There's litigation insurance that covers losses on suits the policy holder initiates?
As long as you had a reasonable expectation of winning, yes it does. I have one. They decide beforehand if they're going to cover this case or not (if it's a bullshit case where you don't have a snowballs chance in hell, they don't have to), and after that it doesn't depend on winning or losing anymore.
They don't pay me, so I fail to see the difference.
Actually, there isn't one. Spammers pay their ISP, too. Advertisers pay the people who own the cinema, or the radio station or the billboard. So the means of delivery gets paid for in both cases.
Sorry, no difference at all.
stronger government regulation and nationalization, your support for large amounts of spending on "education and public services" have been driving politics again and again in German history
Obviously, you are entirely ignorant about recent politics in this country, which copied every neo-conservative idea coming out of US think tanks and added a couple of their own on top of it.
You never learnt the history of social security systems either, or very badly. When Bismarck created the foundations of the social security systems still in effect in Germany, his intention was so right-wing that Republicans would immediately support him as president: He wanted to undercut the growing influence of unions and socialist parties, by creating a stripped-down version of their vision. Now that the working class was not fighting for survival anymore, he could pretend it's a non-issue and catch their votes on other topics.
After WW2, it was the USA that, let's say "strongly encouraged" western Germany and other european countries to adopt what we call "social capitalism", a blend of the cut-throat capitalism of the US and the socialism of the communist countries. A mostly capitalist system with strong social security protections in place. Again the purpose was purely political: America was afraid that especially in war-torn Europe where many people had lost everything, a pure unleashed capitalism with its income gaps and class divides would drive too many people to embrace socialistic ideals, widening the sphere of influence of communist Russia. The purpose was, again, to give people just enough to make the political alternative less interesting.
As for "disastrous results", let's talk about the Wirtschaftswunder and how Germany, #16 in the world by population, became the #1 export nation for many years and has never for the past 60 years not been in the top 3.
Actually their acceptable ads
The real kicker (and why I switched to AdBlock Edge a long time ago) is that they ask for 30% revenue share on those acceptable ads, and with that they got too much into bed with the advertisement industry.
Especially given that AdBlock now belongs to a group of advertisement companies, and they whitelist all the ads from their network by default.
They sold out, simple as that, and they fight in court not for the good cause (though that is a side-effect and a very good one) but to protect their revenue stream.
If you like something you support it, right?
So if you like my home, you should pay me for inviting you?
Outside the crazy world of advertisement, it doesn't work like that. You can offer a good or service for money, or you can offer it for free, those are two very simple choices everybody in the world understands.
Advertisers are trying to have the cake, and eat it. They understand that more people take a free offer. Check what sites run on advertisement. Mostly those where large numbers of customers by themselves are a KPI. Media sites, social networks, such like.
They could easily paywall themselves, but they choose not to, because in their sphere they are more important if they have more visitors. So they lure visitors in with the appearance of free service, but actually it is not for free, because ads. That's a bait-and-switch, if not for the fact that we all know the game.
If you post your newspaper online, I am free to read it. If you try to collect money for it, I am free to ignore you. The same as if you go to the park and make a public performance and then pass a hat around. I can decide to give you money or not, but you don't have a right to my money. If you want to have a right to my money, play in a hall and sell tickets.
Talk to your government and convince them to follow the example of Sao Paulo. They did what every city should do: Ban outdoor advertisement.
It is also a lot of free public exposure due to the newspaper articles, so I don't think they are very unhappy about it.
That is what you have insurance for. This really is one of the insurances that pays for itself.
I have nearly the same amount of respect for these "advert" companies as I do for spammers.
Nearly? You mean that there is a difference between them? I'd be curious to find out what that is, because I really don't see any difference whatsoever.
There used to be a time when it was easy:
If only we had an organization that manages the TLDs and makes some rules about them... It would be so easy to say that if you have a
I would even welcome a seperate non-profit TLD where any and all advertisement is strictly forbidden. I would instantly switch all my domains and if Google gave us an option to prioritize results from that TLD I would turn it up to the highest setting.
I look forward to the day when somebody makes augmented reality glasses that block meatspace advertising like billboards, TVs in airports and bars, logos on clothes, all it. I'll be the first in line.
Only if you bring me a couple, otherwise you'll have to fight me for it.
Every time I have to use the Internet on someone elses non-adblocked computer, I'm shocked and I wonder how people can possibly use this shit at all. And in meast space, it's becoming worse and worse. Since they've started putting ads into toilets, you can't even take a piss anymore without someone staring at you.
However, this observation didn't actually form part of my argument; I just noted disapprovingly how your arguments and views illustrate how common fascist beliefs still are among Germans.
Yes, we still believe that doing sports is good for health, soccer is a good game, the Autobahn is pretty awesome, and we haven't abolished mothers day.
Of course, you meant nothing of the kind, hiding behind an unspecific, unsubstantiated phrase instead of risking to make a statement that could be falsified.
EOT
Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank, which you yourself point out is also effectively run by the German federal government.
I point out it's the other way around.
The other claim is backed up by every news article on the subject that you care to google.
I.e., they are lending money for purposes where any rational investor would say "Hell, no, too risky!" You know, like solar panels and the Greek government.
Crazy pills?
No, it's a "bank" in the sense that you would like all banks to be
You have an agenda here, and it is not to have an interesting discussion or provide useful information, therefore I'm wasting my time. Good bye.
The point is that private investors would not have "gambled" with their money like this;
Which is why Lehman Brothers is still a successful private bank, yes?
is pretty much the economic program of 20th century German fascists.
Let's not build roads, because the Nazis did it, too. What a solid argument.
It doesn't make a difference with regards to their motivations: they invested in Greece not because they are run by private, profit-hungry investors, they invested in Greece because politicians wanted them to.
Sources?
My (german) magazines tell that they invested exactly because they were looking for profits. The mix of unexperienced bureaucrats looking for profits and too-good-to-be-true investment opportunities made the mess.
and if you give politicians more control over banking, they are going to do more of this, not less.
Nobody wants to give politicians control over banking. Some of us want regulations, which means courts can force banks to not play russian roulette with the economy.
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!
