baconandeggs

Those are not all the issues. For example, you can't get a usb-c hub to get more usb-c ports, they don't exist.

USB-C charging is truly revolutionary.

USB-C data is a clusterf*k, and worse of all, is not UNIVERSAL anymore.

You get to accept it, or not. That is 100% on you.

And people didn't want to do that so they bought an iPhone.

> Smartphone/tablet OSs are logical successors to the laptop/desktop OSs we have not game consoles. They are general purpose computing platforms.

Yes, let's ignore the actual predecessors of smartPHONES, you know, cellPHONES. It makes our argument much easier, much.

Just look at the chart on page 20 of this Fed paper (the Fed was created on 1913, the fiat dollar became the global reserve currency in the 70s after years of debasement to pay for the cold war, vietnam, etc.)

https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/documents/institute/wpaper...

The Fed creates the money, but the taxpayers give it value.

OR...you could let nature run its curse and have those debts refinanced at real interest rates that reflected the actual production in the economy, or defaulted and have those assets and resources liberated, thus correcting the distortions which were product of the FED and the government in the first place.

Because the US is the biggest debtor in the history of humanity and is supporting (in a symbiotic relationship) all those countries you listed who are also at risk of collapsing.

They will dump them because they will need the liquidity.

Are we gonna start arguing about Planet Fitness having their classes on Peloton bikes next?

Nintendo does it, or at least tries to. The switch is their play at the mobile market. You are not entitled to reach on any other market. It is completely unfair for epic to demand what Hershey had to build on their own, or Tesla, or H&M, or yes even Apple. They can compete if they think they are so worthy of existing, and I think if they do we will all better as consumers.

Why wait? it's always been possible and legal, just like Kcups and Juicero do, or did.

Of course! You can choose to charge anything you want, not only for your product but for your salary too! There is no law, man-made or otherwise preventing you to do so. Actually there is a law preventing you to charge too little for your own work but it is what it is.

> there is hunger in the world, but not because of shortage but for multiple other reasons.

That there's always been hunger in the world, even when we didn't produce more food than needed tells you production of food is not the resource limiting the distribution of food, other resources are. Even with all the imagination and collaboration of every communal government in the world to a scale never seen before in history, hunger is still a huge problem, because food is not the only resource, everything is a resource: time, interest, emotions, infrastructure, goods, distribution, people, communities, everything, and they compete with one another for our time and attention.

Everything is in competition, even your ideas and mine right now, and that's a good thing, but the first step to try and better our situation is to accept the reality of the natural world and not fight against it.

> So you are saying there is no way to act with foresight?

No, I didn't say any of that. All I said is what is bad for society is also bad for the individual.

Your example is wrong.

All situations should be evaluated and re-evaluated at every instance, at every moment in time to account for new information and not only once at the beginning thinking it'll be the same forever.

Fishing as an individual its fine until too many people start doing it, then it becomes even bad for the individual. It becomes harder to fish, the fish get smaller, the prices drop, etc. Some of those things might be even good for society but not for the individual. At that point you've got to re evaluate your position, and even change your occupation. This is what happens all the time. Individual choices lead the way, society only acts after enough individuals have been affected, not before.

> Capitalism is fundamentally built on competition, it pits all participants against one another.

Life is built on competition, life pits all participants against one another. Resources are not infinite.

We are not arguing about the cost of education because students can't pay the tuition; they pay the tuition every year with no problem even though it keeps rising. The argument is because after they graduate they have a mountain of student debt. Students have a debt problem not a tuition problem. Colleges will keep raising prices as long as the students keep paying them because that is how markets work.

Loans have enabled all those "changes in education finance", all of them. You don't need to have 100% reach to influence a market, you don't even need to be technically in the same market to influence another one (see smartphones and taxis).

> What also works against the idea of subsidies being the culprit is that it's not just universities that have seen this cost inflation.

The entire economy is subsidize. We have a credit-based system, hence universal access to cheap credit is the end-game, that is why car loans are starting to creep into the 10-year territory with 0 down and no credit score.

> the price has gone up because students are responsible for more of the cost.

That is not how prices work, the prices can't go up if the only buyers have no money.

The price went up because they got access to credit. To government mandated credit.

I didn't say they weren't good businesses, they are solid, profitable and seemingly well run companies and it's why they are being used for shelter.

But let's not confuse profits, or market cap, with innovation or value.

Sure, but "hard cash" is funny money; that's why people investing in FAANG don't want it and prefer stocks.

The "growth" in tech has been entirely driven by monetary policy. Google or Facebook or Apple or Netflix or Amazon have done nothing special than what they've been doing for the last 5 years. I wish we were getting insane tech out of this bull run but the truth is there's no "innovation" behind it and their paper is just being used as a shield by investors which is why their stocks keep going up.

U.S. tech stocks are now priced higher than the entire European stock market.

Literally free money only to those with access to cheap credit, increasing the wealth gap even more.

Nominally you can do whatever you want, that it solves anything is another question. And in fact, they've been printing money for over a decade and things have only gotten worse. The Enron balance sheet could handle a lot too.

> We’re going to print, not repay, our way out of this.

Try to, we're going to try to print our way out of it.

At this point Tesla sells more stock than cars.

> Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances.

You are redefining fair to mean equal. I don't want equal at the expense of fair.

Inheritance is a made up rule, and as such can be unmade without having to change the definition of fairness.

But second, age is thing, older people tend to have accumulated more wealth than younger people, even without inheritance. Younger people tend to be fitter and more attractive and Hollywood knows it. An equal playing field in the way you describe it will never be achievable by humans.

And that is why I say fairness is the most important, the rules have to be the same for everyone because that is the part that is up to us.