Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | freejulian85's commentslogin

> Mr Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the environment that he exposed himself to

Fuck you.


We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Would you please stop creating accounts to do that with?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Please don't do that.


[flagged]


There are now active concentration camps in the United States, designed to traumatize children, because Wikileaks bolstered Trump's campaign to make HRC appear destined for prison.

And people who can't hold him accountable for his role in that, "can get fucked".


Please do not take HN threads further into political flamewar.


Every source I can find on google shows clearly that they aren't new to the Trump administration, though often more populated than they were under the Obama administration.

But they all defeat the causal relationship you asserted in your comment.

https://www.newsweek.com/migrant-detention-centers-trump-oba...


The dishonesty and irresponsibility of the fed is going to end in disaster - disaster, in this case, being destruction of the currency.


By when? It's easy to predict the destruction of the currency without setting a period.


I think everyone knows someone who bought bitcoin in 2017. Hardly a single person.


Same tricks used by governments when reporting inflation!


At one point does policy targeting a statistical measurement render that statistic useless? I’m looking at you, CPI.


> At one point does policy targeting a statistical measurement render that statistic useless?

When the statistic is a proxy for a quantity of interest, and when policy exploits ways of manipulating that proxy without commensurate change in the underlying quantity of interest. My driving policy of targeting my speedometer does a fine job of controlling my vehicle's speed even though the former is just a potentially-inaccurate measurement.

In the case of the CPI (actually the PCE for the US Fed [1]), the quantity of interest is the "[nominal] cost of living." To the extent the CPI doesn't in fact measure the cost of living, the easy solution is to change to a price index that does measure the cost of living. Since living tends to involve buying and consuming things, a price index, suitably defined, can be a fine measure of this.

To the extent you are concerned about the exact ways in which the CPI is computed, independent measurements [2] generally reproduce the broad trends in US data, which in turn suggests there is no significant manipulation by the BLS.

[1] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditu...

[2] -- http://www.thebillionpricesproject.com/


You’re clearly biased when you claim without evidence that the primary purpose of bitcoin is speculation.


All they really need to thwart is the fed’s free money policies and banks ability to give people mortgages at 50% DTI and 1% down.


Unfortunately it's a little more complex than that.


Not really.


It certainly would help but not any of the other issues that relate to the industrial complexes, the Landlord-Rental-Development complex, along with other parts of the finance complex.


And don’t forget restrictive zoning which artificially limits supply.


That's not how it works. There's always going to be someone willing to work in his sleep, plus 1 more hour of conscious time relative to the next guy.


The government can’t even protect us from a known carcinogen - RoundUp. And we’re suppose to just trust them when it comes to vaccines and their side effects? Most anti-vaccine people I know don’t doubt it protects from a specific virus. They question the side effects and secondary impacts vaccines can cause to the body. Just like there’s no doubt that RoundUp is an effective pesticide — but that’s not the issue, is it?


Sorry, my comment must not conform to the hackernews groupthink. If you think some vaccines don’t have significant side effects, you’re also not very smart (as so many comments are stating anti vacciners are).


And WeWork is worth 40B according to the big banks.


Softbank != "the big banks"

The public markets did what they were supposed to do to WeWork.


Goldman Sachs = the big banks

IIRC Goldman valued WeWork at $60B


Goldman valued WeWork at $60B, as part of their sales pitch to lead the IPO. The context makes all the difference since the point of that valuation was to aid a sales pitch, not be an accurate assessment.


This is incorrect. They pitched this at $60b but couldn't get a bookbuild at that price which never happens.

The key distinction with pitching to lead to the IPO is they sought to find investors (as opposed to wework management) at this price too, but not enough people bit to fill the raise.


Softbank and WeWork reminds me painfully of the episode of Entourage I watched last night, where the boys are pitching their as-yet unseen prestige film at Cannes. Hyped to the extreme, on the verge of pulling a deal to make a boatload of money, but on closer inspection it's a huge stinker that falls apart disastrously.


To be fair it was the weWork ipo roadshow banks that came up with that fantastic number


Matt Levine made the point that to get chosen as one of the IPO banks, you had to pitch to WeWork that you could get them a good-yet-plausible valuation. I.e., take what their last (private) valuation was, and bump it up by a decent amount. Once you're selected, of course, then reality can take over.


two weeks later they said it's only worth ~ 10B


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: