I live in London. Always looking to meet new people. If you’d like to have a chat about something related or unrelated to something I’ve written, please send me an email at:
I don't agree. They are two separate depictions of what might happen as a result of applying a tax on advertising. They may well coincide with each other, however. Saying that the second is a restatement of the first is like saying two interpretations of Piero Manzoni's "Artist's Shit" are restating the same fact.
No one buying shit anymore. People still buying shit elsewhere. GDP and tax revenues fall relative to others. Deflationary aspects. Market leaders complain through lobbying groups. Repeal. Back to square one.
Vendors now cannot get X pounds with Y pounds advertising outlay to make Z pounds per unit of wares. To continue making Z money per unit of wares, with previous S pounds price charged to consumers per unit, add significantly more than reduction in Y advertising per unit to S to offset reduced "brand" "awareness".
Governments see reduction in tax income and GDP and repeal taxes. In UK: Signal "mansion" tax on properties valued above X price to collect recurring Y pounds total tax. Market adjusts valuations based on probability of tax. Number of houses still worth at least X now diminishes. Now cannot collect recurring Y pounds. "Mansion" tax delayed.
You have this complex system that has reached some sort of relative equilibrium based on say a set S of ten sorts of tax rates, along with a set F of factors (size millions), with the government's tax revenue R being one of those outputs. Then some guy in the government called G signals to the government and public that he can increase R by X by fiddling with a member of S, or maybe adding a member to S (of size say ten).
Is G stupid, or does he just lean towards retaining the public's affection, his relatively low salary, potential under the table payments and whatever networking opportunities his job provides? I lean towards the latter.
Please see the bicycle analogy. Resources available at a given time are finite. If everyone is now churning out software at a higher rate with LLMs, what changes in terms of the value gained?
How much value in present terms was created by n hours of your time before LLMs, and how much value is created now by n hours of your time? If everyone is using LLMs, has that value calculation result changed?
People used to go to work by foot. The best runners would get to work first. Then the bicycle came along. The person who was the best runner before is now still getting to work first on the bicycle.
I think I agree. The question is what happens before then. The S&P 500 went down about 40% following 2000 and 2008. The FTSE 100 showed similar losses.
My questions are: Will we still have jobs if there’s a crash? How can we start researching what the optimal hedge is against such a crash?
Defi does a pretty good job regarding unimpeded access in comparison to the more traditional venues. This isn’t just about getting money into the system, but also what instruments you have access to.
The term ‘perfect information’ is a bit of a mirage, and has been shown to be impossible in physics (uncertainty principle).
What really matters is information advantage: Does your inexact expected value function consistently beat others’ calculations in the market. Here, the true value - value really is just a word and is dependent on people - is irrelevant.
The actor itself can be said to be waiting. When it yields, the thread is then able to run another actor which was waiting on a message, and which then has a message on the queue.
Someone who is betting that the negative yield changes favourably. The bet is the same in positive yield regimes as well. This could happen due to a combination of deflation forecasts increasing and expectations of interest rates being lowered even further.
Domain: icloud.com Prefix: diehard-acronym.8r