3 ms·

I'd appreciate you not calling me stupid. I could say that your attitude here comes across like a 14-year-old whose parents told him he won't be getting a new G

by avalys 5y ago

I'd appreciate you not calling me stupid. I could say that your attitude here comes across like a 14-year-old whose parents told him he won't be getting a new GPU for Christmas. The 10k number was just an example, is there a number you could substitute that you think makes my point less effective? Please do. > I just cannot believe what protest there is against doing a basic good deed, trying to fight pernicious forces off. What makes you feel so strongly this way? I think your opinion here is fundamentally wrong-headed and short-circuiting the market in the manner you are advocating for causes worse outcomes for everyone in the long term, and often in markets that are a lot more important than GPUs and PC gaming. So I get a little bit of satisfaction from pushing back against this viewpoint where I can.

rektide 5y ago
Wow man. Ouch! Some ultra-cruel shit being flung over here. Ok, so some technicals. I don't think I called you stupid at all. I said the numbers you chose were stupidly low. Please be able to differentiate. You are not the points you make! I asked very genuinely to try to understand some of your perspective. I don't ask that of people I call stupid! I've been rebuffed, and told your only interest is because I am so "wrong-headed", which isn't really helping anything along here... I'd like to see better, I think you deserve to show a better side of yourself than that. > I could say that your attitude here comes across like a 14-year-old whose Look man, I've found this attempt to discuss to be super distateful un-willing to engage honestly. I already said that. You're just upping the game again and again & not replying earnestly. Please try to say something useful, please try to help the discussion engage? This is huge flame-bait. I don't think I've ever been so brash or rude. I specifically think one specific number you said is way way way off base. You're making this super nasty. While telling me I am being nasty, and a little child? I really disagree, heavily; I don't think this is called for. But that's not even my real interest here. I don't care what you have to say about me. I'm not making that the new argument. You've refused to clash again & again. That's the most interesting thing to me, trying to explore & understand & gain & share insight. I raise points & you float off. C'mon man. Your view has not been kind to people just trying to get products without being exploited. I patently don't get it. What drives you to such strong beliefs? Why are you throwing such flame around at me? What's going on here? Tell me about yourself, how you come to feel this way. I genuinely want to know. > I think your opinion here is fundamentally wrong-headed and short-circuiting the market in the manner you are advocating for causes worse outcomes for everyone in the long term, How? Why? Nvidia & to a degree AMD have been trying to prevent cryptocurrencies from treading on the gaming market. There's been lotteries to try to insure broader access, but which gets gamed. Everyone else seems to agree, seems to want to try to help the regular plain old non-hostile non-money-grabbing folk get cards, at a rate somewhat like what they could. Except you. You keep insisting the market must serve itself, maximize profit. Or face vague foreboding "or else" consequences. You speak here of bad outcomes, of horrible ills, but fail to define these ends. And not defining or explaining why. (And using very personalized inappropriate senses of conflict to deflect.) Not saying anything to actually defend or explain your position. I patently don't get it. And you don't seem at all sympathetic to how hard you are hitting, which hurts. Why not be a little bit more moderate my man?
- avalys 5y ago
  I apologize for calling you a 14-year-old, that was stupid of me. :) But I don't think the rest of what I've written has been particularly cruel or hard-hitting - honestly I'm a little shocked you've interpreted it that way. --- To answer your question: I think a lot of harm that has been done to society in the past 20-30 years has come from well-intentioned people, like yourself, trying to fix what they perceive as flaws in the market and making things worse for everyone as a result. That's why I feel strongly about this topic. College education and healthcare in the US are the two most salient examples, where politicians step in to manipulate the market, thus making things worse in some way, and then use the harm caused by the market malfunction that they themselves introduced to justify further manipulation - ad infinitum. Let's talk about what happened with toilet paper during the pandemic as a great example of why "price gouging" is actually exactly what you want in a free market. Most people keep maybe 1-2 weeks worth of toilet paper in their house. Why hold onto more when it's easily available at the store? But as soon as people got worried, they rushed to the store to buy months worth of toilet paper at a time. Stores didn't raise prices because they didn't want to be accused of heartless price gouging. So of course they immediately sold out of toilet paper. Anyone that actually wanted toilet paper couldn't find any, at any price. Now that supply was an issue, if you happened to be in a store and saw they had some toilet paper in stock, you'd immediately buy it regardless of whether you really needed any - because toilet paper is hard to find! And since it costs the same as always and you're going to need it eventually, why not buy it now? If stores had simply increased prices by 10x as their inventory got low, and then gradually lowered them back as it was replenished, the entire stupid panic would have been avoided. Yes, some people would end up paying 10x the price for toilet paper, if they really, really needed it. But guess what? At least there was toilet paper on the shelf! The alternative - what happened in reality - is that these people really needed toilet paper, and were willing and able to buy it for 10x the price - and there was none available, at any price, for anyone to buy! The reason stores were afraid to raise their prices - is because they were afraid of people who would make wrong-headed arguments about the market like the ones you're making here. The pressure to not let the market operate normally made things worse for everyone. As another, less harmless example: we would all be so much better off if we could simply institute a refundable tax on carbon emissions and increase the tax until emissions dropped below a sustainable level. But a lack of understanding of market dynamics and the value and superiority of price signals, etc. is a large part of what is blocking this and potentially dooming humanity and modern civilization. The same lack of understanding I perceive in your writing here - is why government subsidies made college education more expensive for everyone in the US - why government interference has led the US healthcare system to be the most expensive and least efficient in the world - and why we are on a path to fail to effectively address climate change. That's why I feel strongly about this topic.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by avalys 5y ago

rektide 5y ago

Wow man. Ouch! Some ultra-cruel shit being flung over here. Ok, so some technicals. I don't think I called you stupid at all. I said the numbers you chose were stupidly low. Please be able to differentiate. You are not the points you make! I asked very genuinely to try to understand some of your perspective. I don't ask that of people I call stupid! I've been rebuffed, and told your only interest is because I am so "wrong-headed", which isn't really helping anything along here... I'd like to see better, I think you deserve to show a better side of yourself than that. > I could say that your attitude here comes across like a 14-year-old whose Look man, I've found this attempt to discuss to be super distateful un-willing to engage honestly. I already said that. You're just upping the game again and again & not replying earnestly. Please try to say something useful, please try to help the discussion engage? This is huge flame-bait. I don't think I've ever been so brash or rude. I specifically think one specific number you said is way way way off base. You're making this super nasty. While telling me I am being nasty, and a little child? I really disagree, heavily; I don't think this is called for. But that's not even my real interest here. I don't care what you have to say about me. I'm not making that the new argument. You've refused to clash again & again. That's the most interesting thing to me, trying to explore & understand & gain & share insight. I raise points & you float off. C'mon man. Your view has not been kind to people just trying to get products without being exploited. I patently don't get it. What drives you to such strong beliefs? Why are you throwing such flame around at me? What's going on here? Tell me about yourself, how you come to feel this way. I genuinely want to know. > I think your opinion here is fundamentally wrong-headed and short-circuiting the market in the manner you are advocating for causes worse outcomes for everyone in the long term, How? Why? Nvidia & to a degree AMD have been trying to prevent cryptocurrencies from treading on the gaming market. There's been lotteries to try to insure broader access, but which gets gamed. Everyone else seems to agree, seems to want to try to help the regular plain old non-hostile non-money-grabbing folk get cards, at a rate somewhat like what they could. Except you. You keep insisting the market must serve itself, maximize profit. Or face vague foreboding "or else" consequences. You speak here of bad outcomes, of horrible ills, but fail to define these ends. And not defining or explaining why. (And using very personalized inappropriate senses of conflict to deflect.) Not saying anything to actually defend or explain your position. I patently don't get it. And you don't seem at all sympathetic to how hard you are hitting, which hurts. Why not be a little bit more moderate my man?

avalys 5y ago
I apologize for calling you a 14-year-old, that was stupid of me. :) But I don't think the rest of what I've written has been particularly cruel or hard-hitting - honestly I'm a little shocked you've interpreted it that way. --- To answer your question: I think a lot of harm that has been done to society in the past 20-30 years has come from well-intentioned people, like yourself, trying to fix what they perceive as flaws in the market and making things worse for everyone as a result. That's why I feel strongly about this topic. College education and healthcare in the US are the two most salient examples, where politicians step in to manipulate the market, thus making things worse in some way, and then use the harm caused by the market malfunction that they themselves introduced to justify further manipulation - ad infinitum. Let's talk about what happened with toilet paper during the pandemic as a great example of why "price gouging" is actually exactly what you want in a free market. Most people keep maybe 1-2 weeks worth of toilet paper in their house. Why hold onto more when it's easily available at the store? But as soon as people got worried, they rushed to the store to buy months worth of toilet paper at a time. Stores didn't raise prices because they didn't want to be accused of heartless price gouging. So of course they immediately sold out of toilet paper. Anyone that actually wanted toilet paper couldn't find any, at any price. Now that supply was an issue, if you happened to be in a store and saw they had some toilet paper in stock, you'd immediately buy it regardless of whether you really needed any - because toilet paper is hard to find! And since it costs the same as always and you're going to need it eventually, why not buy it now? If stores had simply increased prices by 10x as their inventory got low, and then gradually lowered them back as it was replenished, the entire stupid panic would have been avoided. Yes, some people would end up paying 10x the price for toilet paper, if they really, really needed it. But guess what? At least there was toilet paper on the shelf! The alternative - what happened in reality - is that these people really needed toilet paper, and were willing and able to buy it for 10x the price - and there was none available, at any price, for anyone to buy! The reason stores were afraid to raise their prices - is because they were afraid of people who would make wrong-headed arguments about the market like the ones you're making here. The pressure to not let the market operate normally made things worse for everyone. As another, less harmless example: we would all be so much better off if we could simply institute a refundable tax on carbon emissions and increase the tax until emissions dropped below a sustainable level. But a lack of understanding of market dynamics and the value and superiority of price signals, etc. is a large part of what is blocking this and potentially dooming humanity and modern civilization. The same lack of understanding I perceive in your writing here - is why government subsidies made college education more expensive for everyone in the US - why government interference has led the US healthcare system to be the most expensive and least efficient in the world - and why we are on a path to fail to effectively address climate change. That's why I feel strongly about this topic.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]