Rury

10 ms·

121.
by Rury 2y ago
> If the point is to pay for services that people use, the rich are far exceeding the cost of services they use Not if their wealth is being subsidized by everyone else and not via their own labor, as in that case, they are using the ser
122.
by Rury 2y ago
Perhaps a case of over-engineering?
123.
by Rury 2y ago
It's the same reason why any old fad isn't in vogue anymore - it's just how popular things go. I mean, message queues weren't exactly new things in the late 2000s... your standard GUI and mouse uses message queues, prett
124.
by Rury 2y ago
There's about ~15M vacancies in the US currently. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/detailed_tables.html
125.
by Rury 2y ago
It's important while fasting. Your body needs electrolytes or you will have all sorts of health issues. Potassium is the most important one, followed by sodium. Every cell in your body has a sodium/potassium pump, which works to k
126.
by Rury 2y ago
> They may still wish to own a house, but that's not demand, that's dreaming (or what you might call latent demand) Again this is a matter of where you draw your boundaries. Latent demand is still demand which exists just dem
127.
by Rury 2y ago
> For someone to willingly give you an IOU, you have to give them something first Not necessarily, someone can just hand me a dollar for nothing in return. > While a single dollar may not satisfy you, there is an eventual limit to how
128.
by Rury 2y ago
> When someone builds a house and keeps it for themselves, occupied or not, that is "one less demand" for a different house. Not even banks want to own an infinite number of houses Not necessarily. Are you saying that if I dema
129.
by Rury 2y ago
>It still relieves pressure on the demand side It doesn't if it's sitting there, with no one really occupying it, and priced out of the free market's reach. You're assuming a competitive free market is always determin
130.
by Rury 2y ago
Again, we can make up a bunch of made up scenario's, but you seem to want to ignore your own questions, which suggests you're not arguing in good faith. Let's revisit this question of yours: >Suppose you built twice as man
131.
by Rury 2y ago
I mean, the reason I convey such a meaning is kind of exactly why we're having this discussion, which is people often have different (hidden/underlying) assumptions (which they take for granted), and conversations don't go an
132.
by Rury 2y ago
> In fact, the price is "purely determined" by supply/demand in the scenario you gave. The monopolist is using their monopoly position to create artificial scarcity, thus driving up prices. This is consistent with the law
133.
by Rury 2y ago
> Why would the law of supply and demand fall apart under captive/uncompetitive markets? For the law to hold perfectly and describe prices, everyone in the market (both buyers and sellers) must be a "price taker". That is,
134.
by Rury 2y ago
>The construction costs are much lower than property values, so construction would be highly profitable You have purchase property to construct something on. So high property values works against your own argument. > You need a real e
135.
by Rury 2y ago
> but anybody can buy an empty lot or single-family home and build a multi-unit building there instead Anybody can buy and build? Yeah... only if they have the funds for it! That's what you're ignoring: running out of funds i
136.
by Rury 2y ago
> Also, the premise here is that you're increasing supply. The monopoly landlord would have to outbid everybody else for the new supply or they'd lose their monopoly, and have to pay the monopoly price or else the new units wou
137.
by Rury 2y ago
Just trying to entertain the thought... It would seem to me that more supply = more construction + more maintenance + more taxes = more costs. And these costs must go somewhere. Obviously, they would fall under the landlords responsibility,
138.
by Rury 2y ago
Yeah, too many people think supply/demand is all there is to prices, when that is just economics 101. What many people seem to not even know, is that the theory only holds true under competitive free market conditions and falls apart
139.
by Rury 2y ago
To be fair, other forms of electricity generation are heavily subsidized as well. In fact, this is probably a large part in why nuclear needs subsidies in order to compete, as nuclear power receives very little of the total energy subsidies
140.
by Rury 2y ago
I think learned helplessness is the best model of depression we have. In other words, depression may simply be a natural response to repeated bouts of futility. Many animals show similar depressive like symptoms in experiments designed to c
141.
by Rury 2y ago
When it comes to resolving debts, it's always the same anywhere. Debt after all, is just a measure of how much someone owes a favor, and money the opposite; a measure how much someone is owed a favor. In other words, debt/money is
142.
by Rury 2y ago
> Even taking all the assets of the richest people in the world (meaning nationalizing most companies) would only temporarily make a noticeable dent in government spending. Taxing them will make no difference This is where you are wrong.
143.
by Rury 2y ago
EVs aren't all that novel... I mean the first ones were made over 100 years ago. It was just battery tech which was keeping them from being a practical possibility until lithium ion batteries came along, and existing auto manufacturers
144.
by Rury 2y ago
>That's a subsidy to purchase the car, not manufacture it. It's a subsidy for the manufacturer, as the manufacturer sees you got a credit from the government, and simply raises prices accordingly. Done as a way to meet demand a
145.
by Rury 2y ago
I can only think it stems from fear of the unknown, leading people to believe in the worst-case scenarios. But the way I look at it is: no matter how good AI gets, for AI to do something, someone must train it, instruct it, or ask it to do
146.
by Rury 2y ago
It's not a terrible argument at all. The parent stated "people CAN'T due to economic circumstances". This is false, because they absolutely CAN . But people not WANTING children because of economic reasons, is a sep
147.
by Rury 2y ago
IDK, it seems to me that the people who genuinely feel threatened by AI, are the ones that are impressed by it and/or fear it will only get better. Whereas those pointing out the shortcomings, and/or know it will always have its s
148.
by Rury 2y ago
The problem is that everyone here is looking at it from a software design standpoint, not a software development standpoint. Once you look from the latter it's obvious why things are the way they are: businesses are trying to cheapen o
149.
by Rury 2y ago
It really isn't about whether people can't, but about people's wants. Nothing economically prevents anyone from having children other than being unable to afford the food to grow one. But as one could imagine, very few people
150.
by Rury 2y ago
Perhaps it's getting worse, but it has always been this way to a degree. What few people seem to realize, is that while democracy and the separating of powers seem good in principle, they also have innately dysfunctional qualities to t

More ›