beckyquick83
@beckyquick83.bsky.social
Well you did pretty well even so! My hair went grey over May 2008-March 2009.
April 8, 2025 at 9:09 AM
Well you did pretty well even so! My hair went grey over May 2008-March 2009.
FWIW, as an Australian wine consumer, I’m hoping for cheaper European wine.
April 7, 2025 at 12:12 PM
FWIW, as an Australian wine consumer, I’m hoping for cheaper European wine.
Since getting through the GFC with a margin loan, nothing stresses me by comparison.
April 7, 2025 at 12:06 PM
Since getting through the GFC with a margin loan, nothing stresses me by comparison.
You claim Dutton *has* got the message, but hasn’t got the full suite of policies you support. (Replacing nuclear with renewables and storage would presumably do the trick.) But in what world would a left version of anti-market statism make the Australian working class better off? Look at Victoria.
February 23, 2025 at 9:33 AM
You claim Dutton *has* got the message, but hasn’t got the full suite of policies you support. (Replacing nuclear with renewables and storage would presumably do the trick.) But in what world would a left version of anti-market statism make the Australian working class better off? Look at Victoria.
That it seems less likely that these non-horizontal acquisitions were instigated to protect or increase substantial market power in search.
January 27, 2025 at 1:32 AM
That it seems less likely that these non-horizontal acquisitions were instigated to protect or increase substantial market power in search.
Just looking at the 4 top search engines (Google, Yahoo, AOL and MSN), Google had a 25% share of monthly visits in July 2005 when it bought Android, ~47% in Oct 2006 (YouTube, which itself had half the visits of MySpace), and ~50% in Apr 2007 (DoubleClick).
January 27, 2025 at 12:01 AM
Just looking at the 4 top search engines (Google, Yahoo, AOL and MSN), Google had a 25% share of monthly visits in July 2005 when it bought Android, ~47% in Oct 2006 (YouTube, which itself had half the visits of MySpace), and ~50% in Apr 2007 (DoubleClick).
? Smart meters measure half-hourly usage and were originally justified to enable ToU tariffs when demand and spot prices spiked (Tamblyn ESCV). Monthly demand tariffs are more focussed on reducing coincident demand to reduce the need to augment grids. Better options exist but govts don’t like them.
January 24, 2025 at 11:07 PM
? Smart meters measure half-hourly usage and were originally justified to enable ToU tariffs when demand and spot prices spiked (Tamblyn ESCV). Monthly demand tariffs are more focussed on reducing coincident demand to reduce the need to augment grids. Better options exist but govts don’t like them.
It will never go to zero, because having been as high as $A100k, it will always hold some option value (subject to fraud). But I’m intrigued you think asset markets would suddenly turn rational after 30 years of being irrational. Who’s to say a ‘crashed’ price reflects the ‘right’ price?
March 8, 2024 at 10:53 AM
It will never go to zero, because having been as high as $A100k, it will always hold some option value (subject to fraud). But I’m intrigued you think asset markets would suddenly turn rational after 30 years of being irrational. Who’s to say a ‘crashed’ price reflects the ‘right’ price?
I agree Kohler is wrong that a finite supply implies value and I I don’t own BTC, but I’m intrigued you think it will end in tears. You seem to alternate between predicting BTC will go to zero and claiming that its positive price suggests that all asset values are arbitrary. Which is it?
March 7, 2024 at 12:44 PM
I agree Kohler is wrong that a finite supply implies value and I I don’t own BTC, but I’m intrigued you think it will end in tears. You seem to alternate between predicting BTC will go to zero and claiming that its positive price suggests that all asset values are arbitrary. Which is it?
Do you think the practice of leaving much of one’s wealth to one’s children will fade over the generations? I’m not sure if Xers will be as frugal in their retirements and as generous in their bequests as Boomers.
March 2, 2024 at 9:53 AM
Do you think the practice of leaving much of one’s wealth to one’s children will fade over the generations? I’m not sure if Xers will be as frugal in their retirements and as generous in their bequests as Boomers.
Although on pp.34-35, you raise the possibility that network size effects may be net harmful in an ecosystem context, via ‘customer foreclosure’ - I agree, and also in a platform context. But this seems unlikely to apply to pure MC-reducing acquisitions, unless the industry is a natural monopoly(?).
February 4, 2024 at 10:42 PM
Although on pp.34-35, you raise the possibility that network size effects may be net harmful in an ecosystem context, via ‘customer foreclosure’ - I agree, and also in a platform context. But this seems unlikely to apply to pure MC-reducing acquisitions, unless the industry is a natural monopoly(?).
After all, whether the entrant’s initial price even pre-acquisition is plausible depends on how it expects the incumbent to respond to its entry.
February 4, 2024 at 10:32 PM
After all, whether the entrant’s initial price even pre-acquisition is plausible depends on how it expects the incumbent to respond to its entry.
It’s intuitive and makes sense. But it might also be helpful to see the comparative statics pre- and post-acquisition. Maybe a separate figure with a shift in the dominant incumbent’s reaction function?
February 4, 2024 at 10:30 PM
It’s intuitive and makes sense. But it might also be helpful to see the comparative statics pre- and post-acquisition. Maybe a separate figure with a shift in the dominant incumbent’s reaction function?
Ok. I see p.30 notes that this effect presumes UPP from another source (horizontal overlap or vertical foreclosure). My question is leaving aside such effects, do you consider GL6 to offer a ‘standalone’ ToH? It seems not - you say the MGs reject an ‘efficiency offense’ - but just checking?
February 4, 2024 at 10:25 PM
Ok. I see p.30 notes that this effect presumes UPP from another source (horizontal overlap or vertical foreclosure). My question is leaving aside such effects, do you consider GL6 to offer a ‘standalone’ ToH? It seems not - you say the MGs reject an ‘efficiency offense’ - but just checking?
Interesting, thanks. Re dynamic entry barrier effects in GL6, if these are a function of the size of merger cost savings, and only mitigate the benefits of those savings, then why should they increase the burden on a dominant acquirer, leaving aside other applicable ToHs?
February 4, 2024 at 8:00 AM
Interesting, thanks. Re dynamic entry barrier effects in GL6, if these are a function of the size of merger cost savings, and only mitigate the benefits of those savings, then why should they increase the burden on a dominant acquirer, leaving aside other applicable ToHs?
Hugely sweeping statement. RPM can be pro-competitive and so is assessed on the merits in the US. Many mainstream US antitrust academics (on here) support tougher enforcement without viewing the tech giants as necessarily guilty as charged.
January 30, 2024 at 2:40 AM
Hugely sweeping statement. RPM can be pro-competitive and so is assessed on the merits in the US. Many mainstream US antitrust academics (on here) support tougher enforcement without viewing the tech giants as necessarily guilty as charged.
Let’s see what the US courts say. But no one apart from those on the extremes think they wouldn’t still be very highly-valued firms even had they never engaged in any of the impugned conduct.
January 29, 2024 at 10:53 AM
Let’s see what the US courts say. But no one apart from those on the extremes think they wouldn’t still be very highly-valued firms even had they never engaged in any of the impugned conduct.
To create value without engaging in anticompetitive conduct.
January 29, 2024 at 5:03 AM
To create value without engaging in anticompetitive conduct.
Isn’t it axiomatic that to become rich, you need to create value, and value is not created under perfect competition? The question is whether firms engage in anticompetitive behaviour, not that they exist and made their founders rich. The “every billionaire is a policy failure” line is silly.
January 28, 2024 at 7:26 PM
Isn’t it axiomatic that to become rich, you need to create value, and value is not created under perfect competition? The question is whether firms engage in anticompetitive behaviour, not that they exist and made their founders rich. The “every billionaire is a policy failure” line is silly.
The creators of Amazon, Google and Microsoft all got rich by being monopolists. The world seemingly would’ve been better off with out them. A bit undergraduate, isn’t it?
January 28, 2024 at 10:30 AM
The creators of Amazon, Google and Microsoft all got rich by being monopolists. The world seemingly would’ve been better off with out them. A bit undergraduate, isn’t it?
Couldn’t you say the same about any marketplace website with a handful of loyal customers? Surely whether such a website has market power over vendors wishing to sell to those loyal customers must depend on the other options for making sales available to the vendors?
January 21, 2024 at 11:51 AM
Couldn’t you say the same about any marketplace website with a handful of loyal customers? Surely whether such a website has market power over vendors wishing to sell to those loyal customers must depend on the other options for making sales available to the vendors?
We know Google pays ~36% of its search advertising revenue on Safari to Apple for default status, allowing it to keep a healthy share for itself. Why couldn’t the leading LLM - to whom almost everyone would subscribe - devote 36% of its subs revenue to investment to stay No.1?
December 30, 2023 at 4:29 AM
We know Google pays ~36% of its search advertising revenue on Safari to Apple for default status, allowing it to keep a healthy share for itself. Why couldn’t the leading LLM - to whom almost everyone would subscribe - devote 36% of its subs revenue to investment to stay No.1?
My point was that while there are network effects in search via user traffic helping improve search engine quality, traffic can be acquired via time-limited default positions on browsers like Safari, at a price. Which means that maintaining a quality lead requires ongoing investment, like in LLMs.
December 30, 2023 at 4:28 AM
My point was that while there are network effects in search via user traffic helping improve search engine quality, traffic can be acquired via time-limited default positions on browsers like Safari, at a price. Which means that maintaining a quality lead requires ongoing investment, like in LLMs.