HN user

baconandeggs

211 karma
Posts0
Comments86
View on HN
No posts found.

OR...you could let nature run its curse and have those debts refinanced at real interest rates that reflected the actual production in the economy, or defaulted and have those assets and resources liberated, thus correcting the distortions which were product of the FED and the government in the first place.

Nintendo does it, or at least tries to. The switch is their play at the mobile market. You are not entitled to reach on any other market. It is completely unfair for epic to demand what Hershey had to build on their own, or Tesla, or H&M, or yes even Apple. They can compete if they think they are so worthy of existing, and I think if they do we will all better as consumers.

Of course! You can choose to charge anything you want, not only for your product but for your salary too! There is no law, man-made or otherwise preventing you to do so. Actually there is a law preventing you to charge too little for your own work but it is what it is.

there is hunger in the world, but not because of shortage but for multiple other reasons.

That there's always been hunger in the world, even when we didn't produce more food than needed tells you production of food is not the resource limiting the distribution of food, other resources are. Even with all the imagination and collaboration of every communal government in the world to a scale never seen before in history, hunger is still a huge problem, because food is not the only resource, everything is a resource: time, interest, emotions, infrastructure, goods, distribution, people, communities, everything, and they compete with one another for our time and attention.

Everything is in competition, even your ideas and mine right now, and that's a good thing, but the first step to try and better our situation is to accept the reality of the natural world and not fight against it.

Your example is wrong.

All situations should be evaluated and re-evaluated at every instance, at every moment in time to account for new information and not only once at the beginning thinking it'll be the same forever.

Fishing as an individual its fine until too many people start doing it, then it becomes even bad for the individual. It becomes harder to fish, the fish get smaller, the prices drop, etc. Some of those things might be even good for society but not for the individual. At that point you've got to re evaluate your position, and even change your occupation. This is what happens all the time. Individual choices lead the way, society only acts after enough individuals have been affected, not before.

We are not arguing about the cost of education because students can't pay the tuition; they pay the tuition every year with no problem even though it keeps rising. The argument is because after they graduate they have a mountain of student debt. Students have a debt problem not a tuition problem. Colleges will keep raising prices as long as the students keep paying them because that is how markets work.

Loans have enabled all those "changes in education finance", all of them. You don't need to have 100% reach to influence a market, you don't even need to be technically in the same market to influence another one (see smartphones and taxis).

What also works against the idea of subsidies being the culprit is that it's not just universities that have seen this cost inflation.

The entire economy is subsidize. We have a credit-based system, hence universal access to cheap credit is the end-game, that is why car loans are starting to creep into the 10-year territory with 0 down and no credit score.

The "growth" in tech has been entirely driven by monetary policy. Google or Facebook or Apple or Netflix or Amazon have done nothing special than what they've been doing for the last 5 years. I wish we were getting insane tech out of this bull run but the truth is there's no "innovation" behind it and their paper is just being used as a shield by investors which is why their stocks keep going up.

Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances.

You are redefining fair to mean equal. I don't want equal at the expense of fair.

Inheritance is a made up rule, and as such can be unmade without having to change the definition of fairness.

But second, age is thing, older people tend to have accumulated more wealth than younger people, even without inheritance. Younger people tend to be fitter and more attractive and Hollywood knows it. An equal playing field in the way you describe it will never be achievable by humans.

And that is why I say fairness is the most important, the rules have to be the same for everyone because that is the part that is up to us.