norea-armozel

You keep using that word, probably, as if it's a quantifiable number by which a firm can and will make their business model upon in such a manner which they can bank on gains/losses to actually turn a profit which they can model precisely (hint: they don't actually do this, I've worked in a restaurant). Seriously, making cute micro-econ models isn't science, it's phrenology. If you want to construct something with known quantities with known and repeatable events in a model then I'll listen. If you're going to give me Friedman's plucking model then I'm going to just put my headphones and ignore anything you have to say.

Supply and demand curves don't follow closely with most, if any, markets. Agriculture and some commodity markets follow the models but the rest don't. You literally couldn't model your restaurant's business finances on the basis of micro-economic models.

Even models regarding scales of economy don't fit any firm anywhere on the planet. Firms that produce electronics don't bother with such models and theoretically overshoot scales of economy all the time but make up for it by the fact they can sell their electronics at a price that offsets their costs (i.e. they set the price for the revenue they want, not what the market will bear).

The thing is that even Adam Smith and David Ricardo didn't believe free markets existed either, it's just that folks like Milton Friedman played up the idea that competition will always lead to better outcomes for firms and consumers. Markets are only good allocators when either the rules are set (and maintained) to ensure more fair outcomes or that the means of production are owned in common (cooperatives, mutual aid societies, etc). The former is what we've been using for a while but over time it seems those regulatory mechanisms get deconstructed by those who are regulated. So, I think it's time we choose to do the latter since it's obvious capitalism isn't a good model of market economics.

I'm not sure I understand the motive behind progressive web apps. Some apps I can see being web-only. But apps that require extensive storage, low latency, and much more traditional computing resources isn't going to work in the mold of a PWA. A calendar, a chat room, or some games I can see fitting the PWA mold automatically. But like I said, PWA to me isn't a universal replacement for good native app development. It fits many lightweight problems but anything else that better fits native should stay native. I really wish web developers would acknowledge this much and stop trying to say "why can't you make that a web app?"

I can't see myself buying another phone after buying an iPhone 6 in 2015. I just don't see a reason to replace it until the battery can't charge anymore. By then I don't have plans on getting an equivalent phone. Maybe something cheaper but I think purchasing phones every two years or the like is bad from an economical standpoint. I'd rather spend my money I'm better food than a fancier phone but I'm weird.

There's a key flaw in the idea of resurgent city states and that is the fact that to coordinate production you have to secure the infrastructure which is between the cities. Imagine all the complex relationships that goes into making an iPhone. Mines, oil wells, farms, factories, and so forth are all over the planet and not in just one place. Cities thrive because of those complex relationships being relatively secure. And without that security they falter.

>It has nothing to do with nerves being struck and everything to do with your 150 year out of date social analysis being so absurd that it's not even wrong.

Tell that to the US DSA which is seeing record membership increases. And tell that to Kamala Harris who's an astute politician that co-signed Sander's single-payer bill. If the winds of change aren't blowing leftward then explain the current trend.

Also, Trump's ascendancy is the result of the capitalists not the working class. Robert Mercer (one of Trump's key supporters) has as much in common with you and me than does a mouse with a moose. Essentially, Trump is the carefully created result of decades of right wing propaganda and concerted destruction of the welfare state. Want to see less of Trump? Then tax the living heck out of the super rich and/or ban their right to fund any kind of think tank or PAC forever (down to a constitution amendment if necessary).

The propensity to work is more of a social matter than an economic one. Also, most people today in the lower economic classes are over worked. I remember when I was working out of a temp agency with someone who had been working three jobs (two full time and one side job). I'm not sure the exact reason for this other than he had a child and his wife was also working part time herself. It's just scary to imagine that people think working is a virtue onto itself. I'd rather pay a marginally higher tax rate to make sure people don't work more than 40 hours a week and were able to get their basic needs (housing, food, healthcare). At least then there wouldn't be the chronic issues that poverty brings to drag down the economy as a whole.

It's weird how my comment really struck the nerve that it did since it's partly in jest. But I will say this much, historically the rich have always favored military solutions rather than economic (or social) ones in dealing with class warfare. If the rich of today want to take a page out of history, they should be more like Otto von Bismarck and pay off the poor and disenfranchised. Meaning that some kind of reformed and expansive welfare state is something that's needed more than Uberizing every facet of life (the most recent one that's really annoyed me is the monetization of game mods by Bethesda; it's a hobby, not a job.). Whether or not that includes basic income remains to be seen, but the fact is all the opposition to any kind of welfare under capitalism will doom capitalism to be overthrown more violently than it had been in the early 20th century by communists.

Yeah, more likely the rich would just self-fund fascist paramilitaries to keep "the poors" in line like they've always done.

I think one of the future innovations that will seem baffling to some of us will be mostly social and legal. In particular, I suspect the concept of income as a human right will become a reality. I won't debate the exact nature of why this will happen other than if you look at the rate of which wealth production has taken and how much of it is concentrated today it's inevitable that it won't stay that course much longer.

Or maybe we're seeing the silliest version of Snowcrash come to life.

I always feel that part of the reason why disasters hit us so hard is the fact that despite having some built in resilience in the current system we have it's not resilient on the small scale (i.e. the individual). If SHTF as an individual you're boned, but if you're a corporation or some other kind of organization you can weather it. It just seems to me that a whole new way of handling shocks to society needs to account for this fact more so than ever. The attempt by some to abolish the social safety net is just one of many things that our species is doing wrong. We need less efficiency and more redundancy. We need less profitability and more sustainability. Basically, we need to add resilience to the system down to the individual level where it's practical.

I agree that Whole Foods isn't a big deal merger but the fact that Amazon has a logistics system in place that could topple the other competitors is very scary. The silver lining to this is that it'll be mostly Walmart vs Amazon now rather than Walmart trying to destroy the regional chains (and Kroger to some extent on the national side of things). Hopefully this will add some competition on the Walmart front to force them to pull back where they're really not needed (or wanted).