Intolerance is the highest virtue – because it means you are willing to pay the cost of defending the informational, normative, and institutional commons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-05 12:05:00 UTC
Theme: Institution
-
My answer to Did products and home appliances last more in the Soviet Union than
My answer to Did products and home appliances last more in the Soviet Union than in the capitalistic world? https://www.quora.com/Did-products-and-home-appliances-last-more-in-the-Soviet-Union-than-in-the-capitalistic-world/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-02 23:36:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959571372983881728
-
The Us Has Very Few Listed Firms. Why?
Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s happened is that high quality investment firms have ‘stolen’ the market from pump and dump take-em-public firms. And that was exactly what they set out to do. What I really like about this article is the emphasis on (a) how the stock market and the tax system evolved for capital intensive companies, and (b) we live in a world of research and development companies. —“The US now has “abnormally few listed firms,” according to a new working paper (registration required) from the National Bureau of Economics. (The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.) In 1997, more than 7,500 American firms were listed publicly in the US. Nearly two decades later, in 2016, the number had dropped more than half, slipping to 3,618 firms. The crux of the issue is that US startups are increasingly shunning stock market boards. That could have worrying implications for America’s long-term economic prospects. In fact, going public can hurt them. The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets. US securities law requires companies to disclose their activities in detail. But startups are wary of sharing information that might benefit their competitors A similar problem stems from US accounting standards for public listing. Known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, these typically treat spending on tangible things like new equipment as assets, which doesn’t affect the firm’s profitability. However, GAAP regards intangible assets—research staff, employee training, and brand-building, for instance—as costs that eat into the firm’s profitability. So spending that could yield wildly profitable new products looks wasteful on paper. That makes it much harder for public investors to assess a firm’s value. Luckily for small companies with promising ideas, there’s plenty of private money sloshing around in the form of venture capital and private equity. And it’s often easier and less risky to convince a VC fund’s in-house experts of the value of your idea than to persuade many hundreds of thousands of prospective shareholders and the financial media.”— -
The Us Has Very Few Listed Firms. Why?
Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s happened is that high quality investment firms have ‘stolen’ the market from pump and dump take-em-public firms. And that was exactly what they set out to do. What I really like about this article is the emphasis on (a) how the stock market and the tax system evolved for capital intensive companies, and (b) we live in a world of research and development companies. —“The US now has “abnormally few listed firms,” according to a new working paper (registration required) from the National Bureau of Economics. (The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.) In 1997, more than 7,500 American firms were listed publicly in the US. Nearly two decades later, in 2016, the number had dropped more than half, slipping to 3,618 firms. The crux of the issue is that US startups are increasingly shunning stock market boards. That could have worrying implications for America’s long-term economic prospects. In fact, going public can hurt them. The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets. US securities law requires companies to disclose their activities in detail. But startups are wary of sharing information that might benefit their competitors A similar problem stems from US accounting standards for public listing. Known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, these typically treat spending on tangible things like new equipment as assets, which doesn’t affect the firm’s profitability. However, GAAP regards intangible assets—research staff, employee training, and brand-building, for instance—as costs that eat into the firm’s profitability. So spending that could yield wildly profitable new products looks wasteful on paper. That makes it much harder for public investors to assess a firm’s value. Luckily for small companies with promising ideas, there’s plenty of private money sloshing around in the form of venture capital and private equity. And it’s often easier and less risky to convince a VC fund’s in-house experts of the value of your idea than to persuade many hundreds of thousands of prospective shareholders and the financial media.”— -
THE US HAS VERY FEW LISTED FIRMS. WHY? Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s
THE US HAS VERY FEW LISTED FIRMS. WHY?
Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s happened is that high quality investment firms have ‘stolen’ the market from pump and dump take-em-public firms. And that was exactly what they set out to do.
What I really like about this article is the emphasis on (a) how the stock market and the tax system evolved for capital intensive companies, and (b) we live in a world of research and development companies.
—“The US now has “abnormally few listed firms,” according to a new working paper (registration required) from the National Bureau of Economics. (The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.) In 1997, more than 7,500 American firms were listed publicly in the US. Nearly two decades later, in 2016, the number had dropped more than half, slipping to 3,618 firms.
The crux of the issue is that US startups are increasingly shunning stock market boards. That could have worrying implications for America’s long-term economic prospects.
In fact, going public can hurt them.
The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets.
US securities law requires companies to disclose their activities in detail. But startups are wary of sharing information that might benefit their competitors
A similar problem stems from US accounting standards for public listing. Known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, these typically treat spending on tangible things like new equipment as assets, which doesn’t affect the firm’s profitability. However, GAAP regards intangible assets—research staff, employee training, and brand-building, for instance—as costs that eat into the firm’s profitability. So spending that could yield wildly profitable new products looks wasteful on paper. That makes it much harder for public investors to assess a firm’s value.
Luckily for small companies with promising ideas, there’s plenty of private money sloshing around in the form of venture capital and private equity. And it’s often easier and less risky to convince a VC fund’s in-house experts of the value of your idea than to persuade many hundreds of thousands of prospective shareholders and the financial media.”—
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-01 20:28:00 UTC
-
by James Santagata Google was / is a one-trick pony, search — but it is a god-d
by James Santagata Google was / is a one-trick pony, search — but it is a god-damn good fucking pony at that!! It was basically developed by having Michael Moritz trick his earlier investment, Yahoo! to outsource a $100M USD deal to let Google do the search. The NSA / CIA / Qtel, kicked in the start up money and then as Yahoo abandoned search and tried to be a Portal and then a Vortal, Google ripped off the GoTo.com / Overture patent (key word buys / auction related to click throughs), bought DoubleClick and rebuilt it, and stumble onto Applied Semantics key acquisiton. Everything since all acquired. Overture patent stolen, Double click, Applied Semantics, Keyhole (Google Earth), Android, Youtube, etc. all the internal projects – DOA. Orkut for social networks, Google video, Google check out, etc. etc. oh, Google Wave. -
by James Santagata Google was / is a one-trick pony, search — but it is a god-d
by James Santagata Google was / is a one-trick pony, search — but it is a god-damn good fucking pony at that!! It was basically developed by having Michael Moritz trick his earlier investment, Yahoo! to outsource a $100M USD deal to let Google do the search. The NSA / CIA / Qtel, kicked in the start up money and then as Yahoo abandoned search and tried to be a Portal and then a Vortal, Google ripped off the GoTo.com / Overture patent (key word buys / auction related to click throughs), bought DoubleClick and rebuilt it, and stumble onto Applied Semantics key acquisiton. Everything since all acquired. Overture patent stolen, Double click, Applied Semantics, Keyhole (Google Earth), Android, Youtube, etc. all the internal projects – DOA. Orkut for social networks, Google video, Google check out, etc. etc. oh, Google Wave. -
by James Santagata Google was / is a one-trick pony, search — but it is a god-d
by James Santagata
Google was / is a one-trick pony, search — but it is a god-damn good fucking pony at that!!
It was basically developed by having Michael Moritz trick his earlier investment, Yahoo! to outsource a $100M USD deal to let Google do the search.
The NSA / CIA / Qtel, kicked in the start up money and then as Yahoo abandoned search and tried to be a Portal and then a Vortal, Google ripped off the GoTo.com http://GoTo.com / Overture patent (key word buys / auction related to click throughs), bought DoubleClick and rebuilt it, and stumble onto Applied Semantics key acquisiton.
Everything since all acquired. Overture patent stolen, Double click, Applied Semantics, Keyhole (Google Earth), Android, Youtube, etc. all the internal projects – DOA. Orkut for social networks, Google video, Google check out, etc. etc. oh, Google Wave.
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-31 10:16:00 UTC
-
Hard to argue with the data that higher ed sorts, and nothing of it is retained,
Hard to argue with the data that higher ed sorts, and nothing of it is retained, and outside of STEM has done little more than replace the church’s theological dogma of frozen capital with a pseudoscientific dogma of the opposite. I mean you were on the bow wave of demarcation…
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-29 18:41:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/958047388710637573
Reply addressees: @sapinker @chronicle
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/958013229153832960
IN REPLY TO:
@sapinker
A radical idea: Economist Bryan Caplan says higher ed is a waste of time & money. I don’t agree, but U’s should think more about what we provide in exchange for $250K. (Includes a mention of my lectures.) https://t.co/cV8dySNaUJ via @chronicle
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/958013229153832960
-
The irony that the Long House is the Ultimate Family home design, and that the C
The irony that the Long House is the Ultimate Family home design, and that the Courtyard House is the Ultimate Multi-Generational home design, and that the Courtyard Block of ‘interior facing condos’, or exterior facing Town Homes, is the ultimate Multi-Family Intergenerational home design, and we have all been trying to develop farm houses, which were not homes but small businesses; and manor houses, which were medium and large sized businesses, and our aesthetic is for farm houses, and for Manors despite the fact that we no longer have farms, or conduct business from our homes – and in particular, do not have six children per woman, and household servants to assist in training, clothing, and feeding them. I’ve been drawing home designs since I was nine (I satisfied my OCD by 3d construction drawings of our many Victorian Homes, and guessing at the internal wood construction. What is scary, even knowing myself now, is that because I was working for my father as a delivery runner, I knew every house in town from memory, and could do the drawings from memory. And I think I have only lost that facility because I simply don’t use it.) But it became obvious to me, after living in a courtyard home, that it is the perfect solution to home design. It is not as cheap as two story winter-weather standing homes, but it is infinitely more desirable to live in. Particularly as diversity increases and trust and norms decrease. 1 – Long house (territorial family) 2 – Courtyard TownHomes (non-territorial family) 2 – Courtyard House (intergenerational non-territorial family) 3 – Courtyard Homes (multiple intergenerational non territorial families.)