ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 21, 2012

WND column

The Naked Economy

Facebook represents the ultimate test of two ideas. The first is that traffic once attracted, can successfully be monetized. Facebook is presently earning only $4 per user per year. Its investors are gambling that it can increase annual revenue per user before its users get bored and begin to fade away. The second is that there is real value created in passing personal information back and forth between people. It is the second idea that is the more troubling one. While I personally doubt that Facebook, which in my opinion has a dreadful interface, poor performance and a reprehensible privacy policy, can increase its user revenue faster than it loses users, the ultimate fate of Facebook doesn’t really matter to anyone but its investors and those who were hoping its IPO would somehow magically reinvigorate the stock markets. The second issue is the much larger one, because it calls into serious question the direction in which the U.S. economy has been heading for the last 30 years.

Labels: ,

69 Comments:

Anonymous Difster May 21, 2012 4:35 AM  

I predict that some time in the next year, someone will short Facebook and spread false rumors. Facebook will crash hard and get bought up by Google.

Anonymous The Great Martini May 21, 2012 4:41 AM  

I don't think any of the theories of value are actually general theories of value. In other word, they are all incomplete. Why does Facebook represent value? Well, why is, say, advertising valuable? It produces nothing except that it steers people to buy such and such a thing. The places people congregate offer the opportunity to direct people to spend money, especially the young and dumb. The value is solely in the possibility to part fools from their money.

That's my theory anyway. I'm as dumbfounded as anyone about valuations of companies like Facebook.

Anonymous MikeBB May 21, 2012 4:51 AM  

What's the other side of your theory of real value? Are you saying that the only real economic activity is the sale of physical objects?

Blogger Larry May 21, 2012 5:06 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Difster May 21, 2012 5:07 AM  

Value is what someone decides it is. If enough people think Facebook is value, the stock will stay high or at least level. When people decide the risk is too high or whatever, the perceived value will drop.

Prices are always subjective.

You can't really say that Facebook doesn't produce anything though. They produce satisfaction for their users which is the whole point of all commerce. Advertisers pay for access to those eyeballs so they get satisfaction for the return of their advertising dollars. All of that produces "shareholder value."

Anonymous VD May 21, 2012 5:53 AM  

Value is what someone decides it is.

True, which is why attempting to put an objective measure on it and claiming that as definitive is intrinsically nonsensical. The point is not that one cannot place a momentary subjective value on Facebook's facilitation of information transfer between individuals, but rather, that the subjective valuation of that service is dynamic, and unlike other, more substantive goods and services, that dynamic, subjective valuation is much more likely to disappear entirely than, for example, a similar amount of gold or even automobiles.

Note that you cannot defend a comparative specific with a retreat to the abstract general.

Anonymous Difster May 21, 2012 6:40 AM  

VD,

My comment, more than anything was taking exception to your statement: And if Facebook follows the recent examples of Zynga and other social media companies that produce nothing and provide nothing. Though I did not specifically say that's what I was addressing; sorry for that.

They do in fact produce and provide.

One thing that far too many people have failed to take note of in regards to Facebook, various free email services, etc. is that although they are being provided with a free service, they are in fact the product. It's kind of like farm animals being happy (if I might anthropomorphize for a moment) with the fact that they get food and shelter and a life of leisure away from predators while being blissfully unaware that they're simply being served for free in order to serve them to others.

Anyone that doesn't inject some misinformation and misdirection in to those services is a fool though perhaps using them at all in the first place is foolish enough (says the guy with a Facebook and GMail account).

Anonymous VD May 21, 2012 7:19 AM  

One thing that far too many people have failed to take note of in regards to Facebook, various free email services, etc. is that although they are being provided with a free service, they are in fact the product.

No, that's a cliche. People are not the product. As I said, all Facebook does is facilitate a flow of information from people to other people, and, to a lesser extent, the corporations and governments who are Facebook's customers. Facebook still isn't producing anything.

Blogger Nate May 21, 2012 7:52 AM  

Watching the failure of the facebook IPO was vastly entertaining.

Blogger Nate May 21, 2012 7:55 AM  

If someone wants to claim that facebook produces a product... fine... what facebook demonstrably does not produce... is wealth.

Anonymous Crispy May 21, 2012 7:59 AM  

It may be a cliche, and it's not the whole story, but there is some truth to it. Facebook and other social networks provide entertainment to most of its members. That the content of that entertainment is generated by other members is one of the few differences between Facebook and a television network. Though it may sound heretical, moving an inflated piece of leather back and forth on a grassy field "isn't producing anything", yet advertisers willingly pay millions of dollars for access to the eyeballs watching the Superbowl or World Cup.

Will Facebook go the way of Myspace? Quite possible, if they stop innovating. Opening up their "platform" was a good move, allowing third parties to provide more entertainment. It's quite easy to copy any internet product, though, and Google seems to be aiming for that market with their Google+.

Blogger JartStar May 21, 2012 8:00 AM  

There is no real work, there is no real product, there is only the electronic version of paper chasing paper, from the transfer of a picture from one person to another to the transfer of dollars from one bank account to another.

True. Money isn't what the makes the world go around, forms are what makes the world go around. Everywhere you go what do you do? Fill out an electric form. If you are the one making the form it can be lucrative...

The idea that the more efficient exchange of information would make us more productive refuted itself with the release of Windows 3.0...

Manufacturing is definitely more efficient with electronic inventory systems but it also puts people out of paper pushing jobs.

Blogger JartStar May 21, 2012 8:06 AM  

If someone wants to claim that facebook produces a product... fine... what facebook demonstrably does not produce... is wealth.

Which is why manufacturing is much more important to the US than Facebook. Even Apple with its small number of employees in the US still manages to produce wealth for the US through the supply chains and after market products. There is no supply chain for Facebook as far as I know.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza May 21, 2012 8:20 AM  

"I don’t begrudge the Facebook investors their billions nor do I know where this is all leading. And yet, I can’t escape the thought that if Facebook is the crown jewel in our economic empire, the emperor is not wearing any clothes."

While I am proud of young people making their dreams come true or trying their hand at business I'm not impressed. FB is like a hollow version of what America could have been in 2012. We could have manufactured items instead of mining endless bits of data. However, FB reflects our culture in what we value; the soft over the concrete.

Time to invoke a Jamie Dimon term; egregious. FB is an overly exuberant egregious flop that needed propping up.

FB is a failure when 900 million users are touted or trusted with such expertise. Could it be that 900 nameless, general users are trifling idiots? All day on Friday's CNBC/financial channels was endless coverage about the IPO. Even though in the past investor polls and op-eds cautioned against FB going too big. It was laughable that Cramer and gang were worshiping this insane dork-monster from Harvard. When all they ever say is, "overvalued this n' that" of other IPO's in the past. Why the FB worship?

(What is wrong with people who so willingly give up privacy, information, data then wonder when their vapid identities are stolen or when content is data minded? Are countless users serious in hating Julian Assange when Assange has better morals than Mark and ilk? While FB is a marketers dream one has to wonder who has the money to buy trinkets and junks these days?)

Anonymous RedJack May 21, 2012 8:22 AM  


Manufacturing is definitely more efficient with electronic inventory systems but it also puts people out of paper pushing jobs.



JartStar,
We have more people managing the program now than we did managing the paper. Electronic inventory made part of it easier, but it did not make it cheaper or done with less people.

Anonymous Salt May 21, 2012 8:33 AM  

No, that's a cliche. People are not the product.

A guy in another forum made that same claim, that people are the product.

Nope. FB itself is the product whether one pays for it or not. Users make use of the product no different than one makes use of a car. It's the utility of the product over time that's in question.

Something to consider is whether FB would entertain such use if users were charged a fee to use it.

Anonymous Roundtine May 21, 2012 9:19 AM  

Is the Facebook IPO a failure? It seems a success to me. I always considered it a failure when a company IPOs and the price jumps 100%. That means it was mispriced and the company left money on the table. It seems Facebook was fairly valued based on market demand for the stock.

I assume Facebook's model is to act as the social network platform, and if they maintain that position, they could earn revenue from social gaming and other products. The risk I see is now that they're public, they'll stop trying to be number one and start trying to earn more money. The stock is definitely overvalued today though, especially when there are social gaming stocks trading at P/Es under 20.

Anonymous Stilicho May 21, 2012 9:28 AM  

FB is only marginally more able to stand on its own than hotmail or gmail. Yahoo and Google use free communication platforms to add value for users who are then more likely to stay with the brand for other services that generate more direct income. I expect competitive products to be introduced and to eat away at FB market share. Especially if the competitors have a sensible privacy policy.

Blogger Vox May 21, 2012 9:29 AM  

It seems Facebook was fairly valued based on market demand for the stock.

No, because Morgan Stanley spent a massive amount of money defending the initial price. The price doesn't truly reflect the lack of demand.

Blogger Nate May 21, 2012 9:30 AM  

"Is the Facebook IPO a failure?"

Yes. It was an epic failure... because the underwriters had to spend hundreds of millions to prop the stock price up to its opening valuation.

Anonymous O.C. May 21, 2012 9:34 AM  

Facebook is a MMRPG for chicks. My wife can spend six hours a day on Facebook and come away from it with exactly the same illusion of having done something worthwhile as my son gets from an evening spent playing Skyrim or Fallout 3.

Eventually, of course, they will become so dependent on this electronic stimuli that they will be completely unable even to feed or clean themselves, thus creating the need for millions of social-worker and service-industry jobs. So you see, it is a net plus for the economy!

Anonymous Josh May 21, 2012 9:43 AM  

vox, is zynga evil?

Blogger Vox May 21, 2012 9:52 AM  

vox, is zynga evil?

Without question. They're bigger thieves than Zuckerman. They create nothing, they merely figured out a way to rip off a few classic game designs while riding Facebook like a parasite. They're doomed once Facebook decides to make them pay for the privilege.

Anonymous The other skeptic May 21, 2012 9:54 AM  


No, because Morgan Stanley spent a massive amount of money defending the initial price. The price doesn't truly reflect the lack of demand.


And we will be asked to bail MS out because they are so crucial to the US economy or something.

Anonymous VD May 21, 2012 9:54 AM  

By the way, Facebook's stock price is already down 13 percent this morning. So much for the "market demand" theory.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) May 21, 2012 9:54 AM  

Facebook just plunged by 10% today. Looks like it's going down faster than anyone thought.

Anonymous Josh May 21, 2012 9:56 AM  

They're doomed once Facebook decides to make them pay for the privilege.

doesn't that seem to be facebook's end game? create a walled in garden/ecosystem/anothermetaphor and charge access to it?

Anonymous The other skeptic May 21, 2012 9:59 AM  


One thing that far too many people have failed to take note of in regards to Facebook, various free email services, etc. is that although they are being provided with a free service, they are in fact the product. It's kind of like farm animals being happy (if I might anthropomorphize for a moment) with the fact that they get food and shelter and a life of leisure away from predators while being blissfully unaware that they're simply being served for free in order to serve them to others.


To Serve Man.

When does the slaughter begin?

Anonymous Roundtine May 21, 2012 10:05 AM  

The IPO price was paid by the people who bought before it hit the market. I know that's not the standard Wall Street definition of success, but the company didn't leave money on the table, the price action after entering the market shows they managed to extract a premium.

Anonymous zen0 May 21, 2012 10:19 AM  

FB IPO = POS

Blogger Nate May 21, 2012 10:20 AM  

Roundtine... you're rationalizing. Yes... some individuals got very very rich... well... much richer... anyway.

That does not mean the IPO was a success.

Anonymous rycamor May 21, 2012 10:22 AM  

But... but... Facebook has been a boon to the divorce industry, right?

Even more ridiculously, I have read in at least two or more places that the way Facebook can be "monetized" is to become a platform for financial transactions via smartphones. In other words, you are at a restaurant, and rather than pay with a credit card, you whip out your cellphone, and using your FB account, you pay for your meal electronically, perhaps even using Faceboook "currency". Can anyone imagine a more ghastly use of Facebook?

Anonymous Josh May 21, 2012 10:33 AM  

Can anyone imagine a more ghastly use of Facebook?

farmville

Anonymous Crispy May 21, 2012 10:39 AM  

Can anyone imagine a more ghastly use of Facebook?

Sure: Photos of your meal, its nutritional content and the price are automagically added to your FB status. And your friends find out what a cheap tipper you are!

Anonymous rycamor May 21, 2012 10:44 AM  

Crispy May 21, 2012 10:39 AM

Can anyone imagine a more ghastly use of Facebook?

Sure: Photos of your meal, its nutritional content and the price are automagically added to your FB status. And your friends find out what a cheap tipper you are!


That's exactly what I meant. There's no way FB would become your transaction provider without shouting out your habits to the world (and then providing some poorly-explained, constantly-changing way to edit your privacy defaults).

Anonymous Daniel May 21, 2012 11:04 AM  

OC
Facebook is a MMRPG for chicks. My wife can spend six hours a day on Facebook and come away from it with exactly the same illusion of having done something worthwhile as my son gets from an evening spent playing Skyrim or Fallout 3.

Precisely this, with one difference. Note that Skyrim and Fallout 3 and others not only have initial product prices, many also include subscription rates of some sort.

Facebook has no initial paid product and no subscription rate. It is literally worth nothing.

Anonymous pdimov May 21, 2012 11:12 AM  

Stross calls Zynga a "hyperparasite". :-)

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/05/bubble-20.html

Anonymous Difster May 21, 2012 11:54 AM  

Facebook users are in fact the product. Our information gets sold, resold as well as handed to the government for intelligence purposes, of course we're the product as clichéd as it might sound. Unlike farm animals though, we volunteer for it.

There is no quantitative difference than a strip bar owner selling viewing access to strippers than there is to Facebook user information being sold to advertisers.

Anonymous civilServant May 21, 2012 11:54 AM  

Facebook still isn't producing anything.

You mean "produces nothing physical"? Because it produces attention-to-content in which surely any advertiser will have an interest because that produces sales.

Anonymous VD May 21, 2012 11:55 AM  

Facebook users are in fact the product.

No, Difster, you're still missing the point. Are you your information?

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick May 21, 2012 12:00 PM  

Who here made some money shorting Facebook? or are we all Monday morning quarterbacks here?

Blogger LP 999/Eliza May 21, 2012 12:01 PM  

I'll have to pull the articles about FB paying taxes and how much***

On a more positive note, Mark and his GF married. I am happy for them, cute couple. In one's youth, they tend to overstimate their value of their work or product. I guess it could happen at any age but this IPO is stinkerbell.

Anonymous Difster May 21, 2012 12:16 PM  

Am I my information? Of course not. I'm not saying i'm the corporeal product like a sausage, but I put in time posting things, communicating etc. (though one could not define it as labor according to Mises) and that information get sold.

When I send mail over gmail, my information gets sold.

So if you want to be technical, what is being sold is the by-product of my activities, not my literal-self. But I thought that should have been evident.

Anonymous Salt May 21, 2012 12:52 PM  

All your information belong to us. - FB

It would be fun to watch FB and Twitter or Google go at it over competing claims to users information.

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews May 21, 2012 1:12 PM  

Must you produce goods to add value? What about a local store? They only resell what others make. Providing a service can add value.

I am not sure Facebook does, but that is another issue.

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews May 21, 2012 1:15 PM  

Video commentary on Facebook addiction compared to World of Warcraft addiction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiKgsbQ9gos

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 21, 2012 1:33 PM  

You mean "produces nothing physical"? Because it produces attention-to-content in which surely any advertiser will have an interest because that produces sales.

IOW, it's ultimately just a broadcast medium, like a billboard company, or USA Today, or People magazine, or your local radio station. What sort of operating margins do you think such companies have? I guarantee you their investors wouldn't ante up for a P/E of 51.

FB has already deviated from its clean, functional aesthetic and snob appeal--that's what brought the upper-income eyeballs there to begin with. Now it's just another clunky, cluttered POS that every ghetto ape can post on. Remember that scene in The Social Network where Zuckerberg huffs contemptuously about his partner hustling for some local tire store ads? I predict porn hyperlinks within five years.

Anonymous Mellow Corn May 21, 2012 1:36 PM  

Facebook's market capitalization is currently larger than Disney.

Yes, the same Disney that owns the most popular and frequently visited resort destinations around the world, some of the most valuable intellectual property on the planet, a major broadcasting network and even more minor ones, a publishing and licensing empire, Pixar, Marvel comics and the most prolific entertainment studio the world has ever seen.

To put it further in perspective, the Avengers movie is on track to earn over $1 billion dollars alone. This is one small piece of IP from another small piece (Marvel Studios) of a gigantic entertainment conglomerate. One, by the way, created by a true genius and great american Walt Disney.

Tell me that this piece of sh@t Facebook company, that exists on some computer servers and nets less than $1 billion annually, is worth more than that. WTF. It is absolute, categorical nonsense.

Anonymous JMH May 21, 2012 1:45 PM  

...why is, say, advertising valuable? It produces nothing except that it steers people to buy such and such a thing.

Not necessarily so. Advertising could produce something of value - it could produce an information stream useful to people seeking products. The fact that modern business managers and ad execs are almost totally misguided about brand image and misuse the tool of advertising doesn't mean it can't be useful. Occasionally an ad campaign gets it right and provides useful information instead of yet another fictionalized narrative.

Facebook is a major irony in that regard. It's set up to be a great delivery platform for useful advertising, but instead just provides more of the same crap.

Anonymous Mellow Corn May 21, 2012 1:45 PM  

Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but the real value may be in all of the personal information given completely for for free, without coercion by its members. Imagine donating all of your most personal thoughts and deeply held beliefs, along with your personal network of associations, friends, family and business relationships to an unknown entity--completely unconcerned with what they would do with that information. Any idea how much it would cost a totalitarian government to aggregate that kind of dossier on 900 million people? We just gave it all away for free.

Anonymous Stilicho May 21, 2012 1:59 PM  

From Zerohedge, SNL explains how Wall Street works.

Anonymous JMH May 21, 2012 2:18 PM  

And just to be clear about what Facebook creates, it creates entertainment, which is a perfectly legitimate luxury good. At worst it consumes resources and distracts people from doing their job. In that regard, FB is a far, far better endeavor than your typical law firm, which not only consumes resources, but does so by predation targetting the most successful streams of income in the productive economy.

For that matter, FB is a better endeavor than most regional transportation authorities even though the latter actually do build things like roads, rails and bridges. That's because the stuff manufactured by the typical RTA is utter crap that destroyed valuable physical space to be created, while racking up levels of debt beyond anything FB could saddle the economy with. "Light Rail" projects are carving up neighborhoods, demolishing functional environments, and loading us with billions and billions of dollars of debt.

In the end, the biggest problem with our economy today is that private capital is too easily prey to governent taking. The reason manufacturing startups are rare and all the private money goes into the already overloaded retail and entertainment sectors is that manufacturing investments are far less liquid. It takes years to build a factory (especially with modern regulatory requirements), and years more for it to pay off. During that time, the entire investment is largely immobile and illiquid. If government start a shakedown of the owners, or just decides to hit them with a brickbat to curry favor with some other group, they can't reliably extract their investment or relocate it to a less predatory juristiction.

Compare that with a retail store where the majority of the investment is in the stock, which should turn over at least 6 times a year if inventory is being managed well. That means at worst the owners have two months worth of investent at risk to local thugs. FB is anywhere and everywhere, and can pick and choose what juristictions to subject itself too if need be, which provides some restraint to the capos. Look at Amazon, which has been mostly successful in fending off the worst local sharks.

If we ever want another Westinghouse, or Caterpillar, or Boeing, to grow and be succesfull, or if we just want a bunch of competent,local manufacturers, we need to kill the modern tax-and-regulatrion vampire. Sadly, we don't seem to have any stakes or garlic nearby, and dawn sure seems a long ways off.

Anonymous JMH May 21, 2012 2:20 PM  

"Light Rail" projects are carving up neighborhoods, demolishing functional environments, and loading us with billions and billions of dollars of debt.

Oh, forgot to add "... all without providing functional transportation."

Anonymous James Dixon May 21, 2012 2:37 PM  

> Who here made some money shorting Facebook?

Thought about it, but we were traveling this weekend, so it really wasn't practical.

Anonymous Noah B. May 21, 2012 2:51 PM  

"Any idea how much it would cost a totalitarian government to aggregate that kind of dossier on 900 million people? We just gave it all away for free."

What's this "we," white man?

Anonymous Josh May 21, 2012 3:14 PM  

Tell me that this piece of sh@t Facebook company, that exists on some computer servers and nets less than $1 billion annually, is worth more than that. WTF. It is absolute, categorical nonsense.

at the height of the dot com bubble, yahoo had a greater market cap than the entire economy of new zealand

Anonymous Mellow Corn May 21, 2012 5:39 PM  

Noah B...A third to a half of the global population that can afford to own a computer and does not live in abject poverty has apparently surrendered their personal information and network of relationships to Facebook for virtually nothing in return except communication convenience. You, myself and others are in the growing minority.

Josh...Yahoo never approached $115B, and that was during the absolute peak of the greatest boom in the history of the market. And at least Yahoo popularized the business model that Google now uses to print money. To think that a dotcom could do this in the middle of a recession and exceed the value of companies like Disney is shocking to me.

Anonymous Sam Scott May 21, 2012 5:44 PM  

Vox, I have not read all the comments, but I just wanted to offer some thoughts.

Facebook is a medium that is just like television and radio. The people who use these mediums are the product that is being sold to advertisers since the people can use the mediums for free.

As long as people find value in using the medium, then the medium will get revenue from advertising. Growth will not keep growing at the same rate since there are only so many people on the planet, but the revenue will stabilize and become somewhat level at some point. Profits will also become level if costs are kept down.

Unless, of course, people dump Facebook just like they have largely dumped radio and commercial television.

Anonymous Red Comet May 21, 2012 6:24 PM  

I still can't get any clear answers on how Facebook has made the money it claims to have already made. Last I checked the tech bust a decade ago made internet ad payouts fairly paltry, which can only have gotten worse now that most browsers have adblock add-ons.

Anonymous Adam Smith May 21, 2012 9:45 PM  

Luther points to St. Paul, as Paul warns us about -- new inventions. It seems, that we are pushing the envelope of commerce, to a point, that we are literally attempting to reinvent the wheel, to the point of actually coming up with a square wheel, and we are adamant in convincing ourselves, that the wheel will [and we so expect it to] -- roll.

The day may well come, when we have no choice, but to unplug the central computer (ala Deus Ex), or hope for one that will "push the button," and then light a cigarette...

Anonymous tiredofitall May 21, 2012 10:50 PM  

Quick question, how many of you have made a Facebook account only to look around at the place and either abandon it or just delete the thing altogether ?

Anonymous Anonymous May 21, 2012 11:01 PM  

>Can anyone imagine a more ghastly use of Facebook?

The Rothschilds are just pissed they didn't think of it first.


Anyway, when you think of FB as a business you see it has two ends. Firstly it has the potential to sell advertising space to target the public. In a time when less and less people are using traditional media FB (which is used by the majority of the developed world) has a monopoly on a captive audience. It is very similar to free to air TV, where the shows are made to suck people in and the money made from advertising.
The second way FB makes money is by collecting and selling information. It is the largest corporate data mining operation on the web. It beats out Google. The only one who mines more personal data is ECHELON (but they're a multigovernment spy operation who records everything from phone calls to internet activity). Given the desperation of companies to find consumers, and the insane amounts they will spend on data mining and customer profiling, FB can set the prices they want for this data.
However, even as an advertising front and a data mining company, FB is vastly overvalued because people do not understand it. In the dotcom boom people did not understand the internet. It was new, shiny and seemed like everyone was using it. FB is exactly the same. People do not understand it, all they see is that it is so prevalent in society that it must have some value. Stock prices after all are only based on the perception of what people think something is worth.

BTW, if you want to create the next big internet thing, then create something that can guarantee a user's privacy and anonymity. As the recession worsens expect targeted advertising to become worse and worse. As people spend less and companies become more desperate to sell expect advertising to become intolerable. Add to that the increasing internet censorship, spying and control coming from governments and your online privacy will be your most important asset.

- Breeze

Anonymous Toby Temple May 22, 2012 1:44 AM  

At least we know now that the people behind Friendster and MySpace did something right than those behind Facebook: avoiding IPO

Anonymous Idle Spectator May 22, 2012 3:44 AM  

It seems, that we are pushing the envelope of commerce, to a point, that we are literally attempting to reinvent the wheel, to the point of actually coming up with a square wheel, and we are adamant in convincing ourselves, that the wheel will [and we so expect it to] -- roll.

Careful with that, non-circular wheel shapes work on terrain that is not flat, but regular.

Square-Wheeled Tricycle

Blogger LP 999/Eliza May 22, 2012 9:36 AM  

"FB has already deviated from its clean, functional aesthetic and snob appeal--that's what brought the upper-income eyeballs there to begin with. Now it's just another clunky, cluttered POS that every ghetto ape can post on. Remember that scene in The Social Network where Zuckerberg huffs contemptuously about his partner hustling for some local tire store ads? I predict porn hyperlinks within five years."

Forgive me in advance but FB is prole.

I know a hollow farce when I see it. Talk radio began calling for SEC investigations regarding the dealings of FB and the banks as something is wrong here. Then again, the foxes and hen houses, no investigations will take place.

Anonymous daddynichol May 22, 2012 9:51 AM  

Do you have a blog?

Anonymous The Anti-Gnostic May 22, 2012 10:13 AM  

At least we know now that the people behind Friendster and MySpace did something right than those behind Facebook: avoiding IPO

Yes, that was pretty stupid. On a par with a little Southern donut company going public, as great as their donuts are.

OTOH, since he probably will never do much else of significance, it has netted Mr. Zuckerberg a great retirement package.

Anonymous Matt Strictland May 22, 2012 11:50 PM  

Well written Vox. Very well written.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza May 25, 2012 7:05 PM  

daddynichol: Do you have a blog?

I doubt you were asking me but I attempt some sort of blogging at thelp72980.wordpress.com or google 'the lp 999'. It is a work in progress as I attempt to improve sentence structures, clearer writing and better communicating.

I am critically unprofessional, a complete disaster and a half - not even a blogger. I caution everyone to not look at anything I do.

M-F are current events, Saturday is a wild card day and Sunday's are reserved for devotional/biblical content from maybe a Charles Spurgeon or other Christian writers like Screwtapes. It is for my personal encouragement. It is more therapy than sharing the gospel of Jesus.

Exposure gets me nervous so I'm rather agnostic, fearful of being on too many blog rolls. I just don't understand why anyone would want to have anything to do with a person with endless mistakes, errors and complete goofs.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts