody pays back $200k in taxes, this is good business, isn't it?

If it would be such a big problem for Big Pharma they would stop selling drugs in NZ. Just to set an example for other countries if not for anything else.

It is true in American culture. It is not true in European (not sure about Asian) culture. Try putting your shoes on the table in Europe at the same time claiming credit for someone's else work in Paris or Berlin.

The difference is a cultural one. Americans don't complain when they see or experience injustice or poor behavior. Nobody will talk to a jerk like this in Europe.Or actually he will hear something. Like: "Can you take your shoes from the table Mr. Important? You are not at home! BTW, Jane did this work, not you, why are you claiming credit for her work?" I can't imagine someone telling something like this to a jerk in the US. At the same time I can't imagine someone not telling something like this to a jerk in Europe.

Also, never have seen so much politics and self-praise as in the US.

But then again, maybe a strict culture that puts everyone in their respective place, is the reason why we don't get Steve Jobs or Bill Gates success stories.