VCs are just cogs in the wheels taking us from an "Ownership Society" to a "Sharecropper's Society," as Buffett once put it. Private Equity buying up housing, is just the latest worrying trend in a troubling trajectory with excessive debt, centralization of power, concentration of wealth, etc.
Readit Newstoomuchcredit commented on VCs are financing an economy of servants sifted.eu/articles/servan... · Posted by u/sarathyweb
toomuchcredit commented on Building the Middle Class of the Creator Economy li.substack.com/p/buildin... · Posted by u/elsewhen
I have long felt this way about movies, books, and music. I don’t have data to back it up, but it feels like there was a lot more quality, middle-budget content in the arts a few decades ago, vs. recent years in which everything seems to be a blockbuster or a flop. People dream of striking it rich, not of making a respectable living. It’s like startup culture has infiltrated nearly everything; if it’s not going to make you a billionaire, it’s not worth spending time on.
Some recent exceptions that make me feel hope for the middle class of the arts: Etsy, Netflix & Hulu, the world of podcasting. In all three of these places you can see people trying out ideas and making a living. It’s true that the businesses themselves – Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Amazon, etc. – are decidedly not middle class, the content creators on their platforms seem to be. (I can’t think of equivalents in books or music... SoundCloud? I got nothing for books.)
This may go beyond the arts, as it appears everyone wants to strike it rich and quick. I did not get the same sense when I started my working career 30 years ago. Most of us just wanted to do some interesting work. Now, getting rich seems to dominate thinking.
You hear different views of the cause of this, but may see increasing inequality as a cause. I'm convinced extreme financialization from money debasement is the primary undiagnosed issue.
> That it hollows out the sanctity of this intimate and symbolic act.
See that's the problem. We as a society need to stop putting sex on a pedestal. It's just sex. Pleasure is pleasure, why would anyone not want to be pleasured?
And why is pleasure something that has to be earned? It is very simple to give and receive pleasure, why complicate that?
Perhaps because many communities deeply believe sex is more than just for pleasure?
It's almost like there should probably be some oversight on one of the most powerful entities on the planet to stop these anti-competitive practices.
Regulating them to a pure marketplace is the best outcome we an hope for, i.e. require them to divest any product they sell in the marketplace. India took some steps in that direction last year. Why not in the US?
Good to see the gut-brain connection getting much needed attention, and some preliminary results. We could see some interesting natural therapies for mental health issues, and even mood regulation for anyone needing it.
Given the complexity of the microbiome and individual variance, it is not going to come easy or anytime soon.
toomuchcredit commented on Amazon and the Unwisdom of the Populist Crowd truthonthemarket.com/2018... · Posted by u/raleighm
Seems like an effort to dismiss the new antitrust movement's goal of helping people realize the problem presented by these enormous companies is a political problem that needs to be analyzed across the many ways society is affected.
The author doesn't make a very spirited defense of his main point, because he distorts the neo-Brandeisian analysis of the effects of Amazon on business and employment into a question of whether the means Amazon used to achieve those effects are legal.
Modern Anti-trust is looking to see whether new standards should be applied to anti-competitive behavior, based on how the most powerful companies are affecting society. They're not trying to litigate whether our current megacorporations broke any rules to get where they are.
But even conceding that point, let's return to the introductory paragraph, What does it mean for a company to be Too Big? There are obvious answers, like how a company that is "too big to fail" holds the government and citizens as collateral when it gambles.
But what about something that applies to the tech monopolies more directly? Too Big to Manage. It's an absentee landlord type situation. Facebook allowing people to sell oxycontin and meddle with the US election comes to mind, but what about:
1) Good faith usage of Amazon can get you put on restricted traveler lists. https://lifehacker.com/your-amazon-order-might-lock-you-out-...
2) Amazon facilitates the sale of counterfeit goods, including pet food. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16448001
3) It seems to be facilitating money laundering. http://fortune.com/2018/02/22/money-laundering-books-amazon/
4) And we've all seen the rest of the articles, about illegal drugs on amazon, about fake review scams, and more
Those are the points the author should address to counter anti-trust's uneasiness about amazon
Yes, it is about antitrust and monopolies. Many of us want competitive free markets. We need policies to fight the natural monopolies of the recent past, with a recognition that network effects and financial concentration have made monopolies and oligopolies much more dangerous.
Alas, the government has largely been captured by these financial interests. And the consumer is giving up freedom of choice for convenience, and not paying attention to this seemingly abstract problem. Thus the outlook for fighting these interests is gloomy.
toomuchcredit commented on Bill Gates buys land in Arizona to build 'smart city' kgw.com/news/bill-gates-b... · Posted by u/alehul
Would be great if he decides to forgo the capital appreciation, with a lease only policy. If this is successful, speculation in property is the disease we'd like to avoid.
Otherwise we'd get another property bubble and inflated costs soon enough.