Elon Musk explicitly waived his right to due diligence. You're right about these things being expected, but Elon can't be hampered by such standard conventions.
> Individuals and corporations have to make explicit decisions to respond to what they can see of the M2 effect, and none of these decisions are a law of nature.
The law is called supply and demand. If there are more dollars and the same amount of resources, the value of a dollar goes down.
Honestly, that's really not that important for what I was saying, because we're talking about the Fed. The Federal Reserve can choose to fight inflation or it can choose to inflate assets, and that lies on a spectrum. The "why" of inflation isn't nearly as important as the severity of it. If inflation is at 10% you're not going to debate it before doing something about it - that just allows the situation to fester instead of taking initiative. The reason we're in this situation where inflation is still getting worse, a year after being told not to worry about it, is because it's politically untenable to actually try to fix the problem. Meanwhile inflation continues to worsen while we make symbolic gestures about fighting it.
Yes, understanding what's causing inflation matters. I'm not saying it doesn't. But when you have a crisis, you want to focus on mitigation first and then root causing it after the situation is averted.
Also you mention two possible causes of inflation. Limited resources and distribution, and companies deciding to raise prices because they can. What about the Fed printing money like crazy, flooding the M2 money supply? That's the one that's relevant to this conversation.
> In my personal view, it would be stupid to hike to 10% since that will also cut off the needed supply response: this will decapitate energy, farm, and housing expansion while at the same time decimating all forms of wealth. But there is a possibility depending on how trigger happy the fed becomes.
The only reason Volcker managed to bring down inflation is because he was willing to actually do what needed to be done. If borrowing money is cheaper than inflation, why would anybody not just continue to borrow money indefinitely? The Federal Reserve can fight inflation or it can fight a recession; it cannot do both simultaneously.
You have to decide which is a bigger problem: a recession, or inflation. The notion that you can walk a tight rope between the two is disconnected from reality. And while you continue to make inflation worse, you only make the inevitable recession worse. Tick tock.
I've had the misfortune of suing insurance companies in the past; I'm very aware of how the system works. You are technically correct. It's just that you're grossly exaggerating exceptions as though they will ever be useful to a majority of people.
You're assuming the hospitals don't all do this. You're basically discussing market dynamics with a legalized cartel.
This is like when people point out problems with fiat currency which are very real, and then people suggest theoretical solutions from cryptocurrency. It doesn't actually help solve the problem in any meaningful way, and you are living in an alternate reality from the problem space we are discussing.
I don't know if the comment was edited or not, but I hope you're not claiming "vigilante" is a slur. I looked up the definition of slur just to be sure and you are technically correct, but I'd say you're abusing language far more than the person you're responding to.
Technology is only neutral in the sense that guns, nuclear weapons, and neurotoxins are neutral. No, not all technology is the same, and much of it is evil. This loosely falls into the same fallacy of "it can either work or fail, so there's a 50% chance" - you are wildly misrepresenting the space in order to project a stance of neutrality.
I really think what you're saying is just something engineers tell themselves to feel better about what they do. I hear it more often from people at FAANG, defense contractors, and other morally ambiguous places than anywhere else.
Also, if you're the guy building a tool that's oppressing someone, you are the guy building the means to oppress someone. There's nothing neutral about that.
> I think if you succeeded in making a game that successfully simulated the experience of poverty, it would be extremely unfun to play.
I don't think you're someone that plays many videogame simulations, as the whole point is making something fun that's inherently boring in real life. There are so many popular simulators for famously mind-numbing jobs: farming, janitorial services (and further niches within this including powerwashing), driving for hours on an empty desert road (both as a trucker or as someone that's just bored), and more.
Here's a great game that simulates trying to survive in an imaginary Soviet country. You pretty much always die, are coerced to murder people as part of your job, and usually watch as your family starves or freezes to death despite your best efforts to keep them alive. And you know what? I honestly think it's one of the best videogames ever made.
If the goal is to actually present the experience of poverty, then yeah it would be unfun to play by design. I wouldn't want that job in Arstotzka either, even if the game is fun to play. I'd also never want to be a truck driver, but I love the idea of doing it in a videogame.
Have you researched at all or are you just assuming the entirety of their claims? Did you know they lie about their efficacy rate? There's no upside. They've thought about nothing but how to make money from carbon credits.