Its an interesting discussion no doubt. Sometimes easier to have a "dress code/standard" in an office as it sets an (externalised) baseline.
I think the key thing is balance, not everyone is comfortable to wear a 3-piece suit but also few people are comfortable working with people who ave poor hygiene (e.g. dont shower after the lunchtime gym)
I think as long as someone is clean and presentable (context dependent) then there shouldnt be an issue.
GDPR "hurt" tech companies, but hurt the big ones less than the small ones.
The big tech companies have increased market dominance so it seems like spirit of the law was actually to crush competition so that there fewer players for the EU to regulate
I'm not convinced that was some ulterior goal, but even if, I don't mind as long as it is followed by actually regulating the remaining players.
As I keep saying: we don't need innovation in adtech. We don't need more companies in this space. We need this industry burned down to the ground, encased in a concrete tomb, with warnings for future generations plastered all over it.
It could certainly run with 20 staff – it would just spend a lot of money on license fees to a separate Facebook Services Inc that provides software and server administration services. This is similar to how companies avoid tax e.g. IKEA and Starbucks.
It could similarly avoid large profits but avoiding large revenues works be trickier. But I'm not an expert in these things, so maybe it's possible if you really know what you're doing.
The problem is, there's no legal distinction between a company that own shares but is "really" part of the same company, vs a completely separately company owning shares e.g. a pension fund.
Unfortunately the resources to resolve the issue are rival and limited.
This ultimately means that giving to the poor deprives another.
The question then becomes should the parents and children of parents who make more sustainable choices be forced to support the parents and children those who don't. This is generally the current state of our welfare system.
Tax burden and impact is predominantly on the middle class.
The result is dysgenic, i.e. Better outcomes are punished, worse outcomes are rewarded.
Its also a classic trolley problem, and thus both action (wealth distribution) and inaction are immoral.
The next argument will be that we should lift everyone to a minimum standard. However this still fails the test above and fails to realise that wealth is unfortunately relative.
Couple that with the dead-weight loss of the tax system and you actually create a spiral of poverty that starts to consume all except the richest.
Interesting argument and its true that income taxes hurt production and producers.
My biggest challenge with the idea of governments printing the money they need is that there would be no accountability. It is reasonably apparent that governments are not accountable enough for their actions.
i.e. why would they only stop at what they need when they could print 1M and give it to everyone or people who vote for them. And when that 1M is worthless, print another 10M for everyone.
As imperfect as the tax system is there is still a theoretical trace of accountability. Budgets need to be paid through taxes, taxes impact people, people vote for governments, governments create budgets.
I think we need to move towards a system with MORE accountability, less wasteful spending and less deferred debt.
Interestingly enough this probably means broadening the tax base, where both rich and poor pay more of the share of total tax. Only then will people have "buy in" to the government and the desire to hold them to account
>> My biggest challenge with the idea of governments printing the money they need is that there would be no accountability.
I think this is a good argument but there could be some kind of institutional structure to create accountability.
Kind of like the separation between the Federal Reserve and the Government. We need a structure that makes it difficult for the government to get the money. I think there is a difference between making it difficult and making it complicated. Right now it's not difficult for the government to get money somehow, it's just complicated but this complication just creates more bureaucratic jobs and makes the economy less efficient.
Worked out great! We were fully funded, and I reached out to the community again when we launched a tool for another platform (Chrome extension). Several years later, and we still have thousands of active users.
I think the key thing is balance, not everyone is comfortable to wear a 3-piece suit but also few people are comfortable working with people who ave poor hygiene (e.g. dont shower after the lunchtime gym)
I think as long as someone is clean and presentable (context dependent) then there shouldnt be an issue.