How the adage “time is money” and the existence of Google+ prove that Facebook is worth less than dust.

Tim Worstall over at The Register has been running some numbers to counter Deloitte’s lulzy conclusion that Facebook is worth more than the entire country of Portugal.

Worstall is right to question the pencilnecks over at Detoilet; I’ve been to Portugal, and while I wouldn’t say that it has as much going for it as a Germany or a Canada, it’s a darned sight more valuable than a self-updatingi mobile/web app used specifically and exclusively to rape users and scam advertisers at the same damn time.

So how does Tim even attempt to calculate the incalculable? How does he refine on the retarded? Let’s take a look:

What we want to find is the value that people derive from being able to use Facebook.

One obvious way of doing this is to look at the time people spend on it. We all do place a value on our time, as anyone who has ever seen a slow moving queue knows. So the average US user spending 40 minutes a day assigns some value to the time spent doing so. And there’re 133 million Americans apparently doing that. Now what we need is to give a value to that time.

An interesting premise with which to conduct this armchair analysis, if perhaps not as obvious to the reader as it is to Tim, don’t you think?

Sure, we’re all familiar with the adage that “time is money,” but can this simple cost-benefit equation be reasonably applied to an activity that would otherwise earn no money whatsoever? I mean, this is “Facebooking” we’re talking about here. It’s a replacement activity for watching TV or otherwise frittering hours away however it is that the vast majority of people fritter away their hours. It’s sorta the equivalent of walking malls.

Any value equations built there-on must necessarily miss what value means. The aggregate value of the consumer hours spent in a mall isn’t equal to the value of the mall itself any more than the hours spent watching the stars are equal to the value of the stars. Idem for Facebook.

So Tim isn’t off to much of a start but we’ll let him continue:

A reasonable value to start with is the US average (mean) wage of $24 an hour. We obviously prefer to be on Facebook to working. At the margin that is. Another more reasonable answer is at the minimum wage. This comes from when Joe Stiglitz and Amartya Sen were advising Les Frogs on the Sarkozy Commission. A closely related problem is that there’s a lot of work that’s not monetised: so called “household production”. We would like to have a value for this. It’s a bit of a bodge job but the answer is that it’s undifferentiated labour (ie, people don’t specialise as much as they do in the wider economy) and thus the wage rate for undifferentiated labour should be used to value it: minimum wage.

Minimum. Wage. Right… So which country are we going to use for this calculation then? As we discovered first-hand in Australia last month, minimum wage is not only arbitrary, based on broken reasoning, and ultimately destructive to the flexibility of the labour market, but it really has no place being applied outside of the statal regulatory environment it calls home. Anything as distortionary as the woebegone policy of minimum wage can only be viewed from within its own confines, as was certainly the case, to take a random example, of the Soviet Union policy against “wrecking.” Needless to say, weirdness begets weirdness and as such is best left to its own devices.

Which is to say that, even while decaying global nation states continue to encroach on private freedoms,ii the price of “undifferentiated labour,” if that’s what we’re going to call time on Facebook, should be worth no more than the global average salary, which is ~$18,000 per year. Given that the average person sleeps 7 hours per night, they’re therefore awake for 6,205 hours per year. Assuming that time really is money and that all time with eyes open is worth the equivalent amount of money, (and since “work time” is also “Facebook time,” why not?) this gives us an hourly rate of $2.90.

That’s a little bit better, even if it’s off in a hairbrained direction, but still not quite low enough…

Yes, yes, I know there’re holes in this reasoning. No, we don’t think that anyone would willingly pay $7.25 an hour to play on social media. But it’s also true that people do this a lot, this social media, and thus they must assign a value to the doing of it.

And thus we can reach an “economic value in consumption” for Facebook, for the US, of $232bn to $769bn. Which is, I agree, a bit mad. […]

Another way of putting this is that something that Americans spend 32 billion hours a year on, voluntarily, can’t really have an economic value of only $12bn. It’s just nonsense to value people’s time at under 40 cents an hour.

Tim, nonsense? Nonsense you say??! Hey, if the average Facetard is making more than $18k per year then even $0.40 is waaaay too much!!

Let’s work the equation another way: let’s say that Facebook is, generously here, worth $1 mn. One followed by six zeros. That’s it, that’s all.iii Given that there are 1.35 bn Facebook users globally, each spending an average of 20 minutes per day on the site, that gives us 164.25 bn hours spent on Facebook every year. Now divide $1 mn by 164.25 bn and you get $0.00000609 per hour spent. In more proper terms, 2.65 satoshis per hour.

While that may one day be a pretty penny, in today’s terms, it should put things in perspective: all the hours spent on Facebook are but dust.

As Google+ only reinforces:

decimation: Lol. 0.2-0.3% of all G+ profiles, about 4-6 million users, have made public posts in 2015.
punkman: So they are claiming 2-3 billion users total?
decimation: That’s 2-3 billion signups
mircea_popescu: And yet, in spite of that claim (probably unsubstantiated, as all of these, but certainly more defensible in VC terms than anyone else’s), G+ isn’t worth anything. If there’s a better example as to why the “grow big fast” so-called strategy doiesn’t work, here it is. Google’s own G+ is not worth naything in spite of 3bn users. That watsapp no users claimed as however many seemed to be worth something when FB paid for them is no support of the theory. That G+ isn’t worth anything IS counterproof. Because that’s how proof works : that you didn’t break into any houses all through the day of the 29th doesn’t help you in court. That you did on the 25th, sinks you.
thestringpuller: Well santa clause is allowed to BNEiv on the 25th me thoughts. claus*. Maybe the entire point of G+ is to prove Facebook isn’t worth anything?
mircea_popescu: Nah, he only enters. Yes, actually, in a backwards sort of way it’s exactly that. Google can’t afford to have Zuck pretend like oh, “We’re better than Google”. So if he tries they can go “Heh, we’re FB plus other things”. Strategy.

As if Facebook wasn’t doing enough to hurt the actual poor, it has to choke the rest of us with dust.

Well, if you have Facebook, that is.

___ ___ ___

  1. And therefore, according to the latest Canadian legislation, illegal! Oh man this’ll be a bitch to prosecute though. There’s no way in frozen hell that Canada has the cojones to tackle Silly Valley, even if it’d be a clown fight for the ages! []
  2. Well, at least the state is trying to encroach on private freedoms. Not like the Internet really gives a shit how loudly it says “Boo!” []
  3. Time Warner sold MySpace in 2011 for $35 mn after having purchased it for $525 mn two years earlier. $35 mn in 2011 dollars, given that about four trillion of the things have been printed since then and several multiples of that created ex nihilo via fractional reserve, gives us about $1 mn in 2015 bucks, give or take. []
  4. Break N’ Enter. []

42 thoughts on “How the adage “time is money” and the existence of Google+ prove that Facebook is worth less than dust.

  1. Tal says:

    “let’s say that Facebook is, generously here, worth $1 mn. One followed by six zeros. That’s it, that’s all.”

    The problem with this is that Facebook’s profits in the past year were about 2 billion dollars (https://www.google.com/finance?cid=296878244325128). Companies worth one million dollars don’t generate 2 billion dollars in one year.

    • This is assuming that we’re talking about like things here. Despite the superficial appearance that “dollars are dollars,” I’m talking about TideUSD and you’re talking about BezzleUSD. The former can be used to purchase goods and services, such as foot massages and brunch with friends, while the latter is only useful for buying Instagram, WhatsApp, etc. at prices so inflated that hot air balloons are jealous. Not only are Facebook’s profits unusable in the real world and the ultimately product of so much Fed printing, but just as was the case with Bernie Madoff, every last penny Facebook “earns” is entirely fraudulent.

  2. Tal says:

    Not sure why you think large sums of money owned by Facebook aren’t fungible with dollar bills held in your pocket. Are you claiming that if Facebook’s owners wanted to, they could not buy 40 million massages for random US Facebook users (assuming $50 per massage)? If not, what would stop them?

    • I don’t think that large sums of money owned by Facebook are fungible with the dollar bills held in my pocket quite specifically because this is in fact the readily observable case. This isn’t a matter of theorising or pontificating. The number of dollars attached to the value of US tech firms is so far divorced from their productive capacity and the productive capacity of anything that’s biologically possible as to be pantomimic. They’re quite untethered to the material, that is finite, nature of the world,

      Facebookbucks are ultimately unconstrained by reality, whereas the value of real things is limited to the productive capacity of their producers, leveraged though it may be my technology.

      Are you claiming that if Facebook’s owners wanted to, they could not buy 40 million massages for random US Facebook users (assuming $50 per massage)? If not, what would stop them?

      This is quite specifically my claim. The issue is this: there aren’t 40 million masseuses in the market at $50 a pop, nor even 10,959 spare masseuses in the market who can perform 10 foot massages per day for the next year straight. Attempting to foist such a demand on the market would send prices to the moon because that’s how real markets work. Quite clearly, this isn’t in any way how Facebook works. Nor can it. Facebook is dust.

    • Tal says:

      because this is in fact the readily observable case. This isn’t a matter of theorising or pontificating. The number of dollars attached to the value of US tech firms is so far divorced from their productive capacity and the productive capacity of anything that’s biologically possible as to be pantomimic.

      Let’s assume you think Facebook is such an example. As we know, Facebook made 2 billion dollars last year in profits. I’ll come back to the issue of whether those dollars are real. Facebook’s P/E ratio is now 72. So, if Facebook simply made 4x the profits that it made last year, then its P/E ratio would be 18. Meaning investors would be making 5.5% per year on their investment if Facebook failed to grow further. Pretty respectable. You seem to think a 4x increase in profits (or more) is unthinkable. Facebook’s profits almost doubled from 2013 to 2014 (http://investor.fb.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=893395). What’s so crazy about the idea that in the future they could make 4x what they do now?

      You might say “they might be able to make 4x the amount of fake money. I already showed that Facebook’s profits aren’t real!” Your explanation for why Facebook couldn’t buy people 40 million massages was reasonable and relied on uncontroversial economic principles. You’re right that the supply of massages is not elastic enough to accommodate 40 million massages without affecting price. I should have picked a different example. Note that your objection to the massage scenario has nothing to do with Facebook’s dollars not being fungible with the $100 in your pocket.

      Suppose Facebook bought 10,000 massages for people, then it bought 10,000 expensive wrenches for other people, then it bought $500,000 worth of car tires for some other people, etc. If they spread their prizes out among different types of goods and services, the effect on price is negligible. The only thing stopping them from doing this is that Facebook’s owners realize this is not a productive use of their money. To make matters simpler, Facebook could randomly award $50 prizes to 40 million different people, who could then buy whatever kinds of goods and services they like. What do you think would stop these people from all spending their $50 on real goods and services?

    • What’s so crazy about the idea that in the future they could make 4x what they do now?

      Well, mainly that Facebook is dying. The cool kids have already left the building and it’s only a matter of time before their parents find something better or go back to using e-mail. Facebook’s latest expenditure data backs up the theory that they’re slowing down as they run out of ideas on how to keep the lights on now that their “cool factor” is down and “slimy factor” is up.

      Exhibit A:

      The company said on Wednesday that spending will jump 55 percent to 70 percent in 2015, narrower than the 50 percent to 75 percent range that it projected in October. Zuckerberg has said Facebook is investing in messaging, advertising across the Web, hiring and new technologies such as artificial intelligence.
      Total expenses in the fourth quarter soared 87 percent to $2.72 billion. That hit profit, with the Menlo Park, California-based company reporting an operating margin of 29 percent, compared with 44 percent a year earlier. Sales totaled $3.85 billion, up 49 percent and slower than the 63 percent growth in the fourth quarter of 2013.

      Note that your objection to the massage scenario has nothing to do with Facebook’s dollars not being fungible with the $100 in your pocket.

      Except that it has everything to do with the fact that my dollars are useful and theirs aren’t. I can buy two $50 massages with my cash, they cannot under any circumstances or through any slight of hand buy a proportional number of massages with their money. If cash doesn’t work proportionally, it’s diverging from reality somewhere along the line. Where that line is is hard to say precisely, but that twinning of roads exists, and at some point dollars start to lose their meaning and thus their value.

      Facebook could randomly award $50 prizes to 40 million different people, who could then buy whatever kinds of goods and services they like.

      This is the same scale issue and the same issue of who holds the money. My point isn’t that two billion dollars of value cannot exist on the planet, as your example of the utility of this sum when distributed demonstrates, my point is that in the hands of Facebook, such a sum cannot have any utility even remotely commensurate with that of the aforementioned example.

      This is the whole point. Money in one place != money in another place. Hence, two currencies. But since this bimodel function of USD isn’t widely appreciated, it might otherwise appear that Facebook is a very valuable company advancing a very important concept when in fact it’s little more than MySpace minus the semblance of respect for users.

    • Tal says:

      Well, mainly that Facebook is dying.

      People have been predicting the decline of Facebook for a long time. Facebook’s increase in spending is not necessarily bad news for them. Lots of investment may simply mean they see a lot of opportunity, and are behaving somewhat like Amazon: http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-has-no-profits-and-why-it-works.

      Yes, their sales were growing at 63% a year ago and are now growing at 49%. Ignoring the fact that looking at one quarter of data isn’t that useful, 49% sales growth in one year isn’t bad at all for a company of Facebook’s size.

      Anyway, if your argument is that you are great at valuing tech companies and have determined Facebook is dying because of the kind of analysis you’ve written above, I think this is a less interesting conversation than the other part below.

      I can buy two $50 massages with my cash, they cannot under any circumstances or through any slight of hand buy a proportional number of massages with their money.

      They can’t buy a proportional number of massages, but they can buy a roughly proportional amount of value if they buy in such a way as to not focus too much money on goods with steep supply curves.

      Most importantly, note that your claim of the lack of value of large amounts of USD applies equally well to any large holding, of anything of value. If I had one million bitcoins I couldn’t use it to obtain a proportional amount of massage value as if I had one bitcoin. If I had 2 million ounces of gold, I couldn’t extract a proportional amount of massage value from it as if I had one ounce of gold.

      You’ve pointed out that some goods/services have a very steep supply curve in the short run. Any Econ 101 student can tell you this. Large buy orders can drive up prices. So what? You claim this steep supply curve effect is some sort of argument against the value of large piles of USD, when it’s just a property of any large concentration of value.

    • if your argument is that you are great at valuing tech companies

      Funny you point this out because I hadn’t realised it myself but this is exactly what my argument is.

      In 1999, I bought a nice little chunk of $AAPL when everyone still thought it was a colourful fruit company. In early 2013, I sold that to buy another nice little chunk of Bitcoin. And now I’m saying that Facebook is done like Thanksgiving dinner, that its investors are turkeys, and that Bitcoin can buy things in places and in quantities that bezzleUSD can only dream of.

      You’re quite free to disagree with my economic assessments based on some methods of metric evaluations you read about on Y! Finance, but you’re not free to dispute my track record and my ability to assess value, particularly when it comes to new technology. I didn’t retire at 26 because my rich uncle died.

    • Tal says:

      Looks like Facebook just had another good quarter, earning 700 million dollars in profit, and with revenue (3.8 billion) about 50% higher than Q4 2013.

      You might be an investing genius, but we only have two data points. I think we should try for at least one more. Are you willing to make a specific bet on the value of Facebook at some future time?

    • Heh, a little skin in the game… sure, why not ?

      I’ll bet a bitcoin at 1:1 odds that Facebook’s stock price will hit $40 within 4 years (by February 27, 2019).

      Since you don’t seem to be in the WoT for whatever reason, we can use BitBet if you’re up to the task and don’t object to the conditions for resolution.

    • Tal says:

      It sounds like you mean if FB’s price touches $40 or lower over the next 4 years you win. It’s $79 now. So basically, if there is a general stock market crash between now and 4 years from now, you’d win even if there was a recovery and FB’s stock price was $500 and they were the most valuable company in the world.

      You said above that you thought it was generous to think FB had a market cap of 1 million dollars. That’s 220,000 times less valuable than the market currently thinks. Yet you’re only willing to bet their market cap will go down by half, and only for a brief moment?

      Your 1 million valuation puts FB’s stock price at less then one hundredth of a penny per share. Why don’t we bet about their stock price falling below $1 over the next four years? That’s still over 1000x more valuable than you claim they are.

      If you object that FB’s “real” value won’t be reflected in the markets even in 4 years because investors are dumb: can you think of any way we can bet on your claim that FB is only worth one million dollars, where if it truly is worth anywhere near that or less you win, but if not I win?

    • I made a proposition and you’ve declined it. It’s now upon you to make a counter-proposal.

    • Brandon Morin says:

      Tal, let’s be really honest with ourselves here.

      Pete’s not an investing genius, he’s someone that’s let a stupid amount of good luck blind him. If anyone’s followed the SR trial, there’s evidence to suggest that the founder of Mt.Gox participated in SR to boost the value of BTC, exposing a huge manipulation risk in its market. If it holds true, Pete’s essentially gotten rich off of a huge pump-and-dump scheme involving a currency that has, in a 52-week period, performed worse than the performance of the Russian Ruble, the Iraqi Dinar, Afghani, and Iranian Rial combined.

      Pete, you should either give your money to a qualified money manager or go back to work. You won’t be able to stay in retirement long if you profess to be an investing genius but can’t even simply justify a stock valuation you’ve pulled out of your ass.

    • What you call “investing” is but gambling, and my 15+ year record shows that I’m pretty decent at it. Of course gambling entails some luck, maybe even a lot, but over time, luck runs out. Those for whom luck hasn’t run out are either being judged in too narrow of a time frame, in cahoots with the house (see banking), or have some measure of skill, hell maybe even a lot of skill. This is really the definition of what it means to be successful, you come out ahead in the long run. If that makes me, as you put it, “an investing genius,” well I guess that’s that.

      After all, this isn’t a poker hand we’re talking about here, where I hit the river on a big pot and cashed out the next hand, walking away with all your money, this is longer term than that, and therefore more of a signal than “lucky” noise. So no, I don’t think I’ll be hiring some dumb fucking “qualified money manager” to tell me which mutual funds to put in my RRSP. But thanks anyways.

    • Tal says:

      I propose the bet be: if the total market cap of FB on Jan 1st 2020 is less than or equal to one billion USD, you win. If it’s greater, I win. If FB is sold at any point before then, the bet is called off. It might be difficult finding an entity we both trust to hold the funds, since I’m skeptical of anyone affiliated with #b-a and I assume you’d object if I suggested Greg Maxwell or Richard Gendal Brown hold them. To make things simpler I’d be happy doing away with the 3rd party and betting a trivial amount instead, like $10 USD worth of bitcoins at the time of settlement. If you really want to bet one bitcoin let me know and we can try to figure something out.

      there’s evidence to suggest that the founder of Mt.Gox participated in SR to boost the value of BTC, exposing a huge manipulation risk in its market.

      I don’t find these allegations by Ulbricht’s lawyer to be credible. Seemed like he was just desperately trying to cause uncertainty. Although it could be that prices on Mt. Gox were manipulated by the “Willy” bot, which perhaps drove the two bubbles in 2013.

      Even if the previous bubbles were the result of manipulation, I don’t think this changes anything about the prospects for Bitcoin’s future price. Like Pete, I think bitcoins will be extremely valuable in the future.

      I’m not sure what sort of analysis Pete did before investing in Bitcoin, so maybe it was just luck. I agree that it’s hard to have confidence in his judgment when he claims that a company currently making over 7 million dollars in profit per day is only worth one million dollars.

    • I counter propose that FB will be worth USD $1 billion or less on January 1, 2040 denominated in USD at that time, which we shall call ‘USDfuture.’ I specify this in the event that the USD we know and love today ‘does the Lira’ and revalues at 1000:1, making the equivalent in 2015 dollars, which we shall call ‘USDpresent,’ $1 trillion.

      Given the timeframe involved, a counter-party seems unwise, as even the likelihood of our continued relations, given that you’re not in the WoT, is highly improbable. Let’s call it a gentleman’s wager and leave it at that.

      I’m not sure what sort of analysis Pete did before investing in Bitcoin, so maybe it was just luck.

      And maybe the moon really is made of cheese. I dunno, I haven’t been there to verify this theory for myself.

    • Brandon Morin says:

      Tal: The allegations by RB’s defence is actually rooted in the investigation conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, the investigating officer even indicated he believed this during his testimony.

      I agree BTC has plenty of future value, but until it’s flaws regarding market manipulation are addressed and it’s volatility is tamed, anyone with financial sense cannot recommend it as a store of value in the foreseeable future. I hold BTC up as an equalizer for international transactions, not really a whole lot more. T-bills and government paper are a better store of value than BTC is since they at least keep pace with inflation and don’t fluctuate wildly.

      Pete: Assuming you make no more wage income, a money manager wouldn’t be recommending RRSPs since the tax advantaged nature of those investment vehicles would ultimately be lost on you. You’d be looking to maximize capital gains (since you’re still really young) with a mild holding of fixed-income assets. A qualified money manger would tell you the exact same thing.

      The truth is that you were very lucky. You haven’t conducted any real sort of analysis to justify your position and even less when you’re making an airy-fairy bet on FB’s stock, choosing instead to justify it be arrogantly stating “I retired at 26″. Do yourself a favour, at least take the Canadian Securities Course so you can have some grasp of what investing is because it’s far more complicated than simply “gambling”.

    • anyone with financial sense cannot recommend it as a store of value in the foreseeable future

      Your subjective evaluation of who and who doesn’t have ‘financial sense’ has no bearing on their success, it seems. Or are you just waiting for ‘mass adoption’ and a business section article in your local newsrag promoting Bitcoin as the one true currency ?

      T-bills and government paper are a better store of value than BTC is since they at least keep pace with inflation and don’t fluctuate wildly.

      Except that government scrip is currently failing to keep pace with inflation. Current bond rates are 1-2% and inflation is closer to 8%. This is quite intentional as it forces people with the prudence to save their money to take outsized risks in stock and housing markets, thus the bubbles in both of these.

      A qualified money manger would tell you the exact same thing.

      What’s the advantage of such generic advice ? Those who follow the talking head’s ‘words of wisdom’
      can only even be led to the slaughter, or at best, average.

      The truth is that you were very lucky.

      This isn’t anything approaching the truth. Luck is for a moment, a day even, maybe a few months. Not 15 years. That’s a successful track record.

    • Brandon Morin says:

      Inflation from last year is .97%, 1-year t-bills are currently yielding .58% based on a projection of inflation for the next year. The fall in projected inflation is in line with the CB’s decision to cut the prime rate in an attempt to hold off monetary deflation that’s already gripped Europe, prompting Europe to introduce negative interest rates.

  3. Brandon Morin says:

    What makes you think the shares of FB are going to drop down to $40? They’ve got a pretty good position as far as their fundamentals go, and technical trend analysis of their stock’s historic performance doesn’t support the hypothesis of a $40/share price at any point in time in the foreseeable future.

    How are you modeling the stock price?

    • Facebook isn’t in “a pretty good position” as far as anything goes, the cool kids have left the building and no amount of pointy-haired analysis can justify its current valuation.

      Facebook shares are worth nothing. Zip, zero, zilch, nada, not a damned thing. And if this isn’t currently reflected in its “price” because the sheep haven’t yet noticed that the shepherds are elsewhere, I have every confidence that market forces will eventually right this wrong. Frankly, a $40 target is generous given that the value of Zuck’s time-suck can at best map the currency underpinning it, to which I defer to the sage advice of Voltaire.

  4. Brandon Morin says:

    If only rhetorical analysis were actually a thing.

    One more time, how are you modeling your $40 valuation?

    • Models ??

      Have the several and repeated failings of economic models, be it Value At Risk or government budgets or otherwise, not taught you anything ? Understanding risk is about understanding nature and respecting her force. My model is the power of time.

  5. Brandon Morin says:

    So you’re just pulling a number out of your ass, is what you’re saying?

  6. Mark says:

    “Pete Dushenski says:
    March 3, 2015 at 7:59 AM

    I counter propose that FB will be worth USD $1 billion or less on January 1, 2040 denominated in USD at that time, which we shall call ‘USDfuture.’ I specify this in the event that the USD we know and love today ‘does the Lira’ and revalues at 1000:1, making the equivalent in 2015 dollars, which we shall call ‘USDpresent,’ $1 trillion. ”

    It’s when “Pete Dushenski” can’t tell the difference between $1 trillion today and $1billion in 2040, so that under his own terms he confuses multiplication for division, ending up out by a factor of 1 million, that you know he’s full of shit and is well at home on #bitcoin-assets.

    • Mark, you clearly haven’t the faintest fucking clue how currency revaluations work so how about you go read a book or something ?

      Start with the Turkish Lira, Brazilian Real, or Israeli Shekel.

  7. […] anticipated the opportunity to sever my last connection with the VC chumpatron that is “social media” : micro-blogging site […]

  8. […] firm Berkshire Hathaway was no accident. A poker hand can be a fluke, but not continued success, that’s talent. His ability to discern strong people running strong businesses, particularly in […]

  9. […] every aspect of every citizen’s life the way the leftists do with their iPhones, Twitter, Facebook, Google, and that database of where everyone travels, Uber. Not to mention 3D glasses and, I wish I […]

  10. […] plug-in quite clearly being turned on. Heh, Facebook comments aren’t even real comments ! Who knew ? […]

  11. […] has no place on a landing page. Today’s teens have never known a word without the Internet Facebook and Twitter. What Latin ? What classics ? What Shakespeare ? What Aristotle ? What pieces of dead […]

  12. […] (i.e. belonging to “a thinking person“), he’ll rune the day he trusted Silicon Valley’s most successful scam artists. […]

  13. […] of better girls as “rape victims.” It’s an entirely feminine construction. Like social media. […]

  14. […] sold to unsuspecting victims of the “make money while you sleep” predilection, be it Facefraud, Twatter, or […]

  15. […] of, at best, exactly what you have today, not a stray farthing more, and in all likelihood a considerable amount less. There’s more than a pretty good chance that your notions of your own self-worth are so far […]

  16. […] talking about here. This shit is keystroked into existence every time Janet Yellen tries to open Facebook on her computer and misses. […]

  17. […] the supermarket approach when aiming for a mass market. In much the same way that most people use Facebook for all their “news” and whatever, and shop at Walmart for all their “food” […]

  18. […] last known to reside in the otherwise lovely nation of Switzerland , and with the deeply lulzy G+ bylineiv […]

  19. […] They might fill to the brim the voluminous dumping grounds for pointless drivel posing as “social media” but they may never control the levers of power, merely, at best, the shades of idiocy […]

  20. […] joke is now a real thing, at least as much as the “how hot or not are you?” joke is a thing. […]

  21. […] Wasting Time, It takes more than time. It takes generations, How the adage “time is money” and the existence of Google+ prove that Facebook is worth less tha…, Big Time, Specs and designs for the first ever Blockheight Timepieces, and of course the […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>