Facebook is too big to fail for reasons other than jobs.
Facebook has a shit load of shareholders, as do the others you list.
That's way too big to fail.
I didn't say jobs, I actually listed 3 different economic indicators just as a start. But guess what, shareholders don't fall in the too big to fail category. They are quite often the biggest losers during bailout activities, and as such also the first to react to a failing business in an attempt to make a profit. Shares are easily transferred, and shareholder revolt is one of the things that will cause a company to need a bailout in the first place.
Now if you're talking about people's 401k, the government wouldn't prop up some business to keep their share price high. What they would do is bail out the resulting affected institutional shareholder rather than the company itself, which brings me back to point 2: Banks. They will receive the bail out if it looks like the system of money will break down, not the likes of Facebook.
no linux desktop market share was 3%, try to pay attention. the 10% was non-windows, linux+mac.
Your grasp of staying on point and not flipping on numbers is amazing. Have you considered a career in politics? God knows business is nothing for you.
The too big to fail criteria depended on something critical to the nation.
- Amazon is too big to fail. Having half a million employees.... let that number sink in for a second... the shutdown of Amazon would put an incredible pressure on the US economy. Facebook doesn't have that. - Banks are too big to fail. The system of money breaking down would put an incredible pressure on the US economy. Facebook doesn't have that. - Car companies are too big to fail. The loss of their mix of an incredible number of employees and indirect impact on the wide manufacturing industry while producing a product that the country desperately depends on would put an incredible pressure on the US economy. Facebook doesn't have that.
Facebook is disposable. They don't support many jobs. They don't serve an essential function to the people or government. They don't create something that isn't already available elsewhere. They don't support massive movement of capital and lack economic investment that affects a significant number of users.
Don't get me wrong, Facebook won't be broken up. The US government doesn't have the teeth against large corporations anymore, this entire campaign lacks any decent footing (what's Facebook have a monopoly on again?) and splitting them would be essentially pointless and change nothing. But they aren't protected because of some "too big to fail" status.
Someone recently posted the Facebook earnings figures and it showed the #deletefacebook campaign barely put in a dent. No one except celebrities left the platform en-mass.
And that isn't really a surprise. Facebook forms the core of many people's social lives without alternative. Where outsiders see a bunch of people posting nothing but shit, insiders see a system for commerce, a communication platform with people important to them, integrated chatting features, event organisation, a link to real world events that people often accuse Facebook of displacing (hey great idea to meet people instead of posting on my wall, I'll get right on that by making a Facebook event).
For many people #deletefacebook is like going to someone who works 50km from where they live and saying #sellyourcar. Without an alternative they just won't do it.
The ones that don't pay off usually are, however it is worth noting that Minidisc was a victim not of Sony itself, but of technology. Minidisc was revolutionary. I owned a few players and my local store even carried music in minidisc format. But all the things that made it great compared to CD: small size, high quality, ability to record and edit easily, reduced skipping, and better battery life was overshadowed by the dawn of portable MP3 players. Claiming they weren't investing in high-quality products is just completely false as most of their attempts at vendor lockin relied primarily on the quality of their offering.
It's not vendor lockin that killed them. In fact vendor lockin has been and continues to be a successful strategy for them thanks to winning the Bluray war and being a major player in consoles.
Had they spent that much money on quality, they could charge a premium over the competition.
They did, they did, and they continue to do in many ways. Just because you can find a cheap product from them doesn't mean they didn't produce some astoundingly good hardware in the high end. Hell while people were bitching about their junk CD players at Walmart, their CD transports made their way into the highest end CD players on the market, and if you looked you could find some truly great hardware direct from Sony too. Same with most of their products. Just because your cheap crap Cybershot was utter junk doesn't mean that Sony sensors don't power a world of high end photograph and even research equipment. Sony developed and brought to market the first OLED TV back before LG could even figure out what the O stood for.
Don't sell them short. They are a company that really catered to a wide variety of groups and the quality of Sony products was entirely dependent on your own budget.
Unions abroad suffer from a lack of relevance. They sit around collecting dues and then every few years come out and do something disproportionate over nothing. Even in France the general public are sick of them, their latest train stunt not withstanding. This is especially true in France which has some of the toughest worker protections in the world.
In many countries they are the very image of the bullies fighting against companies trying to stay afloat. I'm probably jaded. Personally I stepped out of my union when they called a strike because we "only" got offered a 4% payrise (above inflation rate of 2.75%) the year our plant lost $35million. Fast forward 5 years and the union complained when the plant was shutdown. Something about "gross mismanagement".
Most likely, what you like about Obama and his accomplishments is that he made the US more like a European progressive welfare state.
Nope not at all. I was thinking actual metrics by which governments are judged. You know things like low unemployment, supporting marginalised groups against bigotry, pushing towards a greener and more environmentally friendly country, increasing energy independence, stopped torturing people, reduced homelessness, improved the economy on every primary metric which is especially amazing since under his watch there were more jobs created than any other president despite the entire economy being flushed down the toilet just as he started.
Yeah a bit of socialism helps too, like not leaving your war veterans to rot in the street, or the non-ultra rich to die of perfectly treatable medical conditions. Fuck yeah, socialism! I know, Americans hate the idea that the poor and old don't just die.
ACA was passed without Republican support, hence Republicans had no opportunity of watering it down.
Sorry you're right, it was massively watered down by corporate lobbying on democrats. Point is the same, the populous calling the ACA Obama Care couldn't be further from the truth given what he wanted to pass, and what eventually made it through your process. The ACA is what it is despite Obama, not because of Obama.
You bet I'm "anti-intellectual": people whose main accomplishment in life is to theorize about how other people ought to run their lives ought not to run countries.
Really? The people whose profession it is to analyse governments ought not to run them? Yep "sick of experts" rings true here. Don't worry mate, Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho should be running for office in 2020.
So you're limiting it to first years only? Why not just ban startups and all new companies then?
Your policy is idiotic. Companies have to do the things they claim they will do (fraud legislation). They have to present their finances to investors (a shitload of corporation legislation).
Whether or not people give them money is entirely their business. If someone wants to give it to Tesla who can't seem to make a profit after 10 years it's their business. If someone wants to give it to a non-profit as a donation, that's their business. If someone wants to give it to some startup with no business plan, well that's still their business.
What next? Trump isn't allowed to buy a Ferrari because daddy gave him his money?
Normally I'm against all the "small government" comments. But your suggestion legally shutting down a solvent company where others have invested because you don't like their balance sheet or their business model is just utterly bizarre. If they become insolvent they will shutdown. If they don't they will stay afloat. Whether someone thinks they are capable of doing either and injects capital to help make it happen is absolutely none of your or your government's business.
I personally think unions are a horrible idea. Except in America where they can only be described as essential. Most western countries exited the industrial revolution with strong workplace protections thanks to the unions of the time making the concept somewhat obsolete in the current age. Somehow this didn't happen in the USA, and the us vs them mentality along with the desire for governments to not exist and generally stay out of everyone's business is stronger than ever.
I worked as a Product Manager for some retards in Seattle (including the Director of Product Management) who actually had faith in this company. I pointed out that their business model involved converting some of the highest paying movie going customers into some of the lowest paying and, therefore, was unsustainable.
I know right, people should instead invest in companies which don't have a product, have never turned a profit, and have no clear business path for doing so. Like several of those Fortune 500 companies which made some investors stupid rich.
What you are talking about is bluechip investing. A low risk approach with long term thinking. It doesn't apply at all in the startup world.
but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down.
Congratulations. In your quest to try and decide on what people can spend money on you just shutdown Nintendo, Apple, Shell, Facebook, and a good chunk of the rest of the Fortune 500, not to mention all the companies that never would have gotten off the ground in the first place.
Oh and your idea is just completely stupid from a philosophical point of view. If I decide to put money into something then *you* or rather your government doesn't get to decide to shut it down just because they can't pay *me*. Insolvency and money doesn't work like that.
The government happily approved the purchase / merger of these companies only 4 and 6 years ago. They wouldn't break them up, even if they did have a case to do so.
And no sorry, Facebook does not have a monopoly on chat or posting pictures online. They have considerable market power on social networks, but I'm thinking that the people who want Facebook split up don't use it in the first place and given it's a free product to consumers it's hard to make an antitrust case for it.
Mr. Musk might realize that the vast majority of folks aren't going to spend nearly $80k on a vehicle that does nothing but depreciate the instant you drive it off the lot.
Given how he's unable to keep up with demand for said very expensive vehicles I think you couldn't be more wrong.
Not at all. They put the fun into performance. What you're complaining about is they took the noise out of the performance or the fun out of the noise.
You're not the target market for a performance car. You're the target market for a Hyundai Excel with two down-pipes where the exhaust pipes should be (though only one hooked up to the exhaust system), and a fully-sick bonnet scoop on a car with no intercooler.
Of course if you want to be publicly notorious you could just go stand on the road and masturbate. It's cheaper than buying either a performance car or a loud car.
Me? Fuck Telsa. I'm waiting for the Porsche Mission E
I was with you until you brought up hearing loss. Sorry but if you or anyone you know are suffering from hearing loss, it sure as hell isn't due to the Amber alert on your mobile phone.
The former. He's only one year in and come close to ticking off every item on that list.
The fact that you think that Trump had anything to do with averting a disaster with North Korea, much less was in any way contributing to the apparent recent success is just mind-bogglingly ignorant.
Miserable performance in what? By all accounts and looking at it from a different country's perspective (i.e. I don't have skin in the game of your silly politics), he seemed to leave the country better in every way than he found it despite being mostly hamstrung in many key areas where he wanted to make a difference.
Your "missed opportunity on healthcare" is especially interesting on this given what he initially proposed and what the republicans who's support it needed eventually watered it down to.
Obama represents the hubris of technocrats, progressives, and intellectuals.
Reminds me of the Farage comments "people are sick of experts". That's Anti-intellectualism at its finest. A great way to run politics if your idea of politics is people bashing each other with sticks, and the muscliest man gets to impregnate all the women.
There are very few fun things which don't contribute to GDP and thus the economy. Going shopping is at the very bottom of that list. The social benefits of getting people to spend money can have a huge effect on a country.
Have you noticed Gboard's broken spell checker on your device? If so, you may want to look into another third-party keyboard, such as SwiftKey
Thanks for helping out friendly submission. I clicked on the SwiftKey alternative and was greeted with this review right at the top:
"I normally love this app but over the past few months the predictions displayed have been very useless, and return words like thia and exmalpa, which aren't even wotlfs! What ahppelbed?"
Slashdot Mirror
I call bullshit.
Facebook is too big to fail for reasons other than jobs.
Facebook has a shit load of shareholders, as do the others you list.
That's way too big to fail.
I didn't say jobs, I actually listed 3 different economic indicators just as a start. But guess what, shareholders don't fall in the too big to fail category. They are quite often the biggest losers during bailout activities, and as such also the first to react to a failing business in an attempt to make a profit. Shares are easily transferred, and shareholder revolt is one of the things that will cause a company to need a bailout in the first place.
Now if you're talking about people's 401k, the government wouldn't prop up some business to keep their share price high. What they would do is bail out the resulting affected institutional shareholder rather than the company itself, which brings me back to point 2: Banks. They will receive the bail out if it looks like the system of money will break down, not the likes of Facebook.
no linux desktop market share was 3%, try to pay attention. the 10% was non-windows, linux+mac.
Your grasp of staying on point and not flipping on numbers is amazing. Have you considered a career in politics? God knows business is nothing for you.
No, people choose to use FB as their news source rather than going to real news organizations.
Suckers. I get my news from Google Now.
Who's shilling for who? Me for the government? I don't understand.
The too big to fail criteria depended on something critical to the nation.
- Amazon is too big to fail. Having half a million employees. ... let that number sink in for a second ... the shutdown of Amazon would put an incredible pressure on the US economy. Facebook doesn't have that.
- Banks are too big to fail. The system of money breaking down would put an incredible pressure on the US economy. Facebook doesn't have that.
- Car companies are too big to fail. The loss of their mix of an incredible number of employees and indirect impact on the wide manufacturing industry while producing a product that the country desperately depends on would put an incredible pressure on the US economy. Facebook doesn't have that.
Facebook is disposable. They don't support many jobs. They don't serve an essential function to the people or government. They don't create something that isn't already available elsewhere. They don't support massive movement of capital and lack economic investment that affects a significant number of users.
Don't get me wrong, Facebook won't be broken up. The US government doesn't have the teeth against large corporations anymore, this entire campaign lacks any decent footing (what's Facebook have a monopoly on again?) and splitting them would be essentially pointless and change nothing. But they aren't protected because of some "too big to fail" status.
Someone recently posted the Facebook earnings figures and it showed the #deletefacebook campaign barely put in a dent. No one except celebrities left the platform en-mass.
And that isn't really a surprise. Facebook forms the core of many people's social lives without alternative. Where outsiders see a bunch of people posting nothing but shit, insiders see a system for commerce, a communication platform with people important to them, integrated chatting features, event organisation, a link to real world events that people often accuse Facebook of displacing (hey great idea to meet people instead of posting on my wall, I'll get right on that by making a Facebook event).
For many people #deletefacebook is like going to someone who works 50km from where they live and saying #sellyourcar. Without an alternative they just won't do it.
This was a poor investment choice
The ones that don't pay off usually are, however it is worth noting that Minidisc was a victim not of Sony itself, but of technology. Minidisc was revolutionary. I owned a few players and my local store even carried music in minidisc format. But all the things that made it great compared to CD: small size, high quality, ability to record and edit easily, reduced skipping, and better battery life was overshadowed by the dawn of portable MP3 players. Claiming they weren't investing in high-quality products is just completely false as most of their attempts at vendor lockin relied primarily on the quality of their offering.
It's not vendor lockin that killed them. In fact vendor lockin has been and continues to be a successful strategy for them thanks to winning the Bluray war and being a major player in consoles.
Had they spent that much money on quality, they could charge a premium over the competition.
They did, they did, and they continue to do in many ways. Just because you can find a cheap product from them doesn't mean they didn't produce some astoundingly good hardware in the high end. Hell while people were bitching about their junk CD players at Walmart, their CD transports made their way into the highest end CD players on the market, and if you looked you could find some truly great hardware direct from Sony too. Same with most of their products. Just because your cheap crap Cybershot was utter junk doesn't mean that Sony sensors don't power a world of high end photograph and even research equipment. Sony developed and brought to market the first OLED TV back before LG could even figure out what the O stood for.
Don't sell them short. They are a company that really catered to a wide variety of groups and the quality of Sony products was entirely dependent on your own budget.
Unions abroad suffer from a lack of relevance. They sit around collecting dues and then every few years come out and do something disproportionate over nothing. Even in France the general public are sick of them, their latest train stunt not withstanding. This is especially true in France which has some of the toughest worker protections in the world.
In many countries they are the very image of the bullies fighting against companies trying to stay afloat. I'm probably jaded. Personally I stepped out of my union when they called a strike because we "only" got offered a 4% payrise (above inflation rate of 2.75%) the year our plant lost $35million. Fast forward 5 years and the union complained when the plant was shutdown. Something about "gross mismanagement".
Most likely, what you like about Obama and his accomplishments is that he made the US more like a European progressive welfare state.
Nope not at all. I was thinking actual metrics by which governments are judged. You know things like low unemployment, supporting marginalised groups against bigotry, pushing towards a greener and more environmentally friendly country, increasing energy independence, stopped torturing people, reduced homelessness, improved the economy on every primary metric which is especially amazing since under his watch there were more jobs created than any other president despite the entire economy being flushed down the toilet just as he started.
Yeah a bit of socialism helps too, like not leaving your war veterans to rot in the street, or the non-ultra rich to die of perfectly treatable medical conditions. Fuck yeah, socialism! I know, Americans hate the idea that the poor and old don't just die.
ACA was passed without Republican support, hence Republicans had no opportunity of watering it down.
Sorry you're right, it was massively watered down by corporate lobbying on democrats. Point is the same, the populous calling the ACA Obama Care couldn't be further from the truth given what he wanted to pass, and what eventually made it through your process. The ACA is what it is despite Obama, not because of Obama.
You bet I'm "anti-intellectual": people whose main accomplishment in life is to theorize about how other people ought to run their lives ought not to run countries.
Really? The people whose profession it is to analyse governments ought not to run them? Yep "sick of experts" rings true here. Don't worry mate, Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho should be running for office in 2020.
So you're limiting it to first years only? Why not just ban startups and all new companies then?
Your policy is idiotic. Companies have to do the things they claim they will do (fraud legislation). They have to present their finances to investors (a shitload of corporation legislation).
Whether or not people give them money is entirely their business. If someone wants to give it to Tesla who can't seem to make a profit after 10 years it's their business. If someone wants to give it to a non-profit as a donation, that's their business. If someone wants to give it to some startup with no business plan, well that's still their business.
What next? Trump isn't allowed to buy a Ferrari because daddy gave him his money?
Normally I'm against all the "small government" comments. But your suggestion legally shutting down a solvent company where others have invested because you don't like their balance sheet or their business model is just utterly bizarre. If they become insolvent they will shutdown. If they don't they will stay afloat. Whether someone thinks they are capable of doing either and injects capital to help make it happen is absolutely none of your or your government's business.
I personally think unions are a horrible idea. Except in America where they can only be described as essential. Most western countries exited the industrial revolution with strong workplace protections thanks to the unions of the time making the concept somewhat obsolete in the current age. Somehow this didn't happen in the USA, and the us vs them mentality along with the desire for governments to not exist and generally stay out of everyone's business is stronger than ever.
I worked as a Product Manager for some retards in Seattle (including the Director of Product Management) who actually had faith in this company. I pointed out that their business model involved converting some of the highest paying movie going customers into some of the lowest paying and, therefore, was unsustainable.
I know right, people should instead invest in companies which don't have a product, have never turned a profit, and have no clear business path for doing so. Like several of those Fortune 500 companies which made some investors stupid rich.
What you are talking about is bluechip investing. A low risk approach with long term thinking. It doesn't apply at all in the startup world.
but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down.
Congratulations. In your quest to try and decide on what people can spend money on you just shutdown Nintendo, Apple, Shell, Facebook, and a good chunk of the rest of the Fortune 500, not to mention all the companies that never would have gotten off the ground in the first place.
Oh and your idea is just completely stupid from a philosophical point of view. If I decide to put money into something then *you* or rather your government doesn't get to decide to shut it down just because they can't pay *me*. Insolvency and money doesn't work like that.
The government happily approved the purchase / merger of these companies only 4 and 6 years ago. They wouldn't break them up, even if they did have a case to do so.
And no sorry, Facebook does not have a monopoly on chat or posting pictures online. They have considerable market power on social networks, but I'm thinking that the people who want Facebook split up don't use it in the first place and given it's a free product to consumers it's hard to make an antitrust case for it.
AWD at 78K is outrageous in some sense
Huh? AWD costs $5000, perfectly reasonable, and incredible given the performance increase you get.
What you get for $78k is all the premium options ticked. A car internally more like a Jaguar than little (by American standards) family town car.
Mr. Musk might realize that the vast majority of folks aren't going to spend nearly $80k on a vehicle that does nothing but depreciate the instant you drive it off the lot.
Given how he's unable to keep up with demand for said very expensive vehicles I think you couldn't be more wrong.
Not at all. They put the fun into performance. What you're complaining about is they took the noise out of the performance or the fun out of the noise.
You're not the target market for a performance car. You're the target market for a Hyundai Excel with two down-pipes where the exhaust pipes should be (though only one hooked up to the exhaust system), and a fully-sick bonnet scoop on a car with no intercooler.
Of course if you want to be publicly notorious you could just go stand on the road and masturbate. It's cheaper than buying either a performance car or a loud car.
Me? Fuck Telsa. I'm waiting for the Porsche Mission E
Why guess when you can read your own link?
I was with you until you brought up hearing loss. Sorry but if you or anyone you know are suffering from hearing loss, it sure as hell isn't due to the Amber alert on your mobile phone.
Which model is the better predictor for Trump?
The former. He's only one year in and come close to ticking off every item on that list.
The fact that you think that Trump had anything to do with averting a disaster with North Korea, much less was in any way contributing to the apparent recent success is just mind-bogglingly ignorant.
. And it's Obama's miserable performance
Miserable performance in what? By all accounts and looking at it from a different country's perspective (i.e. I don't have skin in the game of your silly politics), he seemed to leave the country better in every way than he found it despite being mostly hamstrung in many key areas where he wanted to make a difference.
Your "missed opportunity on healthcare" is especially interesting on this given what he initially proposed and what the republicans who's support it needed eventually watered it down to.
Obama represents the hubris of technocrats, progressives, and intellectuals.
Reminds me of the Farage comments "people are sick of experts". That's Anti-intellectualism at its finest. A great way to run politics if your idea of politics is people bashing each other with sticks, and the muscliest man gets to impregnate all the women.
Not at all. You don't get bragging rights by having to explain why it is your thing is worth bragging about:
"Pfffft. You got an iPhone? How lame. I got a RED Hydrogen One"
"A what?"
"It's a phone that is from RED, a company know for it's cam.."
*yawn*
fun but unproductive
There are very few fun things which don't contribute to GDP and thus the economy. Going shopping is at the very bottom of that list. The social benefits of getting people to spend money can have a huge effect on a country.
Estonia is small, which helps looking after your people.
USA has a 3x higher GDP per capita and a higher urbanisation rate making it easier to look after people and you more capable of doing so.
Maybe you need to find a different excuse.
Have you noticed Gboard's broken spell checker on your device? If so, you may want to look into another third-party keyboard, such as SwiftKey
Thanks for helping out friendly submission. I clicked on the SwiftKey alternative and was greeted with this review right at the top:
"I normally love this app but over the past few months the predictions displayed have been very useless, and return words like thia and exmalpa, which aren't even wotlfs! What ahppelbed?"
Have you ever encountered a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 exploding in your hand? Check out the alternatives: https://www.boomtownfireworks.... https://dynamitefireworks.com/