boombust
It is impossible to know the full extent that Russian interference had on the election, but dismissing its impact because there is no proof of its 'effectiveness' is laughable. We know political ads work. It is why every single modern political campaign runs them. A google search gives you a rough idea of the reach this political campaign had. Put those simple principles together and you get why all western intelligence communities are in agreement that russia interfered and affected the US presidential election. Given how susceptible people are to advertising it shouldn't come as a surprise.
When someone posits a statement that is just insanely ignorant (and demonstrably wrong) like "I would even be satisfied with any ad from any country having the ability to significantly sway any election." then the intent to derail the conversation is clear. Any knowledge of political history (and advertising) would tell you that such a statement is clearly ridiculous. Being obstinate and a pedant doesn't make automatically make you a critical thinker. In this case, it blinds you from seeing the obvious.
Some sources for you even though you are probably too busy commenting something contrarian to google this shit yourself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-russians...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-googl...
Listen, I was just trying to make an argument that even WB can misjudge a situation. It was not a convincing argument because half the example I used was not correct. Timing wise, buying apple stock in early 2018 before concerns about Apple being able to grow and stoke the hunger for their consumers to upgrade is not ideal. Hindsight is not a necessarily fair way to judge his decision because as you mentioned his horizon goes far beyond a year.
Maybe my personal bias is coming through because I just don't see it as such an exciting brand anymore and I struggle to see where they will find new areas for growth. Whereas 10 years ago I was looking to upgrade my laptop/smartphone every 1-2 years, now I've got my iPhone 7 and my 2013 macbook air and I'm sticking with them until they fail because nothing that Apple offers makes me go 'I want that'.
To buy Apple's explanation that most of their disappointing quarterly earnings were as a result of Chinese macroeconomic conditions is frankly being generous to them. Just focusing on the iPhone, it is a muddled offering where successive iterations don't stand out from the next as they did in previous generations. Now, this isn't just an Apple problem. Innovations in smartphone technology have slowed down across all handset makers. However, until Apple shows that they can successfully increase their service offering to get more money out of their users and are able to charge more for handsets then opportunities for growth seem pretty limited in that space. Moreover, when I see that apple is increasing credit on trade ins for newer iPhones a few months back. . .I take that as a sign that consumers see little value in upgrading. Not saying Apple is doomed but they don't show signs (to me) that they are on the path for growth.
My comments on the price of iphones was from misremembering WB comments about them 6 months ago. He said that the iPhone was underpriced but that Apple could not increase prices due to competition. I thought he made a statement saying he believed that prices should be increased on the iPhone range. I never claimed that their stagnant sales are from product prices, rather that worldwide sales demonstrate that the price should definitely not be higher than it is currently (unless they improve the product dramatically).
I mean Warren Buffet invested in Apple about a year ago based on the idea that they have a sticky brand and went so far as to say that iPhones were underpriced (which is just flat out wrong given how poorly they sold relative to predictions). . .and it turned out to be a terrible investment decision (so far). While I find it hard to believe that WB is all luck I think you can't dismiss that argument entirely based on his track record, no matter how successful.
You do have a point with your criticism of my arguments. I don't think I did a good job making the arguments as the issue that arises with renters not moving onto the properly ladder is closely linked with empty properties. Yes, a sold home becomes a rental in principle. But if it is slow to come onto the rental market or is kept empty then the supply for rentals decreases and the demand for rentals doesn't decrease accordingly, exacerbating the problem. So you are completely right that by itself it shouldn't matter much. You are correct that the problem arises when landlords are not too bothered by renting, which is a common feature in real estate money laundering.
First, if housing prices growing at a faster rate than wages then less people can afford buying and must keep renting. This means that the amount of people seeking rentals keeps getting larger, which increases the demand for rentals (and therefore the price).
Second, and this point is speculative and I have no evidence to prove this, these properties are much more likely to stay empty (or at least take longer to get to market as the goal of the money laundering operation is not the bottom line but the purchase itself). This is completely anecdotal, but the owner of a dog that my dog likes to play with represents a wealthy foreign individual, and this individual owns a really expensive property on Lancaster Gate that just sits empty that would otherwise pull in over 10 grand a month easy. If you live in these cities you see this kind of thing first hand.
It takes years for buildings to be built. There are a ton of regulations that exist around construction and refurbishment in most cities (for good reason). Demand increases in any part of a market will have knock on effects on other parts of that market if supply is static (if buyers are priced out of one area they move onto other areas, increasing the demand and therefore price level).
Basically, the way the world behaves cannot be quoted out of a textbook. This is economic thinking at its worst.
Where I live, London, the rental market has gone absolutely mad in the past 20 years. While there is no single reason for it, it is no coincidence that this has been happening in the money laundering capital of the world, a favourite destination for oligarchs as our governments have turned a blind eye to their dirty money in the pursuit of foreign investment.
just because we don't walk on all fours and smell urine for information doesn't mean that we would not revert back to aggression and dominance if you remove all manmade recourses for settling disputes and enforcing property rights. why on earth would you think people would respect ownership of goods when you can just take what you want through intimidation? all ordered systems are at the mercy of entropy and it takes effort (i.e. the state) to maintain such order. it only takes one person to step out of line in times of anarchy for others to realise that it makes no sense to cooperate and follow rules when there is no one to enforce them, sending the whole system back into chaos.
The UK's problem is that transport policy is abysmally backward and our property market is outrageously disparate and historically overvalued (as land was how a person demonstrated their wealth which has perpetuated unlike other countries where industry holdings are valued much more, e.g. America and Germany). Take your example of Paris, much smaller but equally historic, yet prices there are much lower than in London. London is a more global city than Paris but not so much as to explain the discrepancy in property market values.
In a representative democracy, the people elect others to represent them in the legislature (and sometimes if it is separate, the executive). There are different ideas as to how representatives should operate/vote. But you would hope that for issues that are too complex for the public at large, the representatives would make the decisions as they are in a better position to do so. Government being accountable to the people has proven to be the best form of governance, but governance by the people has never and will never end well.
In the UK we historically associate wealth with land holdings and this has persisted to the present day. 'An Englishman's home is his castle' is long standing and famous adage that was at the core of Thatcher's economic reforms in the 1980's to increase home ownership amongst the UK population. One of her more famous policies was to allow people who were in social housing to be able to buy the properties that they lived in. This falls in line with Conservative policy and traditional ring-wing thinking that private ownership encourages positive, pro-social behaviour as you have a greater incentive to take care of things you own. To compound this further, average house prices are generally interpreted as barometer for the health of the economy.
You obviously don't want large swathes of the population to be upside down on their mortgage. But the wealth effect that occurs from increased house prices both on a household and on a nationwide policy level is largely illusory as the value generated is, for the most part, totally inaccessible. Homes are quite personal assets and to craft policy as if they simple financial instruments is misguided.
The UK government's staunch commitment to keep house prices in the UK is such that the barriers for foreign investment to buy property in the UK is almost non-existent. London's property market is basically the biggest money laundering scheme in the world. The UK government has passed some legislation to curb this activity but it is by and large just for show. This puts pressure on domestic property buyers as they now have to compete with foreign speculative/dirty money for the same supply of housing, driving prices up.
Plus, governments over the years have been hell bent on increasing home ownership as a policy (for God knows what reason). So they have instituted schemes to subsidise buying houses (which as far as I am aware have been discontinued for the most part). This only serves to push the price of housing up even further with a subsidy of the taxpayer, which makes absolutely no sense to me.
If prices were to ever fall drastically, this would be considered on the whole a failure of the incumbent government, which is why governments try everything they can to push prices in the opposite direction. This is despite the fact that a fall in rents would be the best thing that could happen for enterprise as it would make it so much cheaper for business. Now, the problem is that everyone is so attached to the value of property that if a dramatic fall were to occur this would likely destroy commercial and consumer confidence in the UK. But if you think about it, it is quite insane that the price of property has such a stranglehold on UK economic perception as it does not (directly) affect output of the UK economy whatsoever (except for real estate sales). Despite what I have just said, the fact that a large amount of households would end up in negative equity would be devastating to so many that the UK is essentially trapped in this cycle. So we are heavily invested in keeping the world's dullest ponzi scheme alive and well, and this will likely not change for a very long time.
So no, financial operations moving out of the City will likely not have such a big affect as to push prices low enough for lower earners to move back into central-ish London.
EDIT: I should also add that despite the recency of my arguments, increased property prices in London is nothing new. The average house price for London has doubled every decade since the 1900. I guess my point is, successive governments have essentially stoked the fire to the point where it is out of control and the only way to stop the fire from burning out is to keep stoking it even more.
The path to success is simply education. It is not a sexy suggestion by any means, but I would point to how successful bad education is at stopping progress as evidence that it is the determinant factor. It is not a quick or a guaranteed solution. But by staying informed and engaging in conversation with people, this can have a knock-on effects on others. Further, key moments in contemporary human history show that shifts can occur seemingly out of nowhere. Will it be enough? Who knows? Realistically, this is our only play left and to squander it to apathy is not acceptable.
Re: rational. I guess this becomes a semantic issue, which means it is a non-issue to begin with as we are in agreement. I personally just feel that the word doesn't add much to the discussion as it is implicitly understood that economic actors will be driven to certain decisions by their own self-serving motivations. Using the word rational, while I agree that if we were to take your definition would be absolutely correct, connotes the notion that they are acting in absolute self interest, which is not the case in this example as that would mean individual actors would find a way to cooperate given that the existence of humanity is at stake. So, despite the fact that there is nothing wrong with the word, I avoid using it as I find it to be quite confusing.
My opinion on the matter probably reflects quite well on why I switched out of an economics degree :)
I want to touch on what you said about lobbies and give you my take on it.
The characteristics of successful lobbies have three key properties. Within any dispute/issue the most important quality that determines influence of a group/cause is organisation. An organised faction will always triumph over the disorganised masses. Then, the second most important factor is possession of any tactical advantages to advance their goal over their adversaries. These can be anything from superior methods to a willingness to do things that the other side is not. The last, and least important, is the size of the group. Each factor is meaningless without the preceding one.
As a consequence, I would agree that other groups would 'win' in this case. But they wouldn't actually need to win, they would just need engage in dirty tactics such as proliferation of fake news, muddying public discourse, bribe political officials, etc. Humanity would face the greatest difficulty dealing with the lengths that special interests are willing to go to to wield undue influence and stagnate progress.
However, I do not share your abject and defeatist view. I concede that humanity is facing a battle in the trenches to ensure the health of our ecosystems. We all must take responsibility for what is coming because to do nothing is to allow bad actors to get away with being shitheads. Given that the survival of our species and many others on Earth is at stake this should not be acceptable to any one with a shred of empathy to possible future generations.
Ultimately, we measure the success of our capitalist economies in total receipts, and optimise accordingly. Our markets (and our cultures) prioritise consumption over repair or even abstention. That last point might seem contentious but truth be told, most of us would rather buy something new than repair something broken unless it is prohibitively expensive or repair is easy. In short, if we changed the yardstick to determine progress then the matter becomes much simpler to solve. However, this is not likely to change so we are forced to look for solutions within our economic framework.
There are plenty of ways to correct these market failures but they must stem from government and have the support of the people. Private initiatives have nowhere near the influence or the scale to tackle such problems. Tax on goods and services could be proportional to how damaging it is to the environment. Regulations on animal welfare could be broadened and prioritised. Creative solutions exist for almost every issue, the problem is that they are not part of the public discourse.
For instance, while I personally abhor hunting, I feel we should encourage regulated African trophy hunting, where older animals are auctioned off so that the money can be reinvested to protect current populations from poaching. In places like Africa where money is the only thing that matters, it is of the utmost importance that conservation look to market solutions to assist wildlife, as we might as well nuke the poor bastards if their survival depended on African governments.
The biggest hurdle to overcome is the relentlessness of special interests to dictate policy around the globe. In fact, this is the root of the majority of global economic issues. I would imagine the only feasible way to do this is for the people to engage with these issues, which means we are most likely doomed.