oarabbus_

5 ms·

1.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
>Because they are? There are whole industries that are more or less total BS. Whatever you do for these companies you are pretty much not contributing anything worthwhile to the society. Well, according to you maybe. The customers/p
2.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
>Land is a limited resource. Precisely why the LVT is inherently flawed and regressive, and prone to abuse and exploitation by the rich and powerful, instead of being dictated by the aggregate market demand of regular citizens. >Empir
3.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
Getting rid of 1031 would be a good start. But contrary to what most people/economists falsely proclaim, land value taxes are actually a regressive, punitive tax to those who commit the grave sin of living in an area that other people
4.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
What's your suggestion to eliminate landlords from the equation, then? CCP-style regulations where there is no citizen landownership? Only the government is allowed to own land? Property owners should be forced to operate as nonprofits
5.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
There are countries in which there is no IP protection, it's not the utopia you think it is.
6.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
Asset multiples will collapse if unemployment rises significantly and the labor market weakens. Surely the investor class will still come out ahead, but it's interesting they seem to be ignoring this fact (except Warren Buffett, who&#x
7.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
Right - and this resistance against RTO from a basis “companies are doing it just because of sunk costs” has a logical conclusion companies should increase outsourcing further.
8.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
This doesn't add up to me. The priorities of corporate executives are to please the board of directors. BoD priorities are to please shareholders/investors. Shareholders/investors are pleased by growth/profits. That is,
9.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
>I think it is illuminating to consider how these debates would go very differently if employers where the ones whose budgets paid for all the hours/fuel spent in office commutes A significant number of employers do allocate budget
10.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
So let's say they go full remote for jobs that allow it - why should they hire you, then? Why not hire someone in Vancouver for 80% of your salary, or Mexico for 60%, or Brazil for 40%?
11.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
The entire stock market hit an all-time high during this period. Because of $3 trillion from quantitative easing.
12.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
>It's not the perfect medium because it requires living in some of the most expensive real estate markets on the planet. This applies to the entire United States if everything that could were to go fully remote. Why hire someone for
13.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
I am not sure I find this explanation convincing. If a corporation thinks it could increase profits without RTO and after eating office real-estate losses, it'll do so. The real estate companies and the middle managers do not make deci
14.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
Every job posting on their website states "Total compensation also includes generous equity and benefits." https://openai.com/careers
15.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
You don't think it's a little uncalled for to wish physical harm and/or death on someone just because you disagree with their actions?
16.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
Can you point out some examples of astroturfed articles? I cannot say I find your statement convincing based on a google search of news about threads.
17.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
Why do you blame Facebook and not ElutherAI?
18.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
> The UK structures water provision as regional monopolies. This should be a hilarious joke but it's the reality. You can't change water company without living in a different region. There is no effective market competition for
19.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
Not even going to touch the bait in your statement but calling Kelly Rowland a hip-hop artist is an exceedingly bizarre statement. It would be like calling Blink 182 hair metal, or calling Coldplay classic rock.
20.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
It’s quite literally a problem, every day.
21.
by oarabbus_ 3y ago
It was explained, maybe you didn't connect the reasoning. First, there are no entities that have the amount of capital needed to keep the bond market moving besides banks. This is a $50 trillion market that makes the stock market look
22.
by oarabbus_ 4y ago
Actually, the yield curve was inverted at the time they made the purchases, compounding how strange their decision was.
23.
by oarabbus_ 4y ago
Source on 1/3rd? Does that include the ~$80B of 15-30 year MBS they acquired at the same time? clearly it was not enough considering interest rates were zero at the time and the yield curve was inverted.
24.
by oarabbus_ 4y ago
These banks made poor investment decisions and were reckles with customer funds, and are to blame for their own failure. It might be on-brand for him, and surely he acted in his own interest and didn't give a shit about anyone else. B
25.
by oarabbus_ 4y ago
>This would have been "safer", but lost them money. In a short-term sense, but the point of short-dated maturities is not to produce yield but rather provide liquidity, which allows you to purchase higher-yielding 10+ year note
26.
by oarabbus_ 4y ago
>There are way better ways to "yield chase" than this, Such as what? There are not, if you have $50-100B. Your options as a bank are either treasury bonds or mortgage-backed securities. As a private sector investor (e.g. Warren
27.
by oarabbus_ 4y ago
>Does it? Or is this just how the system is currently designed? Yes, to both questions. The US Debt is at $31 trillion, it only works as long as the system keeps feeding money into government bonds. The entire global financial system (no
28.
by oarabbus_ 4y ago
>Sure, but the thing they bought also had almost no yield, so that's what I'm not understanding. Why is shitty 1% 10 year T notes "yield chasing"? Exactly. the 1-year notes had zero interest rate risk, and almost no y
29.
by oarabbus_ 4y ago
Sorry, but you're completely misunderstanding what you're reading, or reading false information if that's your interpretation. Bond portfolios typically hold a mix of maturities from 1, 2, 3, to 10-year+ maturities. The short
30.
by oarabbus_ 4y ago
10 year bills are way cheaper because of the interest rate risk. You have to hold an unrealized/paper loss if rates move against you, but eventually you will realize the face value after 10 years. This is why bond investors who aren&#x

More ›