10 ms·

Anger as company makes money selling stuff to people that they desperately want and which allows us to maintain our historical outlier standard of living. I wi

by anm89 4y ago

Anger as company makes money selling stuff to people that they desperately want and which allows us to maintain our historical outlier standard of living. I wish that everyone could get what they want. The people who hate capitalism could transport themselves to an alternate reality where they make the rules and live in the hell of their own creation.

Jochim 4y ago
Capitalism is just a tool. When local government and charities are setting up emergency heated spaces[0] because people can't afford to heat their homes at time when profits have tripled for some energy companies then that tool needs adjusting. [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/councils-plan-food-bank-style-warm-banks-help-residents-survive/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/councils-...
- djbebs 4y ago
  That adjustments cause massive negative impacts is just an unfortunate side effect, right?
  - JellyBeanThief 4y ago
    Someone wake me up when y'all specify exactly what these adjustments are, what these predicted impacts are, how those impacts were predicted, how the actual impacts were measured, and how they lined up with or differed from the predictions. I don't come here for vapid rhetoric games.
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      > Someone wake me up when y'all specify exactly what these adjustments are > I don't come here for vapid rhetoric games. One of the principle problems that markets solve is the calculation problem. Billions of people with their subjective and time sensitive needs are making economic decisions and trade offs for themselves, their families, and companies based on their past, present, and predicted future. There is an incredibly complicated dance of price discovery and resource allocation going on constantly. It’s extremely challenging to predict what’s going to happen even at a high level very far in the future due to the vast quantity of inscrutable information. Central planners or regulators who seek to intervene in the market cannot hope to aggregate enough information quickly enough that they can understand in order to intervene without practically assuring negative consequences. The bigger the intervention the worse the consequences tend to be. Intervening in energy markets is going to have big bad consequences. What the consequences are specifically I don’t know but being sure there will be consequences is anything but a vapid rhetorical game.
      - JellyBeanThief 4y ago
        > It’s extremely challenging to predict what’s going to happen even at a high level ... Central planners or regulators who seek to intervene in the market cannot hope to aggregate enough information I can get a text message from my bank within minutes of making a purchase on my debit card at the drugstore. And I know that drugstore's inventory system updates in real time too. Meanwhile, Amazon is building grocery stores that eliminate the need for checkout because their inventory updates at the very moment the consumer picks up the item. It looks to me like we have all the technology we need to gather and aggregate mind-boggling quantities of information, so unless you have more detail about those challenges, I find the claim they're insurmountable to have the same weight as the claim last century that people could never walk on the moon. You do also say that the information is inscrutable. I take that to mean that even if we have the information, we either can't process it fast enough or we don't know how to process it at all. But I'm looking at the history of science and the pace of progress in technology--both theory and practice--and I have to wonder how long that's going to be true. Or, put another way, why should we expect it to be fruitless to explore the application of machine learning to an entire economy? Why does it need to be something sacred that we never question and never dare to answer?
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Your forgetting that the complexity of calculation increases exponentially. Let's say the entire world economy is only 1000x the size of Amazon. The actual problem is not 1000xAmazon but Amazon^1000.
        JellyBeanThief 4y ago
        Now we're getting somewhere. Since we're talking about specific mathematical operations, that suggests you have a formal mathematical expression of the problem, and an algorithm to solve it, so that we can prove how its time complexity grows. I would like to see the formal description of the problem and the algorithm.
        4y ago
- mwint 4y ago
  Because people in communist countries never get cold?
  - Jochim 4y ago
    I'm not really sure what communism has to do with regulation to prevent market failures within a capitalist economy but feel free to explain thanks.
    - mwint 4y ago
      Any time someone is “adjusting” capitalism, the result tends to look a lot like communism.
      - mcv 4y ago
        It really doesn't.
    - qeternity 4y ago
      Love it or hate it, this is the market doing its job…this is not a failure. There is a limited resource, and markets are allocating it to those who want it.
- anm89 4y ago
  I could start a charity tomorrow with zero donors and then complain that it's unfair that I don't have money to pay heating bills. If these charities can't keep their lights and heat on then its because people don't find the cause worth donating too. Why aren't you paying their bills? You must not care about the needy at all. Zero idea what any of this has to do with companies who develop energy resources. The energy doesn't magically come into existence because someone with a sob story wants it.
  - Jochim 4y ago
    You've entirely misunderstood the post. It's not charities that are struggling, it's individuals whose bills have tripled in the last year. The disconnect between energy bills being so high that a non-trivial number of people are now unable to heat their homes through winter with the elderly among them at genuine risk of dying from the weather. At the same time many of these energy providers are reporting that their profits have doubled or tripled. At this point there is clear harm being done to a large section of society by these companies and the question is what we should do about it.
Beltalowda 4y ago
> people who hate capitalism Capitalism is always tempered in various ways; I don't know if a single case where it's not. "Pure" capitalism would be a dystopian hellhole, and no serious capitalism thinker ever proposed it. So the question is how and where we should temper capitalism, and more generally how we should implement capitalism. This is not "hating capitalism". That's just red-baiting.
- anm89 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm going to stick with companies being allowed to make money selling stuff as within the acceptable bounds.
  - JellyBeanThief 4y ago
    > acceptable bounds I would like to know more about what you think of those.
  - benj111 4y ago
    Companies making money selling food unfit for consumption? Selling paint with lead on? Selling cocaine? So your comment in itself is wrong. Further you can still take the view that in general companies are free to sell in a free market, while acknowledging specific downsides that arise from that freedom. In my view BP has done nothing wrong. That doesn't mean I would be against taxing the surplus profits to ameliorate some of the consequences of high oil prices
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > "Pure" capitalism would be a dystopian hellhole, and no serious capitalism thinker ever proposed it. Capitalism is impossible without property rights so assuming you don’t call at least a voluntary system of property rights enforcement “impure” then the very serious scholars like Rothbard, Hoppe, Block etc all proposed it. I’m not sure I agree with them but I don’t think sweeping dismissals or “hellhole” hyperbole are correct either.
klyrs 4y ago
Anger as a company leverages war and scarcity to make egregious profits, lining their own pockets and deepening the poverty of people who were already struggling. That's called profiteering, not capitalism.
- qeternity 4y ago
  They are literally charging people what they are willing to pay. It’s not as if people didn’t need energy two years ago when prompt WTI went negative, it’s just the market was out of balance. We have the opposite issue now, and charging less doesn’t solve anything. Prices have to go up so that people use less of the thing we don’t have enough of. If they could manipulate markets as you seem to imply, they would do it 100% of the time.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    I need gas to drive to work. Therefore, the ultimate ceiling on the value of a tank of gas is about as much as I make at work in a week. I can't just go to a different gas station; they all set their prices within a nickel or two per gallon. This isn't a free market by any means, people must pay for gas or immediately go broke.
    - SamReidHughes 4y ago
      If they "set" their prices lower, they'd run out of gas. Their competition would be selling for higher margins. You could also get a motorcycle.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        It's rainy and snowy about 2/3 of the year where I live. So, yes, I could buy a motorcycle but that would be throwing good money after bad.
        SamReidHughes 4y ago
        That's the Invisible Hand telling you to move to San Diego.
just_boost_it 4y ago
I was thinking the same. The way you motivate the private sector to hurry up and fix the energy crisis is to tell them there's bumper profits to be made. This money goes to renewables providers too, and in the long run, high fossil fuel prices may be the best thing to happen for energy on the continent.

by anm89 4y ago

Jochim 4y ago

Capitalism is just a tool. When local government and charities are setting up emergency heated spaces[0] because people can't afford to heat their homes at time when profits have tripled for some energy companies then that tool needs adjusting. [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/councils-plan-food-bank-style-warm-banks-help-residents-survive/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/councils-...

djbebs 4y ago
That adjustments cause massive negative impacts is just an unfortunate side effect, right?
- JellyBeanThief 4y ago
  Someone wake me up when y'all specify exactly what these adjustments are, what these predicted impacts are, how those impacts were predicted, how the actual impacts were measured, and how they lined up with or differed from the predictions. I don't come here for vapid rhetoric games.
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    > Someone wake me up when y'all specify exactly what these adjustments are > I don't come here for vapid rhetoric games. One of the principle problems that markets solve is the calculation problem. Billions of people with their subjective and time sensitive needs are making economic decisions and trade offs for themselves, their families, and companies based on their past, present, and predicted future. There is an incredibly complicated dance of price discovery and resource allocation going on constantly. It’s extremely challenging to predict what’s going to happen even at a high level very far in the future due to the vast quantity of inscrutable information. Central planners or regulators who seek to intervene in the market cannot hope to aggregate enough information quickly enough that they can understand in order to intervene without practically assuring negative consequences. The bigger the intervention the worse the consequences tend to be. Intervening in energy markets is going to have big bad consequences. What the consequences are specifically I don’t know but being sure there will be consequences is anything but a vapid rhetorical game.
    - JellyBeanThief 4y ago
      > It’s extremely challenging to predict what’s going to happen even at a high level ... Central planners or regulators who seek to intervene in the market cannot hope to aggregate enough information I can get a text message from my bank within minutes of making a purchase on my debit card at the drugstore. And I know that drugstore's inventory system updates in real time too. Meanwhile, Amazon is building grocery stores that eliminate the need for checkout because their inventory updates at the very moment the consumer picks up the item. It looks to me like we have all the technology we need to gather and aggregate mind-boggling quantities of information, so unless you have more detail about those challenges, I find the claim they're insurmountable to have the same weight as the claim last century that people could never walk on the moon. You do also say that the information is inscrutable. I take that to mean that even if we have the information, we either can't process it fast enough or we don't know how to process it at all. But I'm looking at the history of science and the pace of progress in technology--both theory and practice--and I have to wonder how long that's going to be true. Or, put another way, why should we expect it to be fruitless to explore the application of machine learning to an entire economy? Why does it need to be something sacred that we never question and never dare to answer?
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Your forgetting that the complexity of calculation increases exponentially. Let's say the entire world economy is only 1000x the size of Amazon. The actual problem is not 1000xAmazon but Amazon^1000.
        JellyBeanThief 4y ago
        Now we're getting somewhere. Since we're talking about specific mathematical operations, that suggests you have a formal mathematical expression of the problem, and an algorithm to solve it, so that we can prove how its time complexity grows. I would like to see the formal description of the problem and the algorithm.
        4y ago
mwint 4y ago
Because people in communist countries never get cold?
- Jochim 4y ago
  I'm not really sure what communism has to do with regulation to prevent market failures within a capitalist economy but feel free to explain thanks.
  - mwint 4y ago
    Any time someone is “adjusting” capitalism, the result tends to look a lot like communism.
    - mcv 4y ago
      It really doesn't.
  - qeternity 4y ago
    Love it or hate it, this is the market doing its job…this is not a failure. There is a limited resource, and markets are allocating it to those who want it.
anm89 4y ago
I could start a charity tomorrow with zero donors and then complain that it's unfair that I don't have money to pay heating bills. If these charities can't keep their lights and heat on then its because people don't find the cause worth donating too. Why aren't you paying their bills? You must not care about the needy at all. Zero idea what any of this has to do with companies who develop energy resources. The energy doesn't magically come into existence because someone with a sob story wants it.
- Jochim 4y ago
  You've entirely misunderstood the post. It's not charities that are struggling, it's individuals whose bills have tripled in the last year. The disconnect between energy bills being so high that a non-trivial number of people are now unable to heat their homes through winter with the elderly among them at genuine risk of dying from the weather. At the same time many of these energy providers are reporting that their profits have doubled or tripled. At this point there is clear harm being done to a large section of society by these companies and the question is what we should do about it.

Beltalowda 4y ago

> people who hate capitalism Capitalism is always tempered in various ways; I don't know if a single case where it's not. "Pure" capitalism would be a dystopian hellhole, and no serious capitalism thinker ever proposed it. So the question is how and where we should temper capitalism, and more generally how we should implement capitalism. This is not "hating capitalism". That's just red-baiting.

anm89 4y ago
Yeah, I'm going to stick with companies being allowed to make money selling stuff as within the acceptable bounds.
- JellyBeanThief 4y ago
  > acceptable bounds I would like to know more about what you think of those.
- benj111 4y ago
  Companies making money selling food unfit for consumption? Selling paint with lead on? Selling cocaine? So your comment in itself is wrong. Further you can still take the view that in general companies are free to sell in a free market, while acknowledging specific downsides that arise from that freedom. In my view BP has done nothing wrong. That doesn't mean I would be against taxing the surplus profits to ameliorate some of the consequences of high oil prices
nyokodo 4y ago
> "Pure" capitalism would be a dystopian hellhole, and no serious capitalism thinker ever proposed it. Capitalism is impossible without property rights so assuming you don’t call at least a voluntary system of property rights enforcement “impure” then the very serious scholars like Rothbard, Hoppe, Block etc all proposed it. I’m not sure I agree with them but I don’t think sweeping dismissals or “hellhole” hyperbole are correct either.

klyrs 4y ago

Anger as a company leverages war and scarcity to make egregious profits, lining their own pockets and deepening the poverty of people who were already struggling. That's called profiteering, not capitalism.

qeternity 4y ago
They are literally charging people what they are willing to pay. It’s not as if people didn’t need energy two years ago when prompt WTI went negative, it’s just the market was out of balance. We have the opposite issue now, and charging less doesn’t solve anything. Prices have to go up so that people use less of the thing we don’t have enough of. If they could manipulate markets as you seem to imply, they would do it 100% of the time.
- klyrs 4y ago
  I need gas to drive to work. Therefore, the ultimate ceiling on the value of a tank of gas is about as much as I make at work in a week. I can't just go to a different gas station; they all set their prices within a nickel or two per gallon. This isn't a free market by any means, people must pay for gas or immediately go broke.
  - SamReidHughes 4y ago
    If they "set" their prices lower, they'd run out of gas. Their competition would be selling for higher margins. You could also get a motorcycle.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      It's rainy and snowy about 2/3 of the year where I live. So, yes, I could buy a motorcycle but that would be throwing good money after bad.
      - SamReidHughes 4y ago
        That's the Invisible Hand telling you to move to San Diego.

just_boost_it 4y ago

I was thinking the same. The way you motivate the private sector to hurry up and fix the energy crisis is to tell them there's bumper profits to be made. This money goes to renewables providers too, and in the long run, high fossil fuel prices may be the best thing to happen for energy on the continent.