Comments on: Counterparties: 1 Pinterest=1.5 Instagrams http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/17/counterparties-1-pinterest1-5-instagrams/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: matthewgraczyk http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/17/counterparties-1-pinterest1-5-instagrams/comment-page-1/#comment-39259 Mon, 21 May 2012 05:10:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=14148#comment-39259 Pinterest is great for social bookmarking, but what about personal bookmarking – the bookmarks for the sites you visit over and over? My company operates http://iCrumz.com, and we believe it is exactly what the world needs now – a real personal productivity booster. It’s a free cloud-based Internet bookmarking service. With iCrumz.com all your bookmarks are always available using any browser from any computer, mobile phone or tablet. The iCrumz interface allows you to have 100 or more bookmarks on a single webpage without being cluttered. iCrumz also offers an import function, so you can import and consolidate all your bookmarks from all your browsers on all your devices. Check out our short (1 minute) intro video: http://youtu.be/QDD23whIlrw Contact me if you have any questions. Matthew[at]iCrumz[dot]com.

]]>
By: http http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/17/counterparties-1-pinterest1-5-instagrams/comment-page-1/#comment-39235 Sat, 19 May 2012 12:15:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=14148#comment-39235 I disagree about the TED talk. It’s not some wild, crazy fringe theory that demand should drive the investment process. Demand is important and a middle class who spends most of what tey make is the most important ingredient. That’s some pretty basic economics. No idiot would ever add jobs or machinery to their firm if they didn’t think someone would buy the product. That’s what NPV is all about. Hanauer isn’t saying that it should be difficult to invest. That *would* mean that the bottleneck preventing job growth was investment. Firms are sitting on cash, interest rates are low… No one’s investing in jobs or anything else because there is not enough demand for new products and services. Flat wages (adjusted for inflation) for the last 30 years might have something to do with that.

But the real issue is TED. While it’s supposed to be about spreading ideas, they just clearly bowed to a powerful opinion while marginalizing a well-made point because it disagreed with their branding. They just sent a message: Our image is more important than the ideas we spread.

In a society with a fairly controlled political discussion, it would be beneficial to open up discussion as to whether the mainstream, orthodox economic discourse has been messaged and massaged to assuage the people and corporations who own major media outlets. That’s the only reason we need organizations like TED. If I needed the ideas to which I am exposed to be sanitized for my political protection, I’d watch TV.

]]>
By: handleym http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/17/counterparties-1-pinterest1-5-instagrams/comment-page-1/#comment-39188 Fri, 18 May 2012 05:18:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=14148#comment-39188 “I’m with Chris Andersen regarding the TED talk on inequality. After seeing a transcript of it, it reads like something that would have been produced by a mix of Matt Yglesias and Slate commenters, which I definitely don’t mean as a compliment.”

I’ve seen plenty of TED talks in my time. Believe me, only a very small fraction of them count as either interesting material or exceptional speakers.
The vast bulk of them consist of
“rich people are awesome” (and its many variants — rich people will save the world, great things rich people have done, great things rich people plan to do, how you can become rich) OR
“here’s some science that, if you’re in the slightest bit educated you already know” OR
“here’s some (high-brow, but not too high-brow) arts performance”

If TED want to add a TED-select channel which limits itself to maybe one new video a week, very definitely the best of the best, that is fine. But right now they shovel out vast amounts of crud, and it is disingenuous beyond belief for them to claim that this one talk crossed the ineffable barrier between good enough and not good enough to post.

]]>
By: ottorock http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/17/counterparties-1-pinterest1-5-instagrams/comment-page-1/#comment-39173 Fri, 18 May 2012 00:09:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=14148#comment-39173 “If you’re looking for a different metric for valuing companies that don’t make money…”

—–> pets.com

]]>
By: realist50 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/17/counterparties-1-pinterest1-5-instagrams/comment-page-1/#comment-39171 Thu, 17 May 2012 23:39:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=14148#comment-39171 I’m with Chris Andersen regarding the TED talk on inequality. After seeing a transcript of it, it reads like something that would have been produced by a mix of Matt Yglesias and Slate commenters, which I definitely don’t mean as a compliment.

I’m not just remarking on Nick Hanauer’s point of view. Even if I disagree with one of Felix’s arguments, to take an example, I usually will concede that he has some underlying logic and follows reasonable economic concepts. Nick Hanauer’s argument, though, is pretty blah, not particularly new, and falls into some basic logical fallacies –

http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/20 12/05/the-inequality-speech-that-ted-won t-show-you.php

]]>
By: realist50 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/17/counterparties-1-pinterest1-5-instagrams/comment-page-1/#comment-39169 Thu, 17 May 2012 23:05:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=14148#comment-39169 The Planet Money people don’t do math particularly well. They describe a 338% (inflation-adjusted) increase in federal spending over the past 50 years as “roughly as fast” as real GDP growth of 229% over the same period. (My calc uses the numbers provided in their article for total federal spending and percent of GDP in 1962 and 2011).

Also, while Planet Money’s text is accurate in referring to “federal government spending”, the headline is inexact and misleading by referring to this chart as a breakdown of “government spending”. That’s not at all accurate as it excludes state and local spending. It’s not a trivial distinction as, for example, I’ve encountered arguments where an author compares federal defense and education spending and tries to present these figures as “government” spending on each in the U.S., which is false since 80+% of U.S. public education spending is funded by state and local governments.

Anyway, I like the efforts of the site below to show true “government spending” in the U.S. – federal, state, and local – grouped into broad categories.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year 2012_r

]]>