arretevad

> If there is no longer a reason for people to live close together, decentralization is the most likely outcome.

Many people like living next to other people purely for social reasons.

*Formal education

You’re describing a hypothetical that doesn’t exist. Even if we assume it will exist someday we can’t reasonably compare it to what exists today.

I guess I’m trying to say that in both cases you outline, the purpose of the act lies solely in the risk itself. Believing something is mispriced simply means the perceived risk is very low (or even negative) but the action is taken _because_ of the risk itself. No other purpose is served. Unlike other monetary instruments which could be consider stores of wealth. or other life decisions which have outside intrinsic values in which the risk is a consideration but not the primary object.

I think by your own definition the headline is warranted in its use of gambling. The act of betting on predictions is in service of “being right” ostensibly. But is really just about the monetary reward. I don’t see betting on predictions serving any other purpose. Other risks in life have other purpose, in which the risk is accepted because of the reward of the other purpose. Gambling is risk without any other sort of side reward or effect.

I fail to understand how your quote doesn't describe land lords? It is: 1. An act of growing one's own wealth (no other purpose to land lording) 2. It is accomplished by taking advantage of economic conditions (perhaps not "manipulating") 3. Does not create any new wealth.

And a little further down is this: > Rent-seeking implies the extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity.

Which to me certainly sounds like someone who's only contribution is ownership.

> literally no impact on anyone

How does this make any sense in any context? An individuals actions can never have zero impact on others. The mass concentration of wealth in the hands of a few has an enormous impact on the rest of the population.

Like all problems, It’s possible there are many contributing factors. Power laws may be one. The usual suspects might carry some of the blame as well. These things are not mutually exclusive. It’s unlikely there is one “solution” that will fix the systemic issues that create reverse centaurs. I don’t see the value in writing someone off simply because they do not explore the entire solution space.

One thing to consider is that Many people simply do not have the time, energy, and/or equipment to cook food from raw ingredients. These factors are common in poorer households where people are working multiple jobs, etc.

Elon only cares about enriching himself.

Do you have an example n100 you like / would recommend? Been thinking of trying one out.

This doesn’t make sense to me. People will always pay when there is value to them. Or at least perceived value. Libraries are free but people still pay for books and subscribe to audible.

Well it has to go somewhere. I’m personally against hoarding in general. Less concentration means more equality.