3 ms·

I don’t know what I said that made you jump to the conclusion about legality. I never suggested it was illegal. I’m suggesting despite legality, society suffers

I don’t know what I said that made you jump to the conclusion about legality. I never suggested it was illegal. I’m suggesting despite legality, society suffers and wealth inequality grows.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
The implications of your previous comment suggests so? > Saying just buy from a competitor to See’s is completely missing the point. The point isn’t See’s candies specifically (which I’m so surprised everyone really held onto), but rather the mindset of the MBA type (doesn’t matter if they actually have an MBA) that says let’s just keep increasing prices on this commodity forever until we’ve squeezed all the juice, and once we have, we’ll do it some more. When you apply this to every sector, over time you disproportionally hurt those at the bottom and make them poorer. You also cause inflation, which dwindles the power of savings. This software in the article is doing it for housing, and worse, it seems that it does it more than a human would. You especially see it in entertainment, where now a basketball game is something well beyond the capacity of most. It’s very unfair to me as a society that we say only rich kids can go to Disneyland, and NBA game, or a concert. Or if they do, it’s far less often and they’ve had to save for a long time for it. But you also see it with eating out, car insurance, almost every good except fast fashion, TVs (which are largely subsidized by monetizing your viewing), and some other consumer electronics. The percent of people’s average income spent on most sectors has gone up over time. I’ll leave you with this: https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 It appears to be trying to argue some point, advance some claim, advocate for some cause, etc., relating to organizations increasing their pricing for their goods and services.

I don’t know what I said that made you jump to the conclusion about legality. I never suggested it was illegal. I’m suggesting despite legality, society suffers and wealth inequality grows.

MichaelZuo 4y ago

The implications of your previous comment suggests so? > Saying just buy from a competitor to See’s is completely missing the point. The point isn’t See’s candies specifically (which I’m so surprised everyone really held onto), but rather the mindset of the MBA type (doesn’t matter if they actually have an MBA) that says let’s just keep increasing prices on this commodity forever until we’ve squeezed all the juice, and once we have, we’ll do it some more. When you apply this to every sector, over time you disproportionally hurt those at the bottom and make them poorer. You also cause inflation, which dwindles the power of savings. This software in the article is doing it for housing, and worse, it seems that it does it more than a human would. You especially see it in entertainment, where now a basketball game is something well beyond the capacity of most. It’s very unfair to me as a society that we say only rich kids can go to Disneyland, and NBA game, or a concert. Or if they do, it’s far less often and they’ve had to save for a long time for it. But you also see it with eating out, car insurance, almost every good except fast fashion, TVs (which are largely subsidized by monetizing your viewing), and some other consumer electronics. The percent of people’s average income spent on most sectors has gone up over time. I’ll leave you with this: https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 It appears to be trying to argue some point, advance some claim, advocate for some cause, etc., relating to organizations increasing their pricing for their goods and services.