Bio not provided
@Jessyca right on. Here, as others here noted, the word 'gross' was only used to get clicks to this article and create 'discussion'. What exactly is 'gross' is never specified...is it the concept, the appearance, etc? Who cares? We clicked and we're here, right?
And the best part..the author hasn't meaningfully contributed to the discussion at all despite a handful of serious (non-troll) comments. Why? Because he needs to be busy creating more link-bait shit so that clicks stay up.
This is the grossest model of all.
8 months, 1 week ago on Bezos-owned Washington Post now inserting gross Amazon affiliate links into news articles
I don't understand the problem. How is editorial independence not being compromised with click-focused media? Are you really trying to claim that writers focused on eyeballs and clicks have full autonomy?
Either pay for writers to write or just deal with a flawed system.
In spite of no hard evidence, I'm going to speculate that this trend plays at least some part in explaining increasing income inequality in this country. It seems like a minority of the people is hustling to get these services built and make peoples' lives easier, while the majority is happily sparing a piece of its dwindling income to buy.
That minority is reaping the rewards, while the majority is becoming increasingly lazy and incapable.
Our culture badly needs an infusion of hustle, otherwise, this won't end.
1 year, 11 months ago on Do nothing nation
Agreed. I was Joe until 4 days ago, literally also moving numbers around on spreadsheets, until I quit in search of more meaningful work. Timely post!
Your thoughts mirror Dan Pink's thoughts on motivation: it's all about PURPOSE. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
2 years, 9 months ago on The Search For Meaningful Work
I think the title is a little misleading...self-serve ads could be a $400m business for Twitter, but they aren't yet. Good stuff, though.
3 years ago on Wait, Self Serve Ads Are a $400 Million Business for Twitter?
AisleBuyer was just snapped up by Intuit...they largely did the same thing. Knowing Intuit, I would expect them to put up some very good competition.
3 years ago on PayDragon is the Express Lane Resting in Your Pocket
@DanBowen you make a solid case, and I respect your opinion. For the record, I think Wall Street analysts are a joke. Four analysts still rated Enron a BUY when it was 61c a share (down from almost $85 not too long before) and officially removed from the S&P500, perhaps because of the technology you mentioned. Whatever the reason, one should always take Wall Street analyst opinions with multiple grains of salt.
Quite frankly, if everyone were as critical as you are, and investors actually knew what they were doing, we wouldn't have bubbles! Too many people remain in denial until it's too late, or they naively go with the flow of those around them. I applaud you for thinking outside the box.
3 years ago on As Wall Street Points Fingers at Groupon, Three Fingers Point Back
Welcome to the club, @DanBowen . This guy thinks he's the king of finance and looks down upon anyone he thinks does not share his wonderful experience. At least he gave you some insightful arguments.
Your argument reminds me of remarks Mark Zuckerberg made regarding Boston-based investors and Silicon Valley-based investors: if he were to do it over, he'd stay in Boston. Why? Investors in SV have too short-term of a focus.
Smart founders, like him, ride it out and don't get greedy. The sad fact of the matter is that many founders aren't on a mission like Zuck--they're just trying to make a buck. Same with the VCs.
It's a bubble just like any other--ride it while you can. As the intensity of a bubble grows, focus on short-term gains increases...until it cannot be sustained any longer. The one in SV is just appears more innocent than other ones in recent memory because it actually produced some legitimate value.
I still don't think your comparison of the SV bubble to Enron, et al is really appropriate, but I do agree that it will eventually be destructive. That is, unless something REALLY fishy is going on on behind the scenes at Groupon and other firms that is outright fraud. That's a completely different can of worms.
@ChiliPalmer it doesn't matter which you're talking about--banks and investment banks go bust when they don't have enough cash. Period. I won't bore you here with a lesson on the intricacies of financial bankruptcies.
Obviously, any company, financial or non-financial, will go bankrupt because of a cash shortage, but if you have the experience you say you do, then you'll know what I'm talking about. But clearly you don't since you felt the need to draw the distinction.
But alas, you continue to avoid providing a constructive response to anything I mentioned. You're clearly hurt by my comments and feel the need to defend yourself, but since you don't have the ability to do it, you resort to stupid personal attacks.
Why are you even here? Stick to your E TRADE account. I'll chill here.
@DanBowen gosh I hope it's not that bad! I mostly agree with your assessment, but I think this is all just part of the natural economic boom-bust cycle. Right now, it is frothy. It will end at some point, but I don't expect it to be that destructive.
@ChiliPalmer you're right about one thing--I realized 'finance professional' sounded stupid afterward. For the record, know that I underwrite debt for venture-backed startups, so my perspective is very relevant.
Your earlier statement asserting that banks go out of business because of clients refusing to come back hints at the depth of your own knowledge. Look at history--do banks go bankrupt because clients refused to come back? Rarely, if ever. Bank bankruptcy is almost always caused by a shortage of liquidity.
Aside from trying to save your own reputation with acronyms and trading buzzwords, your remarks also lack any insightful response to the topic at hand.
But I won't amateurishly question your experience here. You've made it obvious yourself.
@ChiliPalmer I understand how Wall Street works very well. In fact, I'm a finance professional.
Right now investment banks push hot companies to raise equity on public markets because they know the market is euphoric about them. Whether that euphoria is rational or irrational, it doesn't matter, because all the bank has to do is spend a few weeks doing 'due diligence', have the company file the S-1, and within a couple of months, sell the equity to the market.
What's wrong with that, you ask? The bank has no skin in the game. No matter how crappy the company is, the bank only has exposure for a very limited amount of time, which also happens to be the BEST time to have that exposure.
How do YOU think capital markets should work? Clearly you're okay with the status quo.
But what does Wall Street lose? It's the peoples' wealth that will decline as GRPN loses value, through retirement plans/funds that bought the stock to increase returns. Wall Street really doesn't care, and as the system is set up, it really doesn't need to care.
Obviously this isn't a good thing, and I agree with you, but I'm just saying that Wall Street couldn't care less about the statement 'Wall Street has no one to blame but itself.'