I do not know how I feel about removing the mandatory mask policy. It is only going to fuck things up. Its one thing to open up an economy, and another to fuck up the same economy you're trying to bring revive. Given everything Texas has been through the past few weeks, that still does not make up for removing the mask mandate. It is just a dumb public-pleasing statement to me in response to how badly Texas handled the whole storm situation. Its like: "Oh the citizens of Texas suffered alot this storm? Let me remove the mask mandate for my beloved public."
But you know, good for US trying to open up their economy in some of the States, at the very least.
You've nailed the political considerations of this. The governor is in hot water due to how badly they've botched their energy infrastructure by deregulating it, the AG is under criminal investigation for birbery, the top brass in the state needed to give "the people" something they wanted despite also being one of the states hardest hit by the coronavirus. This is just political pandering that's further going to hurt residents more, the same way all those idiots opted into their energy problems and multi-thousand dollar monthly power bills by signing up for variable rate pricing and then pulled the surprise pikachu face when it all hit the fan. |
|
|
|
Yeah, since gambling is a net loss statistically, you wouldn't include that in a break even calculation. LOL only losers say that  But I don't understand why you are promoting a gambling site and posting in the gambling section if you think this way?  If you were a regular gambler you would know that in addition of your winnings you're increasing your free claim rate until 80sats by claim, and earning RP points and lottery tickets when you gamble on freebitcoin. And now, above that you'll earn a cashback on all your gambles in less than 10 days now.  Another thing to consider, since this is going to add costs to the operating expenses of the site, this program has to significantly boost gambling income for this program to remain unchanged because it generates a profit for the site, which is another risk factor you have to consider.
That's exactly the opposite of what you tried to prove above. You asserted above that will be a net loss for "investors" and players and now you're stating it will represent a loss for the house, sorry but that doesn't make sense...  I'll re-state it since you're having trouble comprehending. The site is adding operating costs by giving away perks related to FUN that it wasn't doing before. There are perks people earn for holding FUN, regardless of if they're gambling. The only way that makes sense is if FUN is going to bring in more gambling revenue than the costs of people who earn the perks without gambling. I mean, it's a simple concept. Not sure why you're struggling with it. |
|
|
|
Senate democrats in the United States congress pass one of the biggest spending bills in history. 1.9 trillion dollars...USD is not a stable currency anymore. When you have politicians that believe they can print money on a machine for political victories, you have destabilized the currency in a way that will cause extreme inflation.
So there really isn't a test for Bitcoin. The long term goal for any BTC user/investor has always been -- let the largest currencies in the world collapse due to irresponsible spending and let BTC take the throne because of its decentralization. Unfortunately for Americans, this process will be expedited thanks to this spending bill.
Nonsense. The USD is stable despite all the QE. Bitcoin maximalists have been preaching uncontrollable inflation for 10 years now and it hasn't happened. That's a long track record of being wrong. And like it or not, USD is far more stable than bitcoin. You know which one doesn't fluctuate 10% in a day regularly? USD. You know which one you can predict with certainty the value of tomorrow, next week, next month and next year? USD. You can't accurately predict what the price of bitcoin will be on any given day and the uncertainty only gets worse the farther out you go. That's the definition of an unstable currency. |
|
|
|
I highly doubt that the richest people all over the world are preparing diligently for economic crashes since they won't be affected that much if it ever happens. And come to think of it, these rich people may not really care about this industry and are just here for something new and fun which is why they invest. I won't be surprised if manipulation on market prices ever occurred in the future because if the rich people want it, then they can take it or make it happen. I guess they wanna have fun and all by testing new waters. (nothing but a conspiracy theory of mine)
Don't take this guy's threads seriously. Every single thread this guy starts is just made up nonsense. He never posts any sources or anything to back up the claims, just posts things without the slightest regard for reality. It's crazy that people give them any attention at all. |
|
|
|
The countries which are seeing btc and other crypto as their enemies and try to put ban on them instead of regulating them they are just pushing themselves back in time and will not be able to compete with other nations.Nigeria which is at 27th position in world ecomomy at present is moving to a path where it is digging hole for itself.  The debts are growing day by day of Nigeria and economic growth is slow and will crypto bans have positive impact on the economy or rather than regulating cryptocurrencies and collecting tax revenue from the users will boost the revenue treasuries of government. Here is list for number of crypto users in Nigeria :  So what's the benefit of such acts by Nigerian government I don't understand it. Nigeria gets 120k transfers in its best month and that makes them a crypto powerhouse? That's like 4k transfers a day in a country of 200 million people. Setting the bar pretty low on what constitutes a "power house." With such limited usage, there's now way it is having any transformation effect. This graph is pure, unsubstantiated hype. |
|
|
|
Great docu, one will certainly learn a lot about economics. Peter Schiff keeps saying US is running the biggest Ponzi of all.
Fiat is not backed by gold and now the fiat system is about to collapse. The only way to solve this crash is to get back to the gold standard where the money is backed by gold but then they are also not talking about this solution because they are also suppressing the price of gold. Where else do we go from here but Bitcoin.
Peter Schiff has been selling the same thing for as long as I've known who he was, and apparently never gets tired of being wrong. The dollar has "been on the verge of collapse" forever, his repeated failures predicting bitcoin would never hit X dollars or to get out before it collapses... his very public failures are not small in number. I don't know why anyone pays attention to him honestly. |
|
|
|
Tesla made a bigger profit buying bitcoin than the profit made from their entire operation. Hilarious! Reminds me of space x venturing into the satellite internet business (starlink) when they realized satellite ISPs have bigger profit margins than space x itself did. Tesla's stock decline is because the company was insanely overvalued to the point of absurdity. It's valued like it's going to be the only company that ever produces electric vehicles. Once you dispel that notion as obviously wrong, it's easy to see how overvalued the company is. Aside from valuation, all tech stocks are getting hammered as treasury yields rise right now. That's not specific to Tesla, it's pretty much across the board. I wouldn't say that Tesla buying bitcoin is why it's down, but the sideshow it creates isn't doing the company any favors.
I think tesla's stock value surged after their recent presentation unveiling new technology scheduled to be rolled out in 2022. They plan to license their new EV technology to global automakers in addition to utilizing it in house. They may also have a tesla EV they plan to market at $20k to $30k in 2022. Which could represent the price range many would like to buy a tesla but previously couldn't afford it. There is also the tesla cybertruck which is due out in 2022. One thing you gotta keep in mind about Tesla is Elon's loooong history of over promising and under delivering on those promises. Promising Tesla would never need to raise capital again, then doing secondary issues; missing production targets regularly; battery day letdowns; "shatterproof" cyber truck windows, etc. And on the cybertruck, Ill be shocked if that thing actually sells well. It's ugly as sin and I don't see that many people into the aesthetics of that truck. It was buzz worthy because of how weird it looked, not convinced that will translate into robust sales. |
|
|
|
While the pandemic being over and brick & mortar stores opening up again would definitely be a huge net positive for the markets in general, it's not like going back to normal would undo all the quantitative easing that has occurred.
While going back to normal would definitely affect most US stocks positively, not really sure about bitcoin because some people might fomo back into stocks. Just a rough guess. I ain't selling though, as per usual.
Bitcoin largely just traces what tech stocks do these days and in the same proportion for the most part. March 2020, the market got hammered and bitcoin along with it. Since all the QE since then, bitcoin is up about 5x, the same as the volatile tech stocks that are mostly in the 4-5x range. It hasn't differentiated itself and acted as a "safe haven" any more than tech stocks have, which are definitely not a safe haven. |
|
|
|
I’m not an anti-vaxxer, but does COVID-19 truly need a vaccine? I believe the rate of surviving the virus is more than 95%. I believe developing more effective therapeutic medicines for the illness would be more welcome than the vaccines.
Yes, vaccines are necessary. The danger that is the longer it circulates in the population, the more risk there is that it mutates and becomes more deadly. Therapeutic medicines aren't protection from a virus, this requires real science and effective vaccines. We've already lost far more people than was necessary because people haven't taken it seriously. |
|
|
|
Here's how I calculated initially, which is very rough back of the envelope math, and when the price was about 100 sats/FUN: I looked at WOF spins primarily, as that's what I see as the biggest perk of the program. The extra interest doesn't amount to much by comparison. Here's what I calculated:
At 5000 Fun tokens, the cost is currently 500k sats. After a month you get 3 extra WOF spins and it scales up to 6 daily WOF spins after a year. For the sake of simplicity, I'm just going to calculate 6 extra WOF spins from the start. WOF spins are generally worth 50 sats. Either you get 50 sats or 50 rp which given enough time you can convert to 50 sats if you make it to 100k rp. Sometimes you get more sats on a spin, but sometimes you get lottery tickets too which in all likelihood translate to 0. So expecting 50 sats per spin is reasonable and I would say necessary when you're calculating time to recover investment.
At 6 extra spins a day, you're looking at 300 sats as the extra perk. On a 500k sat investment cost, that's 1667 days, or 4.56 years. And that's only if FUN holds the value you bought it at. Taken that as a given, it's not a compelling investment given the risks. I think you can get more perks at much higher investment costs, but honestly, that's even more risky in my view, so I calculated on what seemed like a reasonable test tier.
Now the price has fallen and the time to recoup investment has fallen with it, so it's gotten more attractive. But I haven't accounted for lost interest income necessary for converting to FUN, and I'm also not assuming any gains on FUN holdings (which is folly to take as a given). I'll continue to watch the price of FUN and if it continues to fall, I'll be more interested, but you're still at a 2.7 year recovery period (VERY ROUGHLY) for a 5k FUN tier investment, and that's an awfully long time to break even and take on the unknown risks of holding a low-utility alt. Your calculations only apply to a pure claimer but not to a regular player. You didn't include the rakeback in your calculations, neither the amount of additional earning interests you can get. Yeah, since gambling is a net loss statistically, you wouldn't include that in a break even calculation. If you're a regular gambler on the site, you are likely to have more tangible benefits under the program compared to where you would be without it. However, since the marketing around FUN are geared towards an "investment" I calculated breakeven for investors. And the amount of extra earned interest is pretty small compared to the opportunity cost of buying FUN up front. If you max out the FUN tier, you get an extra 25% of the interest rate after 1 year, so instead of earning 4.08% you're getting 5.10%. The extra 1.02% is the interest benefit, again after 1 year. It currently costs .325 btc to get that bonus (at the current 65 sats/FUN), and there's 1 month lag time before you start accruing any benefits, so it takes 13 months total before you'll be getting an extra 1.02% on your onsite balance. In the meantime, you've given up 13 months of daily compounded interest on the .325 btc which comes out to (roughly) .01326 btc (might actually be more, I did a simple 4.08% calc, but can't remember if that already factors in the daily compounding or not). You have to have a significant amount of additional btc onsite earning interest in order for the extra interest to pay back the lost interest income from holding FUN, in fact more than 1.3 btc for you to eventually earn back the interest you've lost with extra interest. Examples of interest lost and gained at 2 and 3 btc onsite: Years Int. Lost Interest Gained on 2 btc Interest Gained on 3 btc 1.083 .0143 (Some) (Some) 2.083 .0276 .0221 + some .0331 + some 3.083 .0409 .0424 + some .0637 + some 4.083 .0541 .0629 + some .0943 + some You earn some extra interest in the first year, but I don't feel like doing the calculations with the scaling rates because I'm trying to keep this simple and just ballpark it. Safe to say that at 2 btc onsite earning interest, the interest pays itself back sometime between year 2 and 3. At 3 btc onsite, you earn it back before the second year is complete. I don't keep nearly that much on the site... not your keys, not your coins and all that, but if you've got significant btc onsite (more than a couple btc), you'll get a lot more benefit out of this program, assuming it's not changed. (Remember, holding 2 btc onsite is about $100k at this point. That's a good chunk to have somewhere with no safety net. Stocks and bank accounts are federally guaranteed at that amount if the operator fails.) Another thing to consider, since this is going to add costs to the operating expenses of the site, this program has to significantly boost gambling income for this program to remain unchanged because it generates a profit for the site, which is another risk factor you have to consider. Even with a good reputation, I'm not likely to put a significant amount of btc in some else's hands and trust it to be safe, but I'm probably far more cautious than a lot of people here, so take that for what it's worth. |
|
|
|
How would you define what is to be "rich"? Is it about having enough for living or is there something else that you would be looking to accomplish to be rich?
Is it 1 million USD? Is it 1000 bitcoin? what are your thoughts?
Rich is relative as it requires a comparison to determine. If everyone has a million dollars, no one is rich. Rich means you have significantly more money than average or the people you're comparing yourself to. For example, Barrack Obama is a rich man in America but put him in a room with Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffet and he is not rich. |
|
|
|
And I've done the calculations on FUN and took a pass on it because I didn't deem it a worthwhile investment, based solely on the math. Everyone has to make their own determination about that though.
How did you calculate it ? I decided to jump on it and bought 2500 FUN tokens awhile ago to obtain the premium membership. I think they will keep adding advantages and that in the long end (maybe a couple of years), it will be beneficial. Besides that, as they have now acquired the FUN tokens, the price of these tokens will probably increase also. This token may have been dead for a couple of years, but it clearly shows that freebitco.in has a plan with these tokens and will actively further develop and improve this. Here's how I calculated initially, which is very rough back of the envelope math, and when the price was about 100 sats/FUN: I looked at WOF spins primarily, as that's what I see as the biggest perk of the program. The extra interest doesn't amount to much by comparison. Here's what I calculated:
At 5000 Fun tokens, the cost is currently 500k sats. After a month you get 3 extra WOF spins and it scales up to 6 daily WOF spins after a year. For the sake of simplicity, I'm just going to calculate 6 extra WOF spins from the start. WOF spins are generally worth 50 sats. Either you get 50 sats or 50 rp which given enough time you can convert to 50 sats if you make it to 100k rp. Sometimes you get more sats on a spin, but sometimes you get lottery tickets too which in all likelihood translate to 0. So expecting 50 sats per spin is reasonable and I would say necessary when you're calculating time to recover investment.
At 6 extra spins a day, you're looking at 300 sats as the extra perk. On a 500k sat investment cost, that's 1667 days, or 4.56 years. And that's only if FUN holds the value you bought it at. Taken that as a given, it's not a compelling investment given the risks. I think you can get more perks at much higher investment costs, but honestly, that's even more risky in my view, so I calculated on what seemed like a reasonable test tier.
Now the price has fallen and the time to recoup investment has fallen with it, so it's gotten more attractive. But I haven't accounted for lost interest income necessary for converting to FUN, and I'm also not assuming any gains on FUN holdings (which is folly to take as a given). I'll continue to watch the price of FUN and if it continues to fall, I'll be more interested, but you're still at a 2.7 year recovery period (VERY ROUGHLY) for a 5k FUN tier investment, and that's an awfully long time to break even and take on the unknown risks of holding a low-utility alt.
Having trading volume doesn't mean it has utility, it just means people are speculating in it. So that doesn't mean it's not a shitcoin. Also, having a whitepaper doesn't mean it's not a shitcoin either. Since it's a vague term without a universal definition, you'll probably get variations from person to person, but I would consider a coin with no utility or no problem to solve to be a shitcoin. I.e., it doesn't need to exist, or someone just created it to enrich themselves. That's 99% of all coins on coinmarket cap. There are only a handful that wouldn't fit this definition, and I'm not exactly sure FUN is one of them. Does it need to exist? No, not really. It's not currently doing anything bitcoin doesn't already do. Faster and cheaper aren't exactly breakthroughs anymore when there are other tons of other coins that do this too. Guess we'll see if FB can grow it into anything more than what it currently is.
I'm not sure yet how advantageous FUN investment could be, but it's not like 99% of altcoins in the market, because it actually offers some exclusive benefits to holders, such as free wheel daily spins and increasement in bitcoin interest income for FreeBitco.in's investors, depending on the amount you hold and on how long you are holding. So it's not a token which relies in speculation to grow. The calculation someone should do is if extra free spins and bonus interest worth the investment in FUN coin. It does have some utility because FB is using it, but still the question is why. What's it accomplish you can't do with bitcoin already? That's the crucial difference. It's like how JD used/uses CLAMS. (Dunno if they still do, haven't followed that site in a long time.) But that's another instance where CLAMS was a worthless coin, but it gained utility because it was the only coin JD would take for gambling. The use-case for the coin outside that site was virtually 0 though, and the overall question remained, why that coin specifically? It wasn't doing anything you couldn't do with bitcoin, so it was just useless differentiation. And I've done the calculations on FUN and took a pass on it because I didn't deem it a worthwhile investment, based solely on the math. Everyone has to make their own determination about that though. The calculation I did was: 500,000 FUN (to take maximum advantage of the investment) is about 15,000$ dollars if you buy for 0,03$ each. 15,000$ is proportional to 0,35 btc. 0,35 btc generates interest income of 0,014 btc yearly in the site (4,08%), approximately. By investing in FUN coin your daily income will decrease, as you will be exchanging your bitcoins out. So you need to make sure the extra 25% interest from holding 500,000 FUN after 1 year on will generate at least more than 0,014 btc yearly. The 25% bonus interest must be more profitable than holding 0,35 btc. Conclusion: it worths for people who 0,35 btc represents less than 25% of their total investment in the site. If you have more than 1,4 btc invested it could sound interesting after 1 year. And consider the 16 daily free wheel spins a bonus, as it's impossible to take its prizes in consideration as they are random.
Negative side: - During the first year of FUN investment you won't receive the maximum bonus. You need to wait 1 year to start taking advantage of 25% extra interest and 16 free spins;
- By investing your btcs in FUN you would still lose potential bitcoin bull runs' profits.
I like that you're accounting for lost interest income and needing to make that up. But you can take in WOF rewards into your consideration because someone published the prize table here, so statistically speaking we can come up with I feel a pretty good ballpark figure related to owning FUN. I'll try to find some time to run the numbers and post here for review. I need to find that prize chart that's buried a ton of pages back. [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] |
|
|
|
Bitcoin was launched on January 3, 2009, this means that there is a possibility that Satoshi Nakamoto was inspired by the global economic crisis
that occurred in 2008. Which means that since the beginning Bitcoin was designed as a solution to overcoming the economic crisis, then proven
again when the economic crisis occurred in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Bitcoin can be a safe haven as the price continues to rise,
while other assets have decreased performance.
So if the next economic collapse occurs with the government continuing to print money with the intention of restoring the economy. I think it's clear
Bitcoin will become a safe haven again, actually seeing Bitcoin's performance this year it is very clear that Bitcoin can be a solution to the economic
crisis that has occurred. In fact I got lucky by moving all of my fortune earlier this year from the bank to Bitcoin. Because now my wealth is increasing.
He literally was. He encoded a headline about the UK bank bailouts in the genesis block. Bitcoin was a concept for a long time before the white paper, but the currency devaluation he felt was going to be commonplace because of the financial crisis in 2008 gave new meaning to what was already planned to be released. |
|
|
|
~
If their products are really good, then they don't need to bother about competition. I guess the issue is that investors are concerned about the high P/E ratio of the TSLA stock. The ratio currently stands at 975, and it was as high as 1,700 a few months back. They are still having a market cap of $600 billion, which sounds a bit high, considering the fact that their net annual income is less than $1 billion. Doesn't matter, look at Apple, they clearly have a mediocre and expensive product but they have a trillion dollar market cap. General customer doesn't care about quality, you have to take note that not everyone is rich or financially healthy, if the market introduces something cheaper despite quality or if the product can make you look like you have a place in high society, the general population will bite it. Apple has a two trillion dollar market cap because it generates gobs of cash every quarter, and they don't generate that much cash with a mediocre product. If it was truly mediocre, they would be replaced by anyone doing it better, but the fact remains their ecosystem as a whole blows all others out of the water. Despite the two trillion dollar market cap, the PE ratio is only in the very low 30s, which is pretty par for tech companies. Tesla on the other hand is priced like there will never be competition for electric vehicles, despite the fact that there already is and it's only going to get worse as every major automaker is pledging to be fully electric in the coming years. With Tesla's poor quality issues currently (car fires, software update glitches, hardware failures and Elon's dismissive attitude saying people shouldn't expect the hardware to last the life of the car anyway) Tesla's higher end models will be second fiddle to Porsche, Audi, Lexus and other luxury automakers. Tesla had first mover advantage in scaling electric vehicles in a meaningful way first, but very soon that will be the only thing that differentiates them from other luxury automakers and then it will rest on quality alone. |
|
|
|
I don't understand how the purchase can negatively affect their stock price, when they received a huge profit from the transaction. The value of the coins purchased by Tesla in January 2021 stands at around $2.5 billion now, which represents a profit of $1 billion. And more importantly, this is more than the profit that Telsa earned by selling their electric vehicles for the entire year of 2020.
No, at current prices the stake is likely only up $600m. I say "likely" because I haven't been able to find any place where Tesla disclosed how many bitcoins they bought. Their SEC filing only disclosed that they bought $1.5B worth in January 2021. I've seen speculation that the price was $33,000, but nobody knows for sure. If it was $33,000, that would give you a $600m unrealized gain at current prices, which is considerably less than what you posted. As for why this could negatively impact Tesla, it's because investors don't want the sideshow of Bitcoin interfering with the company when it should be focusing on growth and solving its numerous quality problems. Making money on bitcoin is not a business model, the company needs to build and sell good cars to make money. |
|
|
|
|
Tesla's stock decline is because the company was insanely overvalued to the point of absurdity. It's valued like it's going to be the only company that ever produces electric vehicles. Once you dispel that notion as obviously wrong, it's easy to see how overvalued the company is. Aside from valuation, all tech stocks are getting hammered as treasury yields rise right now. That's not specific to Tesla, it's pretty much across the board. I wouldn't say that Tesla buying bitcoin is why it's down, but the sideshow it creates isn't doing the company any favors.
|
|
|
|
The Elon Musk Bitcoin purchase was just the beginning, we have yet to see the full capacity of Bitcoin's value based on the demand from large scale individual investors/institution. As far as the correction is concerned, Btc is somehow having a slight correction when It went $40,000 for the first time, It corrected around $30,000 region after a few hours. Now, Bitcoin has reached $58,000 and is currently corrected. So, yeah everything that goes up must go down at one point, but we don't expect a sharp drop at this current rate.
Think about top 100 companies in the world moving their reserve cash into bitcoin, can you imagine what that would look like? All companies that have cash in their bank account doing nothing or collecting like 1% interest rate, would be willing to put their money into bitcoin, we are talking about at least 100+ billion dollars here, and all those wall street companies like JP Morgans and Bank of Americas and many others like that add a crypto section to their investments as well? That is at least another 50+ billion combined. We have moved so much with just 1.5 billion dollar addition, if we one day reach to the level I am talking about, it is simple impossible for bitcoin to be under 500k, it would really happen. Could this happen anytime soon? Not likely, it will definitely take a long time, but in a decade we could actually reach to that level so buying bitcoin right now could still be considered cheap. People keep saying this like it's likely and it just isn't. You may look at bitcoin and think there's no way it's not going to $100k, but taking that as a given is such an extreme viewpoint. Companies aren't in business to gamble, and bitcoin is a speculative investment. Most businesses don't sit on mountains of cash, so (i) their inflation risk is limited and (ii) what cash they have they need it to maintain a stable value, not maybe it's up 10% or down 10% on any given day. There's is absolutely no question that the dollar is more stable than bitcoin, and that's why it's unlikely for businesses to adopt it as a reserve in any meaningful way. |
|
|
|
If you own 1000 ETH, you pay 10 ETH in fee for fast speed transaction, if you own 100 ETH you pay 1 ETH fee, if you own 10 ETH you pay 0.1 ETH.
In stock market, poor people pay the highest trading fee, where rich people pay low trading fee, 401k probably paid zero trading fee because they own the brokering market, yup, stock market benefit rich people and punish poor people on trading fee alone.
This isn't even close to being true. Trading fees are set by brokerages and it's not dependent on wealth or income. Most major brokers don't even charge trading fees anymore. If you're trying to make an argument that trading fees more negatively affect less wealthy investors, that's potentially true, but then that's no different than crypto either in your example. So you've completely failed to make a coherent point here. |
|
|
|
Socialism means taking away wealth from the successful people (the so called "rich") and distributing it among the so called "poor". All the businesses will be owned by the state and the regime will decide when you should eat, when you take a dump and when and whom you should marry. Socialism can't be implemented by democratic means and that's why we have authoritarian regimes such as the ones in Cuba and North Korea. Those who support socialism are always people who have no experience of living in a socialist country. Ask someone in Cuba or North Korea their opinion about socialism and you will be much surprised.
I haven't seen any capitalism that successfully helped the poor people, they help the rich for sure but they always fail and starve and kill all their poor people, look at USA, look at UK, people starve and freeze to death there, look at Norway, they do not have that. All things you have listed about socialism are fake propaganda that could be proven otherwise very very very easily. You're focusing on the fact that capitalism doesn't eliminate all poverty and ignoring the fact that capitalism far and away has done more to eliminate poverty than any other economic system in the history of the world. Furthermore, the Scandinavian countries you referred to have strong social safety nets that are made possible by healthy capitalist systems and high taxes. The tax system couldn't be supported if not for the largely capitalist underpinnings of the economy. I think the US would be better off overall under such a system, but that doesn't mean that capitalism in the US is a failure of a system. |
|
|
|
I hope the small outlets get a good funding out of this and the old/bad ones crash and burn if it comes to Europe.
I think there are quite a few countries in Europe that suffer with the US and UK problem of not giving a fair centristic approach to news coverage and entangle theirs and the government's ideology into their own agenda. Opinions are worse than facts for a company to cover especially when it's a governmental opinion.
It does seem weird though that a company can choose to publish somewhere and expect to get paid for it by the platform rather than their readers.. .
I think the issue is rather that facebook profits off the work of the publishers without any license or agreement about use. It seems totally appropriate that publishers should be able to receive something akin to a licensing fee for facebook profiting off people sharing their work. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
