3 ms·

Why are you even on this site? If you think rich people are out to get the poor, why spend time on a site whose themes are technology and wealth creation throu

by brc 11y ago

Why are you even on this site? If you think rich people are out to get the poor, why spend time on a site whose themes are technology and wealth creation through technology? Why not go down the park and shout slogans and wave placards at the passing '1%' You impugn morals on price activity when there are none to see. For all we know, the high price takers wer students late for an exam, a young man determined not to be late for a first date or a relative rushing to the airport to see their family arrive. It is far better for supply to increase when needed than for supply to remain fixed and the market to stay uncleared. There is nothing myopic, wrong or class based about that, and it is childish to even look for it.

wfo 11y ago
While the 'how dare you consider those less fortunate than you, you don't belong in our tech paradise where only self-serving extremist libertarian thought is allowed' line of argument is particularly revealing about your attitude it isn't particularly welcome or mature. It is childish to not notice the disparity. I don't even disagree with any of your points, but your obvious hatred for anyone who doesn't support the oligarchy is just gross, I think if you tone it down you'll find people much more willing to agree with you.
- brc 11y ago
  Quite frankly I don't care if people agree with me or not, it's an opinion site not a popularity contest. Toning down opinions for the sake of not ruffling feathers is the work of politicians, and I'm not one of those. You've also interpreted meaning to my comment which did not exist. 'Considering those less fortunate than you' has zero to do with understanding dynamic market pricing. Anyone who implies a morality to price action misunderstands the entire principle. Uber doesn't increase prices to laugh at people who are priced out of the market. They increase prices to encourage more supply. Anyone who reads a moral side into the argument will never have a balanced thought about it, and is always going to be wrong.
  - wfo 11y ago
    Recognize that none of the arguments we make here are deductive logic, rather they are entirely persuasive. You fail to be persuasive because you express hate and disgust where it's not necessary or appropriate, hence your arguments fail where perhaps they could succeed. If you don't care whether or your arguments succeed then why bother responding? Your opinion is what it is and nobody will ever change it and you should have no need to ever express it, it's just wasted words. Of course this is silly and you do care if people agree with you or not. Anyone who refuses to consider morality when it comes to economics and price action is always going to end up at a horribly misguided and perverse world view; you retract your ability to do moral reasoning in order to be 'objective' but miss that the assumptions you've made to even have a market economy exist in the first place have moral weight. You cannot ever escape ethics and morality unless you resign yourself to only discussing technical cause/effect in a particular system and never making any human judgments about it, anyone in it, or any effects of it. I think you use faux economic objectivity as a shield to protect yourself from the consequences of the actual moral judgements you are making about the less fortunate. If economics says morally reprehensible things will occur then economics is /wrong/ and it is our moral responsibility to force a solution other than the market one to that particular problem. You look at the intentions of the rich (which are wholly irrelevant) but never the consequences of their actions; it was never the intention of the plantation owners to enslave people, rather, they just wanted free labor to more efficiently produce their products. A noble goal, yes?

by brc 11y ago

wfo 11y ago

While the 'how dare you consider those less fortunate than you, you don't belong in our tech paradise where only self-serving extremist libertarian thought is allowed' line of argument is particularly revealing about your attitude it isn't particularly welcome or mature. It is childish to not notice the disparity. I don't even disagree with any of your points, but your obvious hatred for anyone who doesn't support the oligarchy is just gross, I think if you tone it down you'll find people much more willing to agree with you.

brc 11y ago
Quite frankly I don't care if people agree with me or not, it's an opinion site not a popularity contest. Toning down opinions for the sake of not ruffling feathers is the work of politicians, and I'm not one of those. You've also interpreted meaning to my comment which did not exist. 'Considering those less fortunate than you' has zero to do with understanding dynamic market pricing. Anyone who implies a morality to price action misunderstands the entire principle. Uber doesn't increase prices to laugh at people who are priced out of the market. They increase prices to encourage more supply. Anyone who reads a moral side into the argument will never have a balanced thought about it, and is always going to be wrong.
- wfo 11y ago
  Recognize that none of the arguments we make here are deductive logic, rather they are entirely persuasive. You fail to be persuasive because you express hate and disgust where it's not necessary or appropriate, hence your arguments fail where perhaps they could succeed. If you don't care whether or your arguments succeed then why bother responding? Your opinion is what it is and nobody will ever change it and you should have no need to ever express it, it's just wasted words. Of course this is silly and you do care if people agree with you or not. Anyone who refuses to consider morality when it comes to economics and price action is always going to end up at a horribly misguided and perverse world view; you retract your ability to do moral reasoning in order to be 'objective' but miss that the assumptions you've made to even have a market economy exist in the first place have moral weight. You cannot ever escape ethics and morality unless you resign yourself to only discussing technical cause/effect in a particular system and never making any human judgments about it, anyone in it, or any effects of it. I think you use faux economic objectivity as a shield to protect yourself from the consequences of the actual moral judgements you are making about the less fortunate. If economics says morally reprehensible things will occur then economics is /wrong/ and it is our moral responsibility to force a solution other than the market one to that particular problem. You look at the intentions of the rich (which are wholly irrelevant) but never the consequences of their actions; it was never the intention of the plantation owners to enslave people, rather, they just wanted free labor to more efficiently produce their products. A noble goal, yes?