This is the Nuremburg defence. Afaik, it does not hold in modern court (in fact, there was a law to this effect as far back as Babylonia).
So if you work at Facebook, and you do something illegal you are personally liable. And personally: I completely agree.
It suggests a total lack of morals if you do something bad because someone gave you $100k or whatever. The above principle holds even in the army where you could reasonably be executed for failing to obey orders...that should put the "dilemma" facing Facebook engineers into perspective.
The hedgehog and fox. Specialist knowledge is definitely valuable but it isn't everything. And as the OP says: it depends on what domain.
If we are talking about decision-making/leadership: that is the last place you want a specialist imo. Tech is particularly vulnerable to this problem where the culture is often to promote the person who is most able at everything that isn't related to running a business.
More broadly, I think Plato's idea of the "philosopher king" is wrong. The issue is that specialists rarely, if ever in my experience, understand nuance or the limitations of what they know. Again, the last place you want this kind of person is politics.
Unfortunately, there is a real lack of clear thinking about this. I will happily invest in a business that is making losses if the marginal ROI is strong.
The market often gets these situations totally wrong. I hope this will continue but: businesses that are deploying a lot of capital even at very high rates can and often are loss-making. You can't just look at accounting profit, that tells you nothing.
With Uber, there are two issues. First, they invested very heavily internationally (they are basically an EM stock). Second, they don't provide anywhere near enough financial info.
But Lyft gets closer and their marginal ROI is clearly positive. Their fixed costs are garbage, Uber are taking unbelievable risks (reckless, imo) on EMs but the business model is definitely valid (I would say Lyft actually starts to look cheap in the $40-45 range).
There was a BBC story on this recently - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47952076 - I believe NHS policy, for what it is worth, is to use as a last resort as the side effects can be severe.
Market timing isn't impossible. Salesman (and the academics hired by them) seem to have a powerful influence over the herd but timing is fairly straightforward...valuation and momentum. That is it.
In addition, there are factors that predict future financial stress fairly well. Yield curve inversion is one, there are other more powerful ones.
In my experience, retail investors get angry because there isn't someone telling them exactly what to do and when. It isn't that easy. Over the long-term, the market is extremely non-random. But over shorter periods, it is very unpredictable. Most people are unable to cope with that psychologically, and that is why the market continues to be so predictable (if you didn't have people thinking they just need to buy-and-hold, or whatever the idea de jour is, you wouldn't have anyone to sell to at the top and buy from at the bottom).
Okay, that isn't the point...but that is what you said: "why should the family whose main claim to fame is aggressive use of force"...how else is this supposed to be interpreted? Because of someone's ancestors, this group shouldn't own property. If you want to make a different point, then make it.
And it isn't random. You can acquire this property if you want. But be aware, you seem to be expecting to acquire the "entire society's wealth"...most of this land isn't that valuable and that land that is requires work (which is why it is valuable).
Again, I don't understand what your point is here beyond anger that someone else has something you want?
EDIT: Are you actually familiar with the population distribution and density in Scotland? A good chunk of this land is just agriculture and rough grass that has few economic uses. This isn't land that anyone wants to live on. The main concern of the govt, as I understand it, is to encourage forestry (which will mean more large owners, not less).
Ignoring the fact that a lot of the land has changed hands since then (the issue is concentration not identity of owners...a dangerous conflation): are you saying that a morality test should be applied to the family tree of all property purchasers?
I am sure this is attractive to you because you are a member of the "virtuous class" no doubt, but have you checked your family tree? How far back? What genetic crimes prohibit property ownership? Class traitor? Rightist? Capitalist Roader? Perhaps religion?
And why do these people still own land? Presumably you aren't personally being pressed into involuntary labour, so why do you as someone who is doing "all the work" still have nothing? These inbred landowners are presumably so feckless they would take anything (certainly, lots of these estates go for sale every year).
Yes, I have heard of the Clearances. My point wasn't: "I haven't heard of this". My point was that the framing was bizarre (again, do you understand what university is for? It sounds like you don't) and the implication was that there is one "truth" that which must be indoctrinated...the fact that you don't seen to comprehend this reinforces all of these points.
Nope. I would suggest looking on Wikipedia if you want to know more (you don't even seem to know when the Civil War happened) but briefly: Cromwell invaded and imposed rule from England, when he was deposed Scotland was (nominally) independent again AND THEN the Act of Union happened. Weak.
There is nothing preventing "ordinary folk" (again, this suggests an inferiority complex) owning land. Anders Povlsen has acquired masses of it, the English have acquired lots of it, CoE has acquired masses of it...go to an land agent and they will tell you where and how you can buy.
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you as a baddie. Whine whine. Bigotry is only evil if someone else says it. Lol.
EDIT: You have edited in "this is snark"...it isn't "snark", it was a statement of fact (to be clear, the post I was replying to said that there was no perception about unfairness...that is demonstrably false, if I take your house that may seem fair to me but unfair to you...this should be obvious). If you are going to disagree, do it on content.
And sorry but when someone says: "Scotland's second biggest problem is England", I don't think that wins them the moral high ground. Replace that with a race/gender/religion. Kind of shocking that you think this isn't bigotry.
"and is not welcome here"...put down your pitchfork, stop gatekeeping, communities thrive on the ability to take criticism from outsiders (apparently, I am the evil outsider), they fold under spineless leadership that tries to drive out inconvenient thoughts.
If you are a tenant farmer, you aren't being "oppressed" by not someone not selling you land. If you offer me £20 for my house, are you being "oppressed" if I don't sell it to you?
The Church of England, Anders Povlsen, and others have all acquired huge amounts of land recently (that is why there is so much complaining about landowners from England who only come up to shoot). There is tons of forestry to bid on, and if you offer the right price then you will find willing sellers...if you offer the right price.
It is amazing that you aren't able to distinguish between your opinion and reality. Unfairness is perception.
And I am going to have to trouble you for proof of detriment. All you have said is that you don't like inequality, you have failed to demonstrate why a rational person should agree with you.
You also, ironically, don't seem to understand what the Civil War was in England or that the Civil War had quite a large effect on Scotland or that the result of the Civil War for Scotland was imposition of govt from England.
And my politics postgrad most certainly did not "include" the clearings (I am not even sure what this means...did you go to university?). The purpose of university isn't to indoctrinate and teach whatever version of truth is favoured. Perhaps this is linked to your misconceptions about the Civil War.
Finally, the issue here isn't about the "class system". There has been turnover in the ownership of estates and, last I checked, someone who is poor in Scotland can become rich (although you will probably have to move away as you will find a lot of people hanging to your ankles if you stay). The issue relates to the use of land...but I will concede, however, that class is the main issue for most Scots, they just feel the need to justify their hate in logical terms rather than see it for what it is.
Btw, saying that Scotland's biggest problem is England is an utter embarrassment (I say this as an SNP member/voter). It not only reeks of bigotry but is a self-destructive pattern of thought. Scotland's decline is a function of the nation and it's people. These "stab in the back" myths only help the weak-minded find (empty) solace in their failure.
...yep, and the fact that the population of Scotland is tiny and over 50% of that population live in the Central belt.
Afaik, the only solid evidence against is an apparent lack of "participation" from local communities on land use. Unfortunately, this is an issue that applies as much to council as private landowners in Scotland and also tends to elicit opinions on what "should" be the case, rather than what is actually possible (i.e. people who live in the middle of nowhere complaining about the lack of economic development, complaining that the landowner isn't selling them a house at a cheap enough price, complaining that the landowner only comes up from England to shoot, etc.)
There has been an abundance of loose reasoning on that is justified only by the perception that of unfairness (and, unf, a bit of light bigotry about the English). One of the sources for the rather brief Land Commission report was some political theory on power and participation (https://landcommission.gov.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/R... - Section 5 - I studied Politics postgrad btw, theory shouldn't be used this way...it is basic). Madness.
The reality is the opposite. In the long-term, you are screwed with this voting structure. This structure exists because right here and now, Zuckerberg looks like a good choice. Over the long-term, bad things happen. Human nature is what it is, and the company will be unable to respond (just based on what he has already done, he looks like a below-average manager).
Also, most institutions aren't particularly short-term in their outlook (if you are an institution buying a stock that has a valuation like FB...you have to be taking the very long view). Where the short-term "meme" comes from is analysts (whose bark significantly outweighs their bite) and the pressure that failing companies get to preserve shareholder value (and the real-world evidence here is that managers win close to 100% of the time and take shareholder's money down with them).
In my experience, I have seen countless companies decimated by unaccountable managers (no super-voting shares to my recollection, just weak oversight). I am not aware of any public company harmed by short-term thinking. The only possible exceptions are private equity (but for different reasons, still terrible) and acquisitions...but in the latter case, this happens for a ton of other reasons too. In most cases, there is no pressure.
Tbh, I don't even understand the logic...you can invest heavily, and that isn't showing up on your income statement immediately. It is true that most investors don't understand the difference between ROI and marginal ROI (these situations probably represent a good chunk of my lifetime returns) but companies feel limited in what they can disclose (and I have had conversations with non-US companies to that effect) and, in the end, the market always works it out.
Rather than invest $10k in Uber, I went to the bank, got out $10k in singles, and burnt them in a garbage can in my back yard.
...this must be what disruption feels like.
EDIT: Okay, I have an ulterior motive. I work for CashBurn, we are super disrupting the venture capital space. We use machine learning, AI, and the cloud(TM) to build a drone that will fly to your house, break in, hoover up your cash, and set fire to it. Super.
By 2022, we are super optimistic that we will have aggressively disrupted the entire venture capital industry. No more wasteful spending on lawyers and investment managers...we cut out the middle man and burn your cash for you.
She pissed off most of the staff. She introduced a weird iteration of "fire the bottom performers every year". She bailed out Dan Loeb (who had hired her but changed his mind after she refused to do almost anything she promised). She didn't get a particularly good price in the eventual sale. She got paid hundreds of millions for nothing (her pay alone was ~5% of the eventual sale price...one person). Terrible acquisitions. Terrible hires. She also appears to have rubbed almost everyone she met up the wrong way (I know people who met her and got a bad impression, imo she came across very poorly to investors and was preoccupied with perception/spin...I believe she gave an interview a few years ago in which she even blamed Carl Ichan...truly odd).
Most people are, I think, quite forgiving when it comes to failing in these situations. The issue often is that some people, most in my experience, have no idea how to behave when things go wrong (and, given enough time, something will always go wrong).
Just to note first about the other answers: the EU Parliament is really not very important. Most decisions are made within the Council, which as said elsewhere, votes based on population weight. The Parliament does seem to exercise real power over the Commission but beyond that...not much.
Germany is influential because they have a large population i.e. high vote weight in the Council AND they lead a bloc of other nations with similar values (Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, etc.).
It is worth noting though: the UK leaving the EU will likely change this (they usually voted with Germany and had a 13% weight of the EU population). Germany will likely retain some moral leadership but, at the very least, a blocking minority vote (35% of population and 4 members) is possible (the most likely scenario is a France/Italy combination with two other minor members).
...why do I care about push notifications? By "customers love that feature" you mean, you like that feature. Most people aren't interested in having an app at all but the ones that are just want to be able to look at their balance, make payments, and cash cheques.
If I want to see if I have made a payment, I just open the app...which takes 10 seconds instead of a 5 second push notification.
Most UK banks offer apps, Monzo is not doing anything particularly new. Their success has been in convincing investors that the competition is "ossified" whilst dropping tons of their money and failing to actually gather deposits.
You can buy £400bn of deposits with Lloyds for £40bn (and get paid 5%/year for the pleasure). Or you can pay £1bn for a loss-making company with £100m in deposits...it is pretty simple.
Cool, you wrote a paper in law school. I wrote two dissertations at UG and PG level.
Monetary policy is essential, none of the things you mention are more important. Why? Because the boom can't occur without monetary policy (this is usually not obvious to people who have only looked at US financial history where capital markets are developed).
Lots of reasons are given ex-post to rationalise these movements i.e. changing technology "caused" the Canal boom...but technology is always changing. And human nature is certainly interesting...but it is an invariant (just like technological change). The enabling factor is always money. Btw, this isn't to say that, for example, regulation wasn't a factor in 2008...it was but the thing is that regulation is always a problem because when money gets loose then regulations follow.
Examples of booms without bubbles: post-WW2 in the US, financial conditions were stable in the few decades (not strictly true but for our purposes) because the the main concern of monetary policy was government finance. Another example: Japan 1960s-1992, MOF had total control over lending so no bubble (only popped when they lost it).
In these cases, you need to really understand how money is being created and intermediated. If you understand this then you understand why bubbles do and do not occur. If you look at unimportant things like technology, you only have reasons why bubbles do occur (this is the kind of terrible history that you presumably learn at law school).
You also picked one of the absolute worst examples to demonstrate your point. The Greenspan Put was vital, "irrational exuberance" and the contrast between that approach and that of a McChesney Martin (for example) is important. Even just the change in policy under Greenspan...really bad example. I tried but was unable to think of an actual example...
No-one cares about Bitcoin. We are talking about financial history, not Beanie Babies.
Yeah buddy, that isn't right. That is comprehensive income (most of the financial websites just report the simple line items, which are usually right but very wrong when they are misleading).
As said though, I have no idea if I am looking at the right company (you sometimes find that there is a holding company or a stock with a similar name or something). Pretty sure it is the same Meituan...but maybe not (and if it is, I still don't understand the losses they booked to equity).
So if you work at Facebook, and you do something illegal you are personally liable. And personally: I completely agree.
It suggests a total lack of morals if you do something bad because someone gave you $100k or whatever. The above principle holds even in the army where you could reasonably be executed for failing to obey orders...that should put the "dilemma" facing Facebook engineers into perspective.