Izbrani forum: Odklop

Izbrana tema: Špeckahlanje

Prikaz samo enega sporočila - znotraj teme...

pobalin sporočil: 14.456
[Odklop] Tema: Špeckahlanje
[#2780534] 20.06.19 23:04 · odgovor na: pobalin (#2780532)
Odgovori   +    0
Medtem ko zdomarji oz. njihovi revni sorodniki doma debelo plačujejo stroške nakazil denarja, v Ameriki razglabljajo, za koliko bi prodali posamezne osebne podatke. Podatke je anketno zbral Morning Consult in anketno formirani cenik osebnih podatkov Američanov prikazal tudi grafično. Vse je napisano in narisano tukaj, z naslednjim zaključkom:
“The price of data is going to go up considerably, and that is in direct relationship to the California privacy act, the Massachusetts one and the pending federal one,” Greenfield said.
“Whatever advertisers pay now is going to potentially double within the next 18 months,” he added.
morningconsult.com/2...ons-value/
Medtem so v španoviji NBC News in WSJ opravili anketo o socialnih medijih. Dobrih tisoč Američanov je izrazilo močno nezaupanje do teh njihovih igračk (izpostavljena sta FB in Twitter), po drugi strani pa jih veliko ostaja fasciniranih nad novodobnimi tehno-dosežki in možnostmi, ki jih prinašajo. Kar je res. Ne moreš, npr. biti proti vsem časopisom samo zato, ker se ti tabloidi tipa Sun ali Bild gabijo...
“Social media — and Facebook, in particular — have some serious issues in this poll,” said Micah Roberts, a pollster at the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, which conducted this survey with the Democratic firm Hart Research Associates.
“If America was giving social media a Yelp review, a majority would give it zero stars,” Roberts added.
Fifty-nine percent of respondents agree with the statement that technology has more benefits than drawbacks, because it means products and services can be cheaper and made more efficiently.
That’s compared with 36 percent who believe that technology has more drawbacks than benefits, because it means workers are being replaced by robots and computers.
www.nbcnews.com/poli...wn-n991086

Neposredni odgovori na sporočilo št. 2780534

Strani: 1

pobalin sporočil: 14.456
[Odklop] Tema: Špeckahlanje
[#2780586] 21.06.19 11:07 · odgovor na: pobalin (#2780534)
Odgovori   +    0
Očitno je ta nemirni čas primeren za branje turških ekonomistov oz. sta vsaj dva takšna, da se ju splača brati. Nista čisto turška, ker je Acemoglu po rodu Armenec, Rodrik pa sefardski Jud, oba sta se rodila v Istanbulu, študirala (tudi) na zahodu in delata v Trumplandiji.

Nekaj Acemogluja so nam v prevodu ponudile Finance pred dvema dnevoma,
www.finance.si/89496...obra-ideja

kakšen teden prej pa je v Foreign Affairs izšel Rodrikov članek, ki bralcem njegove knjige The Globalization Paradox nikakor ne bo nov. Takole se začne:
Globalization’s Wrong Turn
And How It Hurt America
Globalization is in trouble. A populist backlash, personified by U.S. President Donald Trump, is in full swing. A simmering trade war between China and the United States could easily boil over. Countries across Europe are shutting their borders to immigrants. Even globalization’s biggest boosters now concede that it has produced lopsided benefits and that something will have to change.
Today’s woes have their roots in the 1990s, when policymakers set the world on its current, hyperglobalist path, requiring domestic economies to be put in the service of the world economy instead of the other way around. In trade, the transformation was signaled by the creation of the World Trade Organization, in 1995. The WTO not only made it harder for countries to shield themselves from international competition but also reached into policy areas that international trade rules had not previously touched: agriculture, services, intellectual property, industrial policy, and health and sanitary regulations. Even more ambitious regional trade deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, took off around the same time.
In finance, the change was marked by a fundamental shift in governments’ attitudes away from managing capital flows and toward liberalization. Pushed by the United States and global organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, countries freed up vast quantities of short-term finance to slosh across borders in search of higher returns.
At the time, these changes seemed to be based on sound economics. Openness to trade would lead economies to allocate their resources to where they would be the most productive. Capital would flow from the countries where it was plentiful to the countries where it was needed. More trade and freer finance would unleash private investment and fuel global economic growth. But these new arrangements came with risks that the hyperglobalists did not foresee, although economic theory could have predicted the downside to globalization just as well as it did the upside.
...
www.foreignaffairs.c...wrong-turn

Strani: 1