Unlike in government, in business you don't often get to fail, then redefine the objective and declare success.

Isn't that what a pivot is?

But pivots are often only for startups. IN a large company, you most certainly can redefine the objective to some degree and/or have it set so low initially that it's a guaranteed success.

The profligate wastes of government are nothing new, but - especially in the US

The absolute numbers are quite high, but the percentages are quite low. And the wastes are primarily related to military purchases and sports stadiums.

Greece doesn't owe you anything. It may owe your government, or an institution you invested in. But not you personally.

The reforms were in large part implemented... but the reforms that were demanded were wrongheaded, and in turn hurt the whole economy. It's one thing to complain about a lack of responsibility. It's a totally different thing to complain that what Greece agreed to while desperate was stupid, so they stopped doing it.

Productivity is down worldwide over the past 7 years. Which is to be expected as labor has gotten cheaper.

I think the key to avoiding depression is to have a good idea from the start, not something that relies on advertising to make money

You're confusing "likelihood of success" with "likelihood of continued success". There were a lot of competitors to be eBay, Netflix or Amazon. Most startups will fail. Those that eventually succeed will often look like they are going to fail. Devoting 1/5 of your productive life to something that fails is pretty depressing.

How can homomorphic encryption ever work on integer math? It's easy to acquire "1" (X/X) and therefore "N" (1 + 1 + 1 ... etc).

You said, and what you replied to quoted, that the government should take the medallions back and pay them the $0 that the medallions initially cost in compensation. The apparent principle is that the government can undo a transaction (with it) for the purcahse price.

Since most land west of the Mississippi was given away for free, your idea seems to imply that the government (using said principle) could repossess it.

What makes you think I carry it with me all day?

Also you left out camera, but I dispute internet traffic monitor.

They should buy them back for the price they sold them for: $0

So the US government should be able to repossess the vast majority of land in the midwest (and a good portion elsewhere?)

That's not true at all. The law isn't "no monopolies" or "no cartels". It's about fermenting competition. And two companies can compete with each other while still locking out third parties from competing with them.

In preamble, you don't know what my response will be. This is because you lost the point.

I specifically mentioned insurance when the taxi is on the way to pick up the fare. At this point, there is no cost to the customer if a collision occurs.But there is a huge cost to society. Because driving to pick up a fare is a commercial activity, and most Uber drivers do not have commercial insurance. Therefore, they are, at that time, an uninsured driver. And society, will pick up that cost. Either through some government program, or through the "uninsured motorist" portion of whomever the Uber driver collides with.raising the costs (and therefore rates) of all car insurance.

As a rule, when your business model involves forcing other people to pay more money ten they where before for no additional benefit (ala a protection racket) we agree it's probably a bad thing.

In the law, the difference is whether it's a job or not. This is spelled out to a large degree by the IRS. Because of the tax deductability of business expenses, they had to solve that fuzzy line.

It has to do with whether you are trying to make a profit.

Making money for 3 out of 5 years is considered proof. But they consider ow much money is being made, esp. as a percentage of income, the percentage of time you put in, etc. It's complex.

So, an office worker making maybe 50k a year getting $10 on the side every month after investing like 40 hours of driving would probably not count.

In practice, they reduced the number of cars of the road. Uber increases that number.

By what mechanism is that value conveyed to the purchaser? Especially consider when some of this value is to society (insurance while driving to pick up a fare) rather than to the purchaser.

Umm... both of them can be subject to anti-trust actions. A duopoly is totally within the scope of the act.

I don't think it's tyrannical of the government to force the walled gardens open. Trust breaking, whether a monopoly or a duopoly, is a government interest.

Remember when the government broke up Standard Oil, how that led to tyranny? Or when they told MS they couldn't force their desktop monopoly onto the internet (well, the browser)? Oh the tyranny.

TL;DR. The solution to the catch-22 is to have the government fix the problem and leave the ideological hand-wringing at home.