Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

You actually do see smaller scale games get gov't funding stateside fairly regularly, usually through education-related arts programs. There's not a lot of money going towards devs from that sector, but it's not zero, either.

There's also stuff like America's Army, for more directly funded efforts. So... be surprised, I guess, ha.

[McTraveller]

I don’t know that the government should be “the investor of last resort” for video games. It’s tricky though, because Art is often not all that profitable in the business sense, but it is good for society. So it hinges on the extent to which games are Art, versus just unsuccessful or likely-to-be unsuccessful business ventures.

I can’t say I know the right amount of public spending for things like this… and even if you know the right amount, how do you pick who among the many requesters, gets the grants?

Maybe we should ask the AI… 

[EuchreJack]

I don’t know that the government should be “the investor of last resort” for video games. It’s tricky though, because Art is often not all that profitable in the business sense, but it is good for society. So it hinges on the extent to which games are Art, versus just unsuccessful or likely-to-be unsuccessful business ventures.

I can’t say I know the right amount of public spending for things like this… and even if you know the right amount, how do you pick who among the many requesters, gets the grants?

Maybe we should ask the AI… 

Is it more moral that the government be "the investor of last resort" for movies?

But realistically, envisioning funding for video games would follow the paths of the movies.  It's more grants, non-for-profits, and educational institutions, which get some or all of their funding from The Government.  Not a check directly from Uncle Sam.

A failed example is Unclaimed World.  They had to change their name to get their government's funding, then never finished the game.  Don't be them. It would have been a cool game if they finished it.

[McTraveller]

I've been mulling on this... I don't think it's a moral question?  I thought I hinted at it by saying "assuming you are going to spend $X public dollars on 'art', how do you decide who gets it" - maybe we're saying the same thing?

Unrelated: IMF is saying that world government debt to GDP is now approaching 1:1.  I'm not sure how this is possible other than in the bizarre world of finance.  It seems odd that you can have the entire world population in debt to itself for the entire annual output of the world.  Seems like a bookkeeping issue 

(Yes I know that's not how sovereign debt works, or debt in general, but it's an amusing thought process.)

[Maximum Spin]

Unrelated: IMF is saying that world government debt to GDP is now approaching 1:1.  I'm not sure how this is possible other than in the bizarre world of finance.  It seems odd that you can have the entire world population in debt to itself for the entire annual output of the world.  Seems like a bookkeeping issue 

(Yes I know that's not how sovereign debt works, or debt in general, but it's an amusing thought process.)

Because it's not "the entire world population in debt to itself", it's the set of world governments in debt to big bankers.

At some point, there will be a default. This is why the big push for perpetual bonds, for example.

[EuchreJack]

Remember: *Banks don't lose money*, but rather *people* lose money. The banks make damn sure of that.

Then again, King of France and Knights Templar.

[McTraveller]

Banks (and governments) are people though... and banks definitely can lose money *cough* 2007 *cough*.

Anyway, that said, there is precedent for loaning people amounts larger than their annual income; this happens often for mortgages for example.

Most of this is just a rambling, I-don't-really-have-a-point-to-make observation that I find sovereign debt, the notion of debt in general, and debt financing to be an interesting construct.

[EuchreJack]

Actually, a 1:1 ratio of yearly earnings to earning capacity is fair normal? Like, it is an ideal ratio for college graduates, for example.

[McTraveller]

Wow, no wonder people are screaming about how hard it is to repay college loans these days.  When I graduated, I felt I was pushing my limits with my loan-to-income ratio of only 50% - but it was at an interest rate of 6.5%, so I have no tears for those screaming about the interest rates a few years ago.

I can accept having a mortgage at more than income, since a house is (generally) an appreciating asset and is at least collateral for the loan; something like a college loan or government loans, though, doesn't really have collateral, so one would think the acceptable loan-to-income ratio should be much less than 100%.

Then again, I'm a "true" fiscal conservative, in that I am risk averse with my money (and I don't have the huge investment returns to prove it!) and don't think that productivity magically grows on trees; I believe that true wealth is in being robust to productivity shocks (weather, politics, disease, famine, accident, etc.), not merely being able to make more revenue.  After all, the biggest bank account in the world doesn't do much good if you have no food to eat.

[zhijinghaofromchina]

Wow, no wonder people are screaming about how hard it is to repay college loans these days.  When I graduated, I felt I was pushing my limits with my loan-to-income ratio of only 50% - but it was at an interest rate of 6.5%, so I have no tears for those screaming about the interest rates a few years ago.

To me , it might be strange to hear about the college loan , my college tuition fee is about 1000 dollars per year , with 100 dollars more for the dormitory fee , my family is not rich, but they can still afford it .

[McTraveller]

Interesting - rather than "about 1000 dollars per year", what is it in terms of hours of minimum wage where you are? Or in terms of, how does "100 dollars per month" compare to say your monthly rent/house payment, or how much groceries for a month typically cost?  How does "1000 dollars a year" compare to a starting salary once you'd graduate?  (When I graduated college, my starting salary for one year was basically the cost of two years of my college; That is, my private college cost about $25000 a year*, and my first salary after graduating was about $50000/year.)

I never like simple currency conversion; I prefer comparing to actual cost of living things.

For example, where I live and my family situation, our housing costs (house payment, utilities) costs about 2.5x what we spend on groceries for my family.

Spoiler: * (click to show/hide)

Full disclosure: I had a 75% scholarship, so I only had to pay about $25000 out of pocket for my degree.  But the $25k/year was the "list price" at the time, so to speak.

[Duuvian]

An oil industry executive has been banned from joining the board of ExxonMobil after a merger with the company he headed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/02/oil-boss-driving-up-petrol-prices-colluding-rivals/

Spoiler: From the article (click to show/hide)

A leading US energy executive has been barred from the board of ExxonMobil over allegations he colluded with Opec+ to raise oil prices.

Scott Sheffield, the former chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources, coordinated with US shale oil producers to restrict output and raise energy prices, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged.

The FTC also claimed he used that position of influence to “align oil production across the Permian Basin in West Texas and New Mexico with Opec+”, the organisation dominated by Middle Eastern countries and Russia.

FTC said the collaboration between Opec and American rivals would have decreased oil production and pushed up fuel prices.

[EuchreJack]

An oil industry executive has been banned from joining the board of ExxonMobil after a merger with the company he headed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/02/oil-boss-driving-up-petrol-prices-colluding-rivals/

Spoiler: From the article (click to show/hide)

A leading US energy executive has been barred from the board of ExxonMobil over allegations he colluded with Opec+ to raise oil prices.

Scott Sheffield, the former chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources, coordinated with US shale oil producers to restrict output and raise energy prices, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged.

The FTC also claimed he used that position of influence to “align oil production across the Permian Basin in West Texas and New Mexico with Opec+”, the organisation dominated by Middle Eastern countries and Russia.

FTC said the collaboration between Opec and American rivals would have decreased oil production and pushed up fuel prices.

Clearly, the FTC does not understand the role of oil industry executives. It seems to me that he's quite qualified for the role!

[EuchreJack]

And now, for the Ultimate Shareholder Meeting.

Warren Buffett announces his successor is...a complete and utter nobody. And a Canadian.

When you realize Whinny Busser's job is to be Business's hypeman, this is bad. They're already loosing ground. I would be surprised if Berkshire Hathaway survived his death.

In fact, they haven't been as successful in the last few years as their phenomenal growth in the past, and their current decisions are actually mildly questionable.

50% in Apple stock is a clear failure to diversify.
Buying Bank of America, who has perhaps the MOST commercial real estate exposure is just stupid, although they're arguing the bank least likely to overall die.
A Mystery Bank Acquisition? GET OUT NOW!!!!

Most telling, Institutional investment is down.

[EuchreJack]

Actually, I don't know Jack about the bullshit that keeps our economy "going".

There are less jobs available than expected. So now, markets are UP because the markets are hoping this will cause the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates sooner. Which is stupid, since the Federal Reserve was fairly clear about their desire NOT to cut the rate in 2024.

It's quite awful to think about it further. More people unemployed and less job opportunities for the average worker is GOOD so that shitbag companies and shittier banks can borrow money cheaper to throw more gasoline on the stock market.