Slashdot Mirror
British Company Adds the Word 'Blockchain' to Its Name, Sees Its Shares Surge 394% (bloomberg.com)
On-Line PLC, a British provider of stock market data, today saw its shares climb nearly 400% after changing its name to On-Line Blockchain PLC. From a report: "Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies are a new and exciting area we have been working on for some time," the Essex-based company said in a statement on Thursday. "We feel the time is right to re-name the company to reflect these developments, where we believe the future growth will be in our sector." The shares pared gains after the company published a follow-up release on Friday, cautioning investors that the development of its blockchain product is still at an early stage. Still, the 238 percent rise as of 2:36 p.m. in London leaves the company's market value of 4.4 million pounds ($5.8 million) at its highest since 2005.
Just when you think we've reached Peak Buzzword Hype, somebody takes it up to Twelve.
Is smiling somewhere.
20 years ago I saw companies adding "e" in front of their name (or ".com" at the end of the name) and sit back and watch the hordes of morons shoving cash in their faces.
Agreed, less polygons is better
Fewer polygons are better.
Having fewer polygons is better.
Second, why would you complain about the wealthy not being so bright? If they are not bright enough to hold on to their wealth then it's a self correcting problem, they'll invest in stupid shit and soon not be wealthy any more. Those that are bright enough to hold on to their wealth should be in charge of running the economy, as they would be good examples to follow for the rest.
What happens when the power of tremendous wealth becomes significant enough to outweigh human folly? To the extent that a single, corrupt businessman can get $1M from his daddy, mismanage the shit out of every business he touched, screw over contractors left and right, and still manage to come out fabulously wealthy? There's a point at which the inertia of wealth renders you too big to fail - even Bill Gates is now earning far more due to the sheer size of his wealth than his productive activities. The whole thing just turns into a "who got here first" contest.
Third, wealth inequality is a necessary side effect of a growing economy. The money cannot spread out instantaneously to everyone.
True, but not all wealth inequality is the same. A moderate level of inequality is inherent to a functional economy and sometimes a consequence of economic growth - but at extreme levels, it causes unhappiness, social unrest, and poverty. If it is allowed to get to extreme levels, it can cause instability in the system, it can cause a de facto caste system, and in the extreme cases lead to bloody revolutions.
There are lots of indications that wealth inequality in the U.S. has been at overly high levels for a while, and is rapidly headed towards seriously problematic territory. You don't have to be a guillotine enthusiast to see the value in reigning things in a bit.
So, are the shoeshine boys handing out stock tips yet?
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.