throwaway284721

This is in fact a major problem for the EU.

This has nothing whatever to do with this article.

Since when is cleaning the streets the responsibility of private companies?

Why not pirate it.

The reason for this is that if one state has better social programs then another and higher taxes the poorest are going to move there, and the high earners are going to move away.

So what's wrong with being bought off? People in Kuwait have it very well.

An honest article would say that a humanity degree signals that you're conformist and happy to tolerate boredem just as well as a STEM degree, and a STEM degree doesn't teach anything relevant either. This article says that with a humanity degree you can be just as smug as people with STEM degrees are.

> As a rule, populists of the right (who are usually capitalists) don’t know how to divide the pie well, while populists of the left (who are usually socialists) don’t know how to grow the pie.

Right populists don't know how to grow the pie either.

> Inflows of hard currency push up prices, squeezing the competitiveness of non-oil businesses and starving them of capital.

This is true for any kind of industry that a country has a competitive advantage in.

How much you pay in taxes does not depend on how much you use roads. So it doesn't incentivise people to use roads less. That's the point of road congestion pricing.

The difference is that people loose their money if the policy doesn't have the effect they predicted.

Isn't that the purpose of reputation? Some people are more trustworthy then others, even if they aren't perfect.

Technical solutions solve social problems all the time. A lock is a technical solution to the social problem of theft, and much superior to a social solution.

What's interesting about this is that there isn't even a narrative or a partisan bias here. The media just lies because there's no reason not to.

I think you should show up at my home to justify yourself for this comment in person, otherwise I don't think you deserve a hearing either.

> That being the case, I'm not sure that statement is correct at all. On the contrary, it seems like if FB were required to offer an easily exportable data format, that other services would pop up overnight to try and lure people away from FB onto their (hopefully) more privacy conscious platforms. It would also lower the bar for people to make the switch to something else, as they know their friends can switch just as easily without losing their data.

The problem with this is that it presupposes a certain data-format, that doesn't allow for innovation. How exactly would you export facebooks data to twitter or vice versa? For a start, facebook doesn't have a character limit, twitter does. Twitter threads can be nested infinitely, facebook's can't, etc.

> I agree with this. Having a private corporation that's invested in engagement, which is also headquartered in the US (very far geographically and culturally from some of the places it moderates) be in charge of defining what's right and what's wrong, is and has been a recipe for disaster— let alone the implications it could have around the sovereignty of nations.

What? If Facebook decides it, it's a threat to sovereignity of countries other then the US, but if the USG decides it, it isn't?

> while extracting value through some kind of exploitation.

In your view, are there ways of "extracting value" that are not "some kind of exploitation". Is "changing the world for the better" incompatible with "extracting value" somehow?

I doubt US allies are going to buy a plane because of a PR piece.

It also reduces the incentive to innovate in the first place.