You’re probably describing capitalism with social welfare/safety nets. Whereas often socialism is considered to be specifically not capitalism and may not allow for the idea of working to get more resources

Fundamentally you’re probably happy with capitalism in terms of economy but want further govt regulation/welfare. Which I think is probably the best system we have

The point being that if company A cuts their price to compete, and company B has an artificially inflated price

Now we have company B with no sales, and are forced to match or beat their competitor

Repeat until the price is fair. This breaks if both companies are co-ordinating with each other and forcing all other competition in line. But that’s a crime and would be regulated

Who are you paying? Other owners of the apartment? So they put in extra up front so they can rent to you? If so do you get to pay back their initial investment over time? If it’s non profit does that mean they can’t take anything in excess of what they paid or do they get payed x amount over the top?

I’m fine with co-ops generally but when it comes to rentals I just don’t see how you’d make a “not for profit” rental But I mean if someone wants to set one up and prove me wrong that’d be cool. In theory nothing is stopping them

I’m not sure I’d agree that corporate ownership is necessarily bad If you want to rent an apartment because you don’t want to buy into a co-op then how do you go about this? Someone needs to own the apartment to rent to you Personally I don’t mind if that initial investment comes from a person or a corporation

The incentive here would be that a new company could sell far more fridges when reasonably prices compared to their competitors and take all of their market share

But yes of course govt regulation is required when there is actual price fixing going on. I’d also like to know the alternative way of pricing goods/services from people with the alternate view

Probably because it hadn’t been an issue until recently Strange times indeed

Potentially suggests, but does not prove And I’m quite skeptical they they truly have an example of a game that is running 100% on all 8 cores, high maybe but 100%?

I’m a software engineer. And yes multithreading is difficult, just slapping on async isn’t necessarily going to help you run code in parallel

Think about the workload a game is using, you have to do most calcs on a frame by frame basis and you tend to want effects to apply in order. So you have a hard time running in parallel as the state for frame 1 needs to be calculated before frame 2. And within frame 1 any number of scripts can rely on the results of another, so you can’t just throw threads at the problem You can do some things like the sound system but beyond that it’s not trivial

You’d need to look at the actual implementation, it’s hard to speculate from a tiny amount of data. What game are you referencing?

And as someone who has done multi threaded programming I can tell you that for games it is unlikely that they can just add more cores. You need work that truly can be split up, meaning that each core doesn’t needs work to do that doesn’t rely on the results from another core

Graphics rendering is easy for this and it’s why gpus have a crazy number of cores. But you aren’t going to do graphics compute on the cpu

I don’t really care if there is a wealth gap. Even though I’m definitely on the lower income side

What I think we should focus on instead is making sure everyone’s base line needs are met. So healthcare (including dental), housing, food, etc. And I don’t think you need to tax wealth to do it, rather you’d be better off closing off issues in the current tax system and increasing taxes in the upper brackets For the lower tax brackets you could even implement a negative tax rate to achieve it without having to resort to a blanket system like UBI

By all means suggest something else. It feels like 90% of the time people that are anti capitalism either suggest communism or don’t understand that they just want capitalism with tighter regulation What’s your suggestion?

They likely make him pledge something as collateral. I doubt they’re just giving him unsecured loans just for fun

You want to tax existing assets? How on earth is that supposed to work? You just make people liquidate assets to pay a tax? The idea of taxing an unrealised gain is ridiculous

For the record he is paying 200M in tax on that income. Though I agree 20% is probably too low here, that’s up to your govt to fix and isn’t a failure of capitalism but of the specific implementation

Actually quite interesting in the case of Ballmer as he was an employee compensated via stock rather than straight up cash

You’d consider that an investment as he was investing his time to be a business manager while being compensated probably less in cash that would be normal for the position

So as early Microsoft didn’t have the cash on hand, or didn’t want to give up that cash they could use elsewhere they gave equity as compensation

How do you suggest we should remove this situation? Should we not allow compensation in the form of equity? Or should ownership of equity not exist generally?

Good luck moving literally all R&D to universities I guess

I don’t think all research should be in private hands. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume we could move businesses to a crowd funding model and then somehow convince universities to do all of that R&D

Do you want to maybe suggest something practical? I’m not particularly interested in the relentless “capitalists are evil” meme. I am interested in hearing about alternatives with merit Also inert? Are these people really sitting on cash? Or are they investing in various parts of the economy?

I’m confused, you want to have people crowd fund R&D to increase the odds a product goes to market. And then expect no profit on the back of that investment? After the potentially huge initial cost does the company then sell the product at cost? Or do they make a profit now?

Can you give an example of a bailout you disagree with? Pretty much all bailouts I’m aware of recoup their costs Also the reason private equity doesn’t bail out these companies is that unlike a government they may not be able to weather a significant period where they aren’t getting a large cash flow, as they need to stay afloat as well. A government on the other hand is better prepared to recoup costs over time, and will do so if it means that depositors funds are safe. They are much more likely to let a hedge fund just fold as the participants are capable of withstanding such losses

How are you possibly measuring opportunity cost? This is the opportunity. All you can do is use it to buy goods and services or invest via lending in some form

Say you could quantify that and cap profits. What should happen with corporate profits then? After you’ve “paid” the original investors? Does the owner of the company now reabsorb their shares? And if we instead allocate profits to the workers, do we also allocate losses? Do workers just straight up not get paid if the company loses money one year?

Sorry what’s your alternative? I’m guessing communism?

In that system how do you efficiently allocate capital? Do you use a command economy?

I’m not deifying anything, it just seems that capitalism is the most efficient economic system we can come up with. And combined with regulation seems to produce pretty good results, see most of the better parts of Europe for example

How would you crowd fund a company that isn’t promising a specific set of products? Normally the way we do crowd funding is to offer essentially a pre sale of a product. Sure sometimes people just put forward cash because they really want the product to exist but it isn’t the norm But for a company that will be a service provider what incentive exists to fork over potentially millions of dollars? In a crowd funding scheme you expect no profit share so why would you invest in them?

Compared to in this case buying a percentage of a company early on to provide them with capital on the basis that you may make money in the future

Also those bailouts while somewhat distasteful were played back to the government with interest