Great documentary that Frontline made about something similar called Firestone and the Warlord. Firestone paid warlord Charles Taylor money to ‘protect’ their rubber plantations (essentially extortion), this money ended up providing him almost all of his funding during the Liberian civil war and made him a major player. He is now in prison for war crimes for what he did during this period.
They did all those things unsustainably so they could gain market share and raise prices when people were locked in. Similar to Uber and AirBnB etc. All those things are good but not feasible and subsidized by the capital/venture markets. The game is market share and ecosystem lock-in both from suppliers and customers.
A truly competitive marketplace allows any supplier to easily match with any customer. Suppliers gain market share by being the ‘best’, not by being the only option.
MLS has the same problem basketball leagues have overseas. The NBA is where the best players in the world play and I can watch it on TV, why would I watch a local sports league? There is some hometown pride from the diehards but casuals would watch the NBA. Similarly in soccer, I don’t think it is feasible to expect the MLS to break out of their niche. The casuals are watching the Premier League. We are now just watching the MLS figure out how big the niche can get.
I’ve heard of this before. That there are geniuses tolling away in fields but because they don’t have the right resources, no one knows who they are. But Isaac Newton changed science without the Industrial Revolution. Without running water or cars or electricity or modern medicine. Cream rises to the top and natural geniuses like that would be very apparent very fast.
The reason for the strong political influence of the military is two fold:
1. Political institutions in Pakistan are very weak and when things start to truly go bad, people look toward the military to bring law and order and not their elected leaders. This in turn gives the military a seat at the table to impact internal matters and foreign relations.
2. India - using India as a general boogeyman since independence has given the military brass a lot of money and power. They in turn use this to further their political ideology and when things start to go a way they don’t like they can start a coup. In turn the people generally go along with this as they think army control might be better than their leaders to solve their issues.
Like it was mentioned, Pakistan needs a few decades of peaceful democracy to get their shit together. Otherwise it will keep circling the drain of being a failed state.
I have been reading about this topic recently and still don't really understand how 'new money' is being created. In a loan, the bank creates an IOU that didn't exist before and doesn't point to a stack of $$ on the shelf. But it does point to the bank, and the bank itself has tons of customer deposits. And if I take that IOU and give it to a car dealership who puts it in their bank, for the transfer my bank will take actual money from the general pool of customer deposits. AND I have to pay back the loan which goes into the general pool. So while specific money isn't earmarked, the IOU represents money that the bank has right?
I guess a way to ask the question would be: if i were to liquidate all assets of a bank and call in every loan, would that be >= all customer deposits?
This is wrong. Tesla does have the advantage of being the more tech of all the car companies. They have the disadvantage of being bad at the car part. They spent massive amounts of time and energy being vertically integrated as much as possible. Historically car companies outsource everything in the car but their core differentiator (mostly engines). Tesla thought they could do everything themselves because it is cheaper but you are not going to make seats better than someone whose only job is to make seats. This is why they have all the quality problems.
I would agree that Russia and China bluff their strength but there are entire countries that run their militaries off of purely Russian/Chinese equipment. To trust your national security to something that is subpar seems like a recipe for having a bad time.
My theory is that Russia threw their D league to go fight so that no one could accuse them of them actually trying to take over.
Is the clusterfuck that GE went through the last 10 years purely because they over extended their financing arm? I genuinely ask because their products are still in demand and they have huge market shares in the divisions they are in. On paper this conglomerate should’ve stayed together but it seems their financing division fucked them up?
There is a future that exists where cars aren’t allowed in major cities. Something similar to Amsterdam where people and bikes have right of way, and cars are the least preferred mode of travel. Obviously there are situations where you need motorized transport (emergencies, moving day, people with disabilities, businesses etc) but these can be serviced by autonomous vehicles run by the city. All vehicle infrastructure (roadways, parking) would be cut dramatically. Autonomous busses that pick up and drop you off exactly where you need would be the preferred mode of transport but you could even have personalized autonomous cars that people can rent for more privacy. But these would be slow moving vehicles swerving in and out of people and bike traffic, all connected to a central hub.
Only problem is with 2 feet of snow on the ground, no one will bike or walk and the demand for these vehicles would greatly strain the system. Not sure how you would account for it.
Musk has gained more from this market than any other human alive. From the over valuations to the cult of personality, he will be the poster for the 2010/2020s financial markets. It would be dumb for him not to get involved and influence in everything that is ‘now’. He has been on SNL, made songs with his musician girlfriend, has been in movies, got involved in celebrity dating drama, created companies for meme material, got in legal trouble for running his mouth, influences cryptos with tweets, moved to Austin, runs companies in the green energy space, heavy into AI.
I am surprised he hasn’t done anything with - well what is left?
Can someone help me understand this from an investment perspective? AOL and Yahoo were worth a combined $400 billion in the 90s. Was investing in either of those companies essentially a fail? Were all those investors wrong or did they somehow recoup their investment through dividends and such over the last 25 years to justify that market cap?
Currently the market is telling me that Facebook is a $900+ billion company. Will investors ever get $900 billion back?
When Facebook first went public, an older relative asked me if he should invest in Facebook. My only insight was being an internet user at the time and I said no, there was no reason that Facebook wouldn’t be another MySpace. Facebook's only value was their users and users were historically very finicky and moved around platforms at will. I argued that Facebook would make no money and wouldn’t be around in a couple of years. This obviously turned out wildly wrong but I always thought the user moat was always an issue and Facebook’s downfall would be related to it. I guess what this lawsuit says is that they essentially just bought their way out of people platform jumping.
There is a great PBS Frontline documentary called ‘Firestone and the Warlord’ about the Liberian Civil War in the 80’s and 90’s and the role that the Firestone Tire company had in legitimizing Charles Taylor (who was convicted of war crimes and is now in jail). I had no idea about Liberia let alone that they had a civil war, which was mainly about the dominance in Liberian society of black Americans.
My argument to this would be that changing our world because of a faulty model system would be disastrous. Because of the advancements of the last two centuries more people have had food and water and basic necessities being met then at any time in history (and yet we still have billions suffering). Worsening their lives over something that might not happen is not a good way to run the world. The models being accurate is important so that if we do implement policy that end up worsening people’s lives we have proof that it is worth it.
I’m a climate change skeptic almost entirely because I don’t trust models. I believe there are too many dynamic things happening in the world for anyone to be able to predict accurately say the next 100 years (solar, earthquakes, volcanoes etc). One way to make me a believer though is an experiment: if I were to give you a 100 year stretch of history and you were able to accurately predict with the models what exactly happened in those 100 years.
The article talks about it a little bit about how the models are used to predict the 19th century to see if they are correct. But the models use the last 100 years as input so of course it will give you accurate output. But the real challenge of the models would be to accurately predict things that are not part of the inputs into the model. I don’t believe that these models can do this and are thus an exercise in straight extrapolation based on very complex and interconnected inputs.
Congratulations to her but it seems like age is seen as less of a factor in these countries. From an outside perspective, the Nordic countries have a very by the book form of government. Meaning the government/prime minister isn’t the result of the hopes and dreams of the constituents but more of how do we get things done with the least amount of turmoil. Kind of like how your local city government is run, where things seem more administrative and less political. Maybe that is the secret to their success.
You aren’t supposed to take that too seriously. The cabbies are usually doing it for dramatic effect for their passenger. It works for me when I’m in a cab and my cabbie honks at people. Feels like he’s trying to get somewhere on time. Probably if I paid attention, I would see him honking at people waiting for legitimate reasons.