It's ok to be angry about capitalism

[Ag3ma]

snip

Subscriptions are great for companies, because they supply constant, reliable revenue. This is often preferable to peaks and troughs associated with big releases and quieter periods between releases, which makes it harder to plan finances, or vulnerability from shocks in case of underperformance.

If you're talking about a constant service (like Dropbox, TV streaming), a subscription is surely the sensible way to go, because it's a service you are constantly using. So for instance you buy Doom or Baldur's Gate 3, you pay up front for a product, finish it and that's that done. Elder Scrolls Online is a ongoing service, so subscription. On Amazon Prime, you can if you want buy a product and watch it theoretically forever, or (if it's available) pay the Amazon subscription.

But you are certainly right that companies like ekeing subscriptions out of consumers for products which I think would be better as one-off costs (like MS is trying this with its Office package) or making the service shittier and then trying to get you to pay to make it like it used to be.

 

[Silvanus]

View attachment 10510

But you are certainly right that companies like ekeing subscriptions out of consumers for products which I think would be better as one-off costs (like MS is trying this with its Office package) or making the service shittier and then trying to get you to pay to make it like it used to be.

Speaking of....

'Our long-term objective is to make printing a subscription' says HP CEO gunning for 2024's Worst Person of the Year award

Not satisfied with merely bricking printers, HP now wants to own them all forever!

www.pcgamer.com

 

[Ag3ma]

Speaking of....

HP is quite interesting, in a way.

HP evidently cannot compete with other ink manufacturers, so it is effectively trying to lock them out and create a monopoly on ink for HP printers for itself. I would argue that this is anti-free market and bad for the customer. HP should actually concentrate on making its ink competitively priced, or give up as an ink manufacturer and make money by selling its printers at a profit.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I would argue that this is anti-free market and bad for the customer.

That much is patently obvious, no?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Capitalists *hate* the market. It's kinda funny

 

[tstorm823]

HP is quite interesting, in a way.

HP evidently cannot compete with other ink manufacturers, so it is effectively trying to lock them out and create a monopoly on ink for HP printers for itself. I would argue that this is anti-free market and bad for the customer. HP should actually concentrate on making its ink competitively priced, or give up as an ink manufacturer and make money by selling its printers at a profit.

I have opinions on this.

HP recently released a construction product that prints CAD files on the ground at 1:1 scale, so you can lay out your blueprints directly on the surface where they'll be constructed. There is very limited, very expensive competition in the realm of automated layout machines. Their machine is actually quite impressive in what it does, but they've decided they would like to track how much people use them and charge proportionally and then they set a price point that genuinely doesn't compete with paying two guys to measure it out by hand. Even when pursuing a market where the primary competitor is skilled manual labor that is facing (at least locally) a real shortage of skilled laborers, they are voluntarily pricing themselves out of the competition.

I think they approach economics as a zero-sum game, where if their customers gain any net benefit from using their products, they feel they've been hurt by it.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Speaking of....

'Our long-term objective is to make printing a subscription' says HP CEO gunning for 2024's Worst Person of the Year award

Not satisfied with merely bricking printers, HP now wants to own them all forever!

www.pcgamer.com

So the last week, I've been setting up the downtime computers for a new hospital, computers that can work for a bit after the power goes out and allow nurses/doctors to print out what they need to work so each of these downtime computers needs a printer attached obviously. The printers that were bought to fill in where there wasn't a bigger MFD already in place were basic little HP printers that can sit on a desk. I didn't buy the printers nor did I read the box before setting up the first one obviously, it's a printer so it should simply print. I unbox, connect, and install the printer in control panel like normal and go to print a test page and it doesn't work. I look at the printer and it's telling me I got to go to some HP website to enable printing and I'm like "what!?!?". I call up HP to ask how to get the printer to just print and the guy is like you got the professional version that comes with these "features" that can't be disabled and the printer has to be connect to the internet to talk with the HP Cloud (these printers are specifically not to be on the network and just be USB printers). And I'm like so that's just so people can't buy 3rd party cartridges right? And he's like well, HP makes a standard version that doesn't have the professional features for the customer that doesn't want said features. So, IT had to buy a new batch of HP printers and even those say you probably can't use anything other than genuine HP cartridges. Not that I liked HP much before, but I will never be buying an HP product ever, same thing with Apple products as well.

 

[ralfy]

The richest 10% own 70% of the country’s wealth

The wealthiest Americans control a growing slice of the wealth pie.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[Gergar12]

The richest 10% own 70% of the country’s wealth

The wealthiest Americans control a growing slice of the wealth pie.

finance.yahoo.com

I never liked the neoliberal explanation for wealth inequality. I am not talking about meritocracy. I am talking about how they will point to America being X, Y, and Z better than third- and second-world countries. Eg. Your part of the global 10% too. It works too with little rebuttal.

The problem is just because Congo slave mines exist doesn't mean an American shouldn't get healthcare funded more equitable. I am not thrilled at an artisan miner being worth 10 cents an hour, and a billionaire being worth 10,000 an hour. Somewhere in the middle are the real values, and no I don't believe in reparations but I believe people should be paid for the hardships they endure.

It just sucks that some countries like Iran, China, and Russia would rather rabble rouse so they could be the ones enjoying the benefits of empire dom which then forces the US to practice realpolitik and give slave workers in Dubai, Qatar, and the other Gulf states a pass because we need their UN votes, their power, their land for bases, and etc.

If Iran were led by better people same as Russia, and China we could sanction the living shit out of Dubai but we can't since Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are amoral and seek realism-based power. There is a rule in realism among many if you do an action that can get your -3 points, but the other side -6 points vs you getting 4 points, and the other side 8 points pick the -3 action. Back then I just ate it up, but now it seems like a crab bucket mentality.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It just sucks that some countries like Iran, China, and Russia would rather rabble rouse so they could be the ones enjoying the benefits of empire dom which then forces the US to practice realpolitik and give slave workers in Dubai, Qatar, and the other Gulf states a pass because we need their UN votes, their power, their land for bases, and etc.

Er, that's hardly the sole reason the US is ok with exploited workers outside its borders.

 

[Ag3ma]

I never liked the neoliberal explanation for wealth inequality. I am not talking about meritocracy. I am talking about how they will point to America being X, Y, and Z better than third- and second-world countries. Eg. Your part of the global 10% too. It works too with little rebuttal.

I read an interesting article, that said that Google (well, Alphabet now) had only ever developed one great product, and that was their search engine. Everything else it bought. Google Maps? Bought. Android? Licensed version of freeware. YouTube? Bought. You can say the same of Facebook (Meta). It created Facebook - which is already dying. Then it has Instagram (bought), Whatsapp (bought), Oculus (bought), etc. You see the same with a lot of drug companies, too. They don't necessarily innovate much - that's risky and expensive. They let small companies innovate, and then buy the ones that look like they'll accomplish something.

A lot of these big companies don't really make a lot of new stuff. They make a big product and lots of money through it, then they just hoover up minnows with promise - minnows that would possibly have become major players had they not been bought out.

This then is capitalism: primarily, money begets money, and the most reliable path to great wealth is happening to be rich in the first place.

 

[tstorm823]

This then is capitalism: primarily, money begets money, and the most reliable path to great wealth is happening to be rich in the first place.

If instead you say that power begets power, you'd hit on a more universal truth. That there is any path to power, other than being born with it, that one could pursue without ultraviolence involved is more unique to capitalism than the rich getting richer.

Representative governments and capitalist economies have given society the most tools to interact with entrenched power in history. I do not understand why people think tearing those systems down will suddenly make the meek inherit the Earth.

 

[Silvanus]

Representative governments and capitalist economies have given society the most tools to interact with entrenched power in history. I do not understand why people think tearing those systems down will suddenly make the meek inherit the Earth.

The issue is that most of those tools to deal with entrenched power, although they cropped up in capitalist countries, were developed despite capitalism rather than because of it. At every turn, corporations-- when given the unfettered freedom to act as they please-- have tried to stamp out worker organisations or any other political initiative to empower the weak or poor.

Meanwhile, capitalism has also worked to entrench that power ever further. Hence why the gap between richest and poorest is larger than it has ever been right now, eclipsing even feudalism and monarchy.

 

[Ag3ma]

If instead you say that power begets power, you'd hit on a more universal truth. That there is any path to power, other than being born with it, that one could pursue without ultraviolence involved is more unique to capitalism than the rich getting richer.

Representative governments and capitalist economies have given society the most tools to interact with entrenched power in history. I do not understand why people think tearing those systems down will suddenly make the meek inherit the Earth.

Yes, it is fair to say that power begets power is a more universal truth. But in capitalism more than most systems, money is power.

Which leads me on to the second comment. Capitalist economies, I fear, have done relatively little to give societies the tools to deal with entrenched power. That's been representative government - it just so happens representative governments and capitalism mostly developed around the same time.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes, it is fair to say that power begets power is a more universal truth. But in capitalism more than most systems, money is power.

Which leads me on to the second comment. Capitalist economies, I fear, have done relatively little to give societies the tools to deal with entrenched power. That's been representative government - it just so happens representative governments and capitalism mostly developed around the same time.

People don't realize how much power they have is the problem. They really do have all the power but don't exercise it.

 

[Chimpzy]

 

[Ag3ma]

snip

"It's just so unfair that rich people are expected to obey the law."

 

[ralfy]

From what I remember, worldwide a few thousand people own more wealth than the bottom half of the world population.

If the three richest would give up a tenth of their wealth, the amount could be enough to wipe out illiteracy worldwide and provide basic education to everyone.

If the few thousand give up a tenth of their wealth, the amount might be enough to provide basic needs to everyone on the planet.

Much of that wealth consists of numbers in hard drives, and the wealth routinely goes by 10 pct every year or so as financial assets like stocks appreciate through financial speculation.

Meanwhile, around 25 pct of the world population that make up the global middle class is responsible for at least 60 pct of personal consumption.

Given ecological footprint vs. biocapacity, the world is also in overshoot. In order to meet the basic needs of everyone in terms of energy and material resources, at least an additional earth would be needed. Also, the 25 pct that make up the global middle class will have to cut down their resource use by around 75 pct to ensure basic needs for the other 75 pct of the world population. That means no more things like posting messages in online forums.

Finally, around 70 pct of the world population live on less than US$10 a day but want to earn more. Meanwhile, the other 30 pct are counting on them to earn and spend more because their own incomes and returns on investment are dependent on increasing sales of goods and services.

 

[Chimpzy]

Report: Sam Altman seeking trillions for AI chip fabrication from UAE, others

WSJ: Audacious $5-$7 trillion investment would aim to expand global AI chip supply.

arstechnica.com

 

[Satinavian]

Report: Sam Altman seeking trillions for AI chip fabrication from UAE, others

WSJ: Audacious $5-$7 trillion investment would aim to expand global AI chip supply.

arstechnica.com

5 -7 trillion ...
Delusions of grandeur, i would think. For perspective, the US and China are the only countries with a higher GDP in the world.