General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

How Money Works
comments

Comments by "" (@timogul) on "How Money Works" channel.

Previous
1
Next
...
All

I think there is value in providing "the other side of the story," but you ALSO need to present "the OTHER other side," ie the actual side. Present the counter-argument, but ALSO present the argument itself at the same time.
66
The sad fact is that automation will render more and more jobs "bullshit" over the coming decades, and therefore fired, until there are none left except for the extreme upper management (who will also be unnecessary, but still employed because they get to decide who gets employed).
49
Really the law should just be that a rental agreement cannot be for less than one month.
15
No, most whales can more than afford it. "poor gambling addicts" are a statistical blip, because they could not afford to whale for long enough to matter.
11
@justcommenting4981 Right. I personally wouldn't mind a longer video, but there might be algorithm reasons not to make it longer, but at the very least there should be paired videos, "here is the devil's advocate position," and then "here is the actual reason why this is bad." Maybe place them a week apart, but in the first one reference that the second exists (it should already be written before publishing the first), and cite it throughout "as I say in the other video, this might be seen as a bad thing because. . .".
6
@partydean17 No, again, the home team benefits more from people who live there having housing than for tourists to get cheaper room rates. That's just a fact. So what is the best outcome is for people who actually live in the community to have affordable housing, and then once that has already been accomplished, we can talk about Airbnb.
5
@ Because we need to incentivize housing for housing sake, people should only purchase property that they intend to stay in, so that the market does not get distorted by people only looking to make a buck off the property.
4
@partydean17 Again, there is never a shortage of places for tourists to stay, that vis a solved problem. We clal them "hotels" and they have plenty of rooms available. The issues is that there is not enough places for the people living in the city to stay, so they are not in the wilderness. At the end of the day, if one of the two groups has to go without, it would ALWAYS be the visiting team, not the home team.
4
@partydean17 The people who are enriched only by more and more tourists coming will be fine, because those same tourists will still find plenty of hotel rooms available, they just might have to pay a little more. There are no major cities who lack the hotel infrastructure to support their tourism industry, and where such gaps exist, it will quickly get filled by new hotels, which are a more efficient land use for that purpose. People who "prefer not to stay in a hotel" will just be out of luck, and that's fine. Those businesses would also be able to find cheaper employees to work at their businesses, because those people would be able to live nearby, rather than having to pay for a commute. And yes, I am picking winners and losers here, because people with capital do that too, they just do it poorly, from a community development standpoint.
3
@ No, not really. I know kids these days are used to Airbnb existing, but believe it or not, people got along just fine before them, and will get along just fine after. No local businesses would suffer.
3
TL;DR, they were grandfathered in.
3
@rainbowodysseybyjonlion I agree two scenarios, but both in the same workforce. The point is, the jobs in the video are bullshit, all other jobs will also be bullshit within our lifetimes, so no point splitting hairs about it.
3
Yup, the fight is not to save jobs, the fight is to save government from corporations, so that they can save humans from corporations.
3
@saxor96 Why would anyone target people with relatively little money to spend? The targets are those who are willing AND able to spend a lot of money.
3
@saxor96 You put way too much stock into some random TED talk. This is a major industry element that long predated this guy.
3
@saxor96 Again, this is a massive game industry, and most of the people involved have never even heard of the guy giving a TED talk, much less seen the talk itself. I don't know why you seem so fixated on it when it has nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of the industry. He may have described the outward appearance of some factors, but that doesn't mean that his opinions are accurate to games he was not involved in. If someone says that "stealth mechanics exist to make you walk slower," that may be true in his game, and stealth might indeed make you walk slower in many games, but that doesn't mean that this is why most devs put stealth in. Why are you so hung up on this ONE case example? Is it because he's telling you the story that you want to believe?
3
Yes, but also, there would still be people at the top who own the majority of the shares. It is possible to have a company entirely run by AIs, but their money would still end up in the pockets of the wealth class.
3
@partydean17 I was just thinking that you must work for Airbnb. But no, none of what you said makes any sense or has any relevance to anything I was saying. It's not about the hotel industry, it's about people not being homeless. If you can figure out a way to have affordable housing AND Airbnb, then I have no problem with Airbnb, but in the current environment, it seems to be causing more harm than good.
2
@partydean17 How would "just tax land" solve anything? If anything that would only give MORE incentive to short term housing, because it would be more profitable to offset the taxes. I don't see how that would not just make things even worse. And again, NOBODY is talking about anything that would hurt tourism. That is a non-factor here. Tourism did fine before Airbnb and will do fine after, the only people who care are AirBnb and their minions.
2
@ Oh, are you one of those that calls basic taxation policy" use of force?" Ok, I can't discuss things on such an irrational level as that. And again, AirBnb has been around for less than 20 years, this is not some fundamental human right we're talking about here, it's something that's been around less time than Youtube. The world got along just fine without it.
2
@QwertyCaesar Yeah, this is why we need to have strong governments to enforce that sort of thing on the wealthy. In less than 50 years, we'll be at a tipping point. In one direction, the rich stay rich, but are still required to provide support to the general public, and we all live in a post-scarcity utopia, or in the other way, the rich just keep getting richer, own ALL things, and nobody else has anything because they can provide no value that the rich care to support. We need to be passing laws now.
2
@saxor96 "They" didn't tell us anything. One guy gave a TED talk, and his philosophy on these things has nothing to do with anyone else. It's just bad business practices to target unreliable customers. The actual whales are the sorts of people that can afford to be repeat customers.
2
@Carlisho The streamer whales certainly exist, but I can't imagine they make up a significant portion of the market. For every streamer whale there are likely dozens of ordinary people who spend the same or more, not to mention thousands who still spend a decent amount on the game, which adds up. I think streamers add more value in terms of marketing than they do in terms of gross revenue.
2
@saxor96 Again, though, "triggering dopamine" is what games do. Plenty of games, many made before microtransactions, many of them after without any significant microtransactions, use the exact same mechanics to engage players. You can't make these "patterns" illegal without wiping out most of the games on the market. Again, gacha players with legitimate addiction issues are a drop in the bucket. It's not rational to throw out the entire industry just to babyproof games for these few individuals. If they can't handle these sorts of games, then the burden is on them not to play them. If they can't stop themselves from playing these games, then even if these games did not exist, they would be incapable of stopping themselves from playing other forms of gambling that are also available. Also, as regard to skipping, you've got it all wrong. At least in the games worth caring about. They are NOT making the game boring or tedious, because if they did that then people would stop playing it. They need to make the game fun to play on its default setting. But it takes investment to play at that setting, it requires that you play every day, or play many hours a week, to build the resources to level your account. This should not be "boring," because, again, then players would burn out, but it is an investment that not everyone has the time or interest to make. In which case, money can be a substitute, and broadly this works out for all involved. The spenders can advance their accounts with far less time investment, and the F2Ps get access to a much more significant game than could exist without some motivation for people to spend on it. It's a balancing act, to be sure, and not every game gets this balance right, but those that do are some of the best in the industry. In terms of outcomes, this is little different than comparing two different families making a family trip, one of whom spends little to drive cross country, while the other spends considerably more to fly. They reach the same destination and have the same fun there, and the former family might actually have a lot of additional fun in making the trip, but the latter family can get there faster and with less hassle.
2
Reshoring manufacturing jobs is not a good idea done poorly, it is a dumb idea done poorly. There is no point whatsoever to re-shoring most manufacturing jobs,l if they can be done cheaper overseas, then it is better for everyone that they be done overseas. We should not be scrambling in the mud over manufacturing jobs, we should be ensuring that Americans do not NEED manufacturing jobs to live a quality life.
1
That's overly optimistic. Most people alive today will be unemployed before the traditional retirement age, because there will not be jobs hiring human employees.
1
But now they've bought the White House, so they won't have to worry about that stuff.
1
The idea of "endgame automation" is that they literally would not CARE what you do. They would build ONLY things that rich people want to have, they would control the entire supply chain, and nobody would be bothering to produce anything for the average person at all. Whatever happens to you would be none of their business.
1
It'd be funny if a bunch of rich Australians just bought up a ton of high quality real estate and then let people just live there rent-free. They couldn't resell or sub-let the property, it would just b for living in, but it would cost them nothing.
1
I wonder, you mention that some players have an online credit score, does EVE Online have "ratings agencies?" That might be a worthwhile occupation for someone, researching various traders to find out their trustworthiness, so that other players can ask you whether a deal is reliable or not. Of course then your own credibility would need to be bulletproof.
1
@richardarriaga6271 No.
1
@richardarriaga6271 That's not why.
1
@partydean17 Yes, but only short term, whereas long term housing is more needed. Typically areas have enough short term housing to meet demand, and the only thing that alternatives would be providing is a better price. Short term housing tends to be less essential than long term.
1
@partydean17 Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
1
@partydean17 Who's "using force" here? And again, tourism will be fine, stop trying to make "tourism will be harmed" happen, it's not going to happen. I'll also point out that there's no "monopoly" here. You don't need room sharing to have competition for existing hotels, if you want to be a hotel, you can just make a new hotel. People still do that all the time. You just can't do it on a per-room basis in what is intended to be long term housing properties. I took a glance at the land tax thing and it seems like one of those "simple answers" that is actually just stupid, but appeals to people who don't think too hard about things.
1
@ Who's "using force" here? And again, tourism will be fine, stop trying to make "tourism will be harmed" happen, it's not going to happen. I'll also point out that there's no "monopoly" here. You don't need room sharing to have competition for existing hotels, if you want to be a hotel, you can just make a new hotel. People still do that all the time. You just can't do it on a per-room basis in what is intended to be long term housing properties. I took a glance at the land tax thing and it seems like one of those "simple answers" that is actually just "simple," but appeals to people who don't think too hard about things.
1
@partydean17 Again, taxation is not "use of force," and it's silly to describe it in such terms. Don't be overly sensitive to being called silly if you insist on behaving in a silly manner. Eliminating Airbnbs might reduce competition in the hotel market, but there is already plenty of competition in the hotel market, and there is still room for more players to enter that market and increase competition without needing airbnbs, so this is not a problem. But what you choose to dismiss is that having Airbnb's also increases the cost in the housing market, making it more expensive for people to find housing, and this impact is FAR more significant than anything that could possibly occur in the hospitality industry. It's like complaining that something might negatively impact the snack food industry, while it would also have a significant positive impact on nutritious meals for all. Even if so, that is a small price to pay.
1
Wouldn't the way to balance out EVE's stagflation issue be for them to make it so that small, solo player units would be cheap, while big, whale units would be very expensive? That way, whales would be motivated to use their precious resources wisely and fight over new ones, but in a way that still allows plenty of "waste" at the lower end of the economy, people could just go nuts with the smaller resources since they are so affordable.
1
@HowMoneyWorks Yeah, you'd probably just have to draw a line at which the price jumps considerably. The whale units would still be desirable enough that people would put in the resources to get them, but there would be plenty to work with practically at the affordable level. It would just firmly draw the line between the $20K cars and the $400k cars.
1
This entire issue is an imaginary crisis. We don't need more people, because by the time those people are old enough to join the workforce, the workforce will have no need for them. We're at or near the peak of human population sizes, the future will be defined by smaller and smaller populations of wealthier and wealthier people.
1
@Glenn Rini They can build machines to repair machines. Machine operators were always necessary when machines could not think for themselves, but when they reach a certain point, there's no problem they won't be able to resolve.
1
@Glenn Rini It's already happening, to some extent. It will happen in most areas within the next couple decades. I'm not talking like humanoid robots walking around with little toolboxes and workman hats and fiddling inside other machines with screwdrivers, I'm talking about factories designed with modular parts, and if one part is not functioning, a special forklift-ish robot would wander over, remove it entirely, replace it with one that works, carry the broken part over to a repair station (or shipping pallet) where a multi-armed repair device can service it into working order again or just junk it.
1
The only hope for humanity's future is that we can 1. build governments that are completely independent from corporations, 2. that these governments are democratically elected, and 3. that they are willing to turn companies upside down and shake them until enough money falls out to cover everyone else. Otherwise, there is zero hope.
1
@saxor96 But the point is, most whales are those who can afford it, and those who can't are the extreme outliers, a drop in the bucket. You can't baby-proof the world.
1
@saxor96 How would you prevent alcoholics from buying alcohol?
1
@saxor96 Ok, but we aren't talking about children, they can't afford to whale.
1
@saxor96 When a child overspends in a game, the parent can recover that money. It is a mess for all involved and game companies would want to avoid that wh3enver possible, purely out of their own self-interest.
1
@saxor96 But my point is kids are irrelevant to this conversation, since everyone agrees that they should not be involved.
1
@saxor96 So, again, how do you prevent adult gambling addicts from playing these games, without involving non-addict adults?
1
@aeverton2877 Game companies would know the number, because they would see people spend hard to a certain point and then stop completely. They would view each such case as a failure.
1

Previous
1
Next
...
All