Those are all tiny "money/finance" economies and in the case of macau - a gambling economy. None of them are major manufacturing countries or economic powers.
They have 0 imports because they hardly produce anything.
Most of the top 20 wealthiest countries have tariffs.
Also, I don't know why we keep deferring to economists as if they know anything since they are wrong about everything ( even the nobel prize winners ) and economics isn't an empirically testable science. Economics is a religion more than a science. It's ridiculous we treat it as a science.
Remember that we are supposed to have been in a world ending global recession for the past two years according to one of the most "eminent" economists.
>Also, I don't know why we keep deferring to economists as if they know anything since they are wrong about everything ( even the nobel prize winners ) and economics isn't an empirically testable science. Economics is a religion more than a science. It's ridiculous we treat it as a science.
"A friend of mine once said: You know what the problem is with being an economist? Everyone has an opinion about the economy. Nobody goes up to a geologist and says, 'Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit.'"
Of course not. Bullshit petrifies into coprolites, which would then only be found in sedimentary layers. And even then you could only find the appropriate types of coprolites in middle-Pleistocene layers from 2 Mya or later.
Of course, Keynesian geology continuously redefines the speed of time and the mass of the kilogram, such that if you look at a rock that classical geology says is 30g and deposited 10 Mya, the Keynesian might say it is 200g and 30 Megayears old. Then the Chicago geologist, the Marxist geologist, and the Austrian geologist would chime in: "No it isn't!" and have a grand bout of shouting and fisticuffs. Most hard sciences actually like their units of measurement to have constant value, and their data reduction calculations to remain the same.
Like, for instance, defining a US dollar to be the money value of a coin minted from 26.73g of .900 silver, and then never changing it again.
> "A friend of mine once said: You know what the problem is with being an economist? Everyone has an opinion about the economy.
That's the problem with all pseudosciences - politics, social sciences, etc. Everyone has an opinion and they can't provide any empirical tests to get at the truth.
That's the difference between a science like physics and a pseudoscience like economics.
It's why two economists with contradictory views can win a nobel prize at the same time.
> Nobody goes up to a geologist and says, 'Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit.'"
Because a geologist can show you that igneous rocks are not "bullshit". Empirically, physically. They can provide empirical tests to differentiate an igneous rock from bullshit.
I think that the point is that "economist says" should be the beginning of a debate, not the end - it's a data point, but not conclusive evidence in favor of or against whatever's being referenced in most situations
What other inputs into the decision should be included? I'm kind of at a loss as to what other approaches would complement an economic one, even acknowledging the severe limitations of the discipline.
Pretty much every finance site - marketwatch, wsj, cnbc, bloomberg, zerohedge, etc along with the peter schiffs/etc clickbait it.
For some reason, nytimes paywalled clickbait is constantly spammed here.
The inverted yield curve. There are thousands of articles about the inverted yield curve. The death cross. The black swan event. All just voodoo clickbait nonsense.
Also, I love how the nytimes say "wall st is concerned" as if they knew what wall st was thinking and most importantly, they think that wall st is one entity. A lot of players make up wall st.
If any of these people at these news companies knew what wall st was thinking, they wouldn't be working at news companies making pathetic union salaries. They'd worked in finance and retire before they were 25.
Simply put, when the big players want there to be a recession, there will be a recession. Markets are human created and controlled by humans. It isn't a natural entity following the laws of nature.
The invisible hand of the market doesn't mean that the hand controlling the market doesn't exist. It just means that us mere peasants aren't allowed to see it.
> I’m impressed by your post’s combination of cynicism
I'm impressed by your naivety. Where's the cynicism? I've worked on wall street/finance and I've read finance publications for decades. It's not cynicism, it's experience.
> conspiracy-theory-type reasoning
What's the conspiracy?
> compounded by the agency fallacy.
I'd advise you to give Logic 101 another try. Also look up ad hominem while at it.
Your Pavlovially conditioned denigration of quite believable assumption that some entities have huge amount of influence on the economy is even more impressive. Never tired of employing good old "it's a conspiracy theory" conversation stopper, do you?
You have to cut the young ones some slack on this. They're just modeling what they see from "those in the know", and the conventional wisdom narrative has been really heavy on conspiracy-shaming over the last few years. When they're older they'll see that there are other ways to discuss current events.
> Then there is no boxing/unboxing of simple types or literals because they are one-and-the-same, and no there’s no confusion about how to interact with any truly generic type of value.
It's simply performance/space. It's why value types still exist in Java, C#, etc.
> A type hierarchy, patterned similar to Ruby’s as an example, makes the most sense:
The type hierarchy doesn't matter. That's what C# does. It has one unified type system where even int, double, etc all ultimately derived from Object and it still have value types. It's a language/compiler design issue.
> Then there is no boxing/unboxing of simple types or literals because they are one-and-the-same, and no there’s no confusion about how to interact with any truly generic type of value.
In ruby there is no unboxing, but you could argue that all simple types are "lightly boxed" because they are objects by default.
> I have had a hypothesis for awhile that the economy is going to see a lot more post-retirement startups.
I think you are overestimating the economic state of most retirees. Also, startups are risky. Old people do not like risk and venture capital isn't going to throw money at older people nearing the end of their life.
> I floated the idea of trying to start a business with one of her hobbies.
So self-employment rather than a traditional "startup".
> I know several retirees that have done something similar, most go into a consulting role/function helping newer companies since their knowledge and experience is their #1 asset.
So taking jobs from younger people? Don't see how good this is for society in general. You shouldn't be allowed to collect a pension/social security/etc and work. Just my opinion.
I don't believe this article is using the same definition of "startup" that PG promotes. The article is really talking about small businesses. In this context, the OP's hypothesis makes more sense.
But consulting using your work experience of 10, 20 or 30 years is something that can happen and everyone in the economic rung could rise up 1 spot.
Also, your work experience in 1960s/70s isn't so relevant to most anything today. Especially in a technologically driven environment.
Besides most of these "consulting" work are government, union or private company jobs where nepotism or corruption plays a big role.
I know HN userbase skews very old, but old people "consulting" is just in everyone's way. Like I said, if you want to consult, then don't retire and keeping working. So exploit the system by collecting social security/pensions/etc and screwing over a tons of younger people.
Ultimately, the value of a company is what someone is willing to pay for it. So you could argue the value is EV + Premium.
Keep in mind that there is a bazillion ways of valuing a company. People look at growth potential of the company, the growth potential of the company's industry, the competition, external risks, buyout potential, etc. It's part business, part mathemagic and part voodoo.
> What no one is talking about here is how this would be handled, especially for a small online sellers.
Strange huh? Seems like the little guy is being attacked by the elites in every manner possible. Whether it is small online sellers, small time youtubers, independent freelance journalists, small time artists, writers, etc, seems like the rules are being changed to favor corporations and the heavy hitters. Heck, even search and social media results/algorithms are changing to cater to corporations.
Odd that this story hasn't gotten that much traction anywhere either. You'd think something this important would be all over hacker news and social media. I remember Bezos used to be very vocal whenever internet tax issues came up. He's been awfully quiet. Oh that's right, amzn is no longer a small time book and music seller.
“We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%.”
> I'm skeptical that some individual blue-collar worker would risk his financial well-being and possibly freedom to make a few thousand dollars from possibly causing financial harm to Tesla
Few thousand? With insider information, you can use the power of leverage to turn a few thousand into millions within seconds.
A leveraged account + options fun and you could go from thousandaire to a millionaire with a few key strokes.
> What is with the obsession with "shorts"? I've never seen so much over-reaction to short selling in my life.
> This is what happens when those in control don't understand, know or care about the things they regulate.
It's very naive to think that highly intelligent people don't know or care about what they regulate. I think it is the exact opposite. They care and understand deeply.
> Pay to send companies actual traffic? Pay to be allowed to use the basic building-block of the world wide web on the world wide web?
Amazing isn't it.
> Just how is it possible to be so out of touch with how things work, and still be allowed to pass regulation?
Think about who this benefits. You are just viewing it from one side. Who stands to benefit from all this?
> It's very naive to think that highly intelligent people don't know or care about what they regulate.
These may be highly intelligent people, but what they are highly skilled at is the art of obtaining and keeping political office. That does not necessarily say anything about their knowledge of the industries they regulate, or their ability to write regulations that are free from disastrous side effects.
> Think about who this benefits. You are just viewing it from one side. Who stands to benefit from all this?
Maybe you could actually say something, instead of just hinting?
> These may be highly intelligent people, but what they are highly skilled at is the art of obtaining and keeping political office.
Agreed. That's my point.
> That does not necessarily say anything about their knowledge of the industries they regulate, or their ability to write regulations that are free from disastrous side effects.
They had teams of people helping them understand. Do you think these experts who work for the politicians and/or the industry don't know what the side effects are? Just because the effects would be "disastrous" for you and me doesn't mean it will be disastrous for the politicians or the people who they work for.
> Maybe you could actually say something, instead of just hinting?
I thought it was obvious. And I was trying to get you to actually think.
Do you think these guys just decided one day to make changes to the rules of the internet for fun? Why do you think they are making these changes? If you can figure it out, then let me know.
"Lists" is in the footer, together with a bunch of other important links like the site guidelines. Why they're not in the header as well, I have no idea.
They have 0 imports because they hardly produce anything.
Most of the top 20 wealthiest countries have tariffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_GDP_...
Also, I don't know why we keep deferring to economists as if they know anything since they are wrong about everything ( even the nobel prize winners ) and economics isn't an empirically testable science. Economics is a religion more than a science. It's ridiculous we treat it as a science.
Remember that we are supposed to have been in a world ending global recession for the past two years according to one of the most "eminent" economists.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/elec...