What do you get that way? That people will suddenly use their Yahoo/GMail/Facebook account that you force them to create? No. They will sign up for that one single reason and never use it for anything but to log in to your site.
There is exactly one good reason to do this, and that is to offload user management to someone else if your user already have to have an account there to use your system. Those occasions are few and far between, the only thing I can think of is a gaming addon site for a steam game that lets you log in with your steam account.
You might notice that, and this is actually an universal truth, whoever is in power has no idea of economics and does it all wrong, and whoever isn't has the ultimate revelations of what needs to be done to fix everything.
Unfortunately when they actually come to power, they're so surprised that they instantly forget everything they learned in this epiphany.
When you invest money, your goal is to have this money return more money. This can only happen if you can sell whatever you produce. Producing makes you poor, only selling makes you rich.
To sell, you have to have someone to buy your stuff. If that someone buys your stuff to sell something himself, he's essentially only making the matter worse (unless of course he buys your stuff and goes bankrupt), because that means that whoever he wants to sell to needs to recover the cost of your goods or services, too, essentially increasing his price and putting more burden on the demand side.
The key is not printing money, the key is consumption. We need more people to buy to consume. Preferably services. Services are unfortunately also what people cut back first when money gets tight. We need money on that demand side so we can sell what we produce.
Capitalism has the exact opposite problem that communism had. In communism, there was a shortage of goods with a wealth of demand that could not be fulfilled. Capitalism curiously has a surplus of supply by and large, but lacks the purchasing power on the demand side to gobble up that supply.
The point is that people's spending habits only inflexibly reflect their available purchasing power. The more you earn, the lower the percentage of your expenses compared to your income. Up to a certain level, your expenses keep up with your income, because people like to spend if they can. But at some point it becomes pretty ridiculous, since you can't "sensibly" spend 100k a month. At least without investing some of that money, which is the exact opposite of spending.
But it's spending that drives the economy. If I can't sell my goods and services, I have no business.
The broken window fallacy depends on destroying something, i.e. having to spend to retain the status quo. That's not the case here. The example I gave offers additional value to more people, and of course the shop owner, too.
You may not have noticed it, but we do not lack money on the supply side. We have an incredible amount of money waiting for something worthwhile to invest in. What we lack is money on the demand side that could create the demand for an endeavor to invest in.
If I have 100 bucks and you have none, I buy dinner and you starve. But I buy dinner for one. Because I only need one. If you have 50 bucks and so do I, we both buy dinner.
I used to care. A lot. Until I noticed that it doesn't matter whether I care. It really doesn't matter at all. It only made me waste my time trying to reason with people who don't want to be reasoned with because it would mean that they might be inconvenienced slightly if they wanted to leave their kids more than a wasteland.
And then I realized that hey, I do not have kids. I will not be cursed by my descendants for being a selfish asshole, lacking said descendants.
And that's when I decided I'd just sit back, relax and watch the show.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you get that way? That people will suddenly use their Yahoo/GMail/Facebook account that you force them to create? No. They will sign up for that one single reason and never use it for anything but to log in to your site.
There is exactly one good reason to do this, and that is to offload user management to someone else if your user already have to have an account there to use your system. Those occasions are few and far between, the only thing I can think of is a gaming addon site for a steam game that lets you log in with your steam account.
ENABLE Javascript to increase security.
Now I've seen it all.
"Probably work" is enough. He hired Microsoft managers, he must have prepared for "we'll fix it after delivery" processes.
It's called "sharing the blame".
You really want to argue that we are under-producing? Please tell me you're joking.
You might notice that, and this is actually an universal truth, whoever is in power has no idea of economics and does it all wrong, and whoever isn't has the ultimate revelations of what needs to be done to fix everything.
Unfortunately when they actually come to power, they're so surprised that they instantly forget everything they learned in this epiphany.
An army of bots reporting every human user.
I have a hunch you're very close to what's gonna happen.
As an active Twitter-avoider, what's a blue check?
When you invest money, your goal is to have this money return more money. This can only happen if you can sell whatever you produce. Producing makes you poor, only selling makes you rich.
To sell, you have to have someone to buy your stuff. If that someone buys your stuff to sell something himself, he's essentially only making the matter worse (unless of course he buys your stuff and goes bankrupt), because that means that whoever he wants to sell to needs to recover the cost of your goods or services, too, essentially increasing his price and putting more burden on the demand side.
The key is not printing money, the key is consumption. We need more people to buy to consume. Preferably services. Services are unfortunately also what people cut back first when money gets tight. We need money on that demand side so we can sell what we produce.
Capitalism has the exact opposite problem that communism had. In communism, there was a shortage of goods with a wealth of demand that could not be fulfilled. Capitalism curiously has a surplus of supply by and large, but lacks the purchasing power on the demand side to gobble up that supply.
How should this be possible with the first amendment in place?
Yup, that's how it's done. Pointless argument, ridiculous counter argument, derailing, ad hominem... classic progress maintained.
I'm proud of you, guys.
Ok, you did the "don't read what the parent posts", but you're still two postings too early for the derailing.
The point is that people's spending habits only inflexibly reflect their available purchasing power. The more you earn, the lower the percentage of your expenses compared to your income. Up to a certain level, your expenses keep up with your income, because people like to spend if they can. But at some point it becomes pretty ridiculous, since you can't "sensibly" spend 100k a month. At least without investing some of that money, which is the exact opposite of spending.
But it's spending that drives the economy. If I can't sell my goods and services, I have no business.
The broken window fallacy depends on destroying something, i.e. having to spend to retain the status quo. That's not the case here. The example I gave offers additional value to more people, and of course the shop owner, too.
You may not have noticed it, but we do not lack money on the supply side. We have an incredible amount of money waiting for something worthwhile to invest in. What we lack is money on the demand side that could create the demand for an endeavor to invest in.
So, the money drives the economy, you say?
Mission accomplished, I'd say.
A Summer.
If I have 100 bucks and you have none, I buy dinner and you starve. But I buy dinner for one. Because I only need one.
If you have 50 bucks and so do I, we both buy dinner.
Ask the restaurant if there's a difference.
I want this as my epitaph.
The only kind of the exchange of ideas most people are interested in is the exchange of another one's ideas with their own.
But they'll sure sound funny when they croak. It would be like suffocating Micky Mouse.
I used to care. A lot. Until I noticed that it doesn't matter whether I care. It really doesn't matter at all. It only made me waste my time trying to reason with people who don't want to be reasoned with because it would mean that they might be inconvenienced slightly if they wanted to leave their kids more than a wasteland.
And then I realized that hey, I do not have kids. I will not be cursed by my descendants for being a selfish asshole, lacking said descendants.
And that's when I decided I'd just sit back, relax and watch the show.
Do you have kids?
That's the spirit! Who needs boring stuff like a planet to live on?