Here's what I found to be a serious gap in people's understanding of how things are purchased. During my first econ course in college, the professor got to chapter 2: Needs and Wants. He said that this was the most garbage chapter in all of economics because you don't need anything. Us classmates sorta looked around at each other with the 'what is this guy talking about?' look. The professor said, 'It looks like some of you don't believe me, so let's hear what you need'. The class answered with what you would expect: food, water, shelter, etc. He said, 'Ok. So, why do need this? What would happen if you didn't get it?'. The answer came back as, 'you would die'. To which he replied, 'And who says you need to live?'.

This is one of the more profound things I've learned about economics even tho it's quite simple. That as soon as you start talking about 'need' instead of 'want' you stop questioning it, and there is no ceiling on how much you can justify that way. Everything you do or acquire is because you want to, not because you need to. That's it.

I've had many discussions with ppl about various financial issues, from budgeting, investing, raising capital, etc, where a purchase gets defended as a 'need' when it's really just a strong want that hasn't been questioned or correctly characterized.

So if you want some unsolicited advice, whenever you purchase something ask yourself, 'how much do I want this?' Not 'do I need this?'. The latter allows you to talk yourself into almost anything. The former allows you to actually convert your labor into hours. e.g. if you make $15/hr and you go to lunch everyday and spend $15, was that meal worth an hour of your life? Maybe yes, maybe no. Not for me to decide as the individual needs to weigh the cost/benefit analysis. This has been a main driving mechanism behind growing capital through compounding investments over the years instead of consuming more now on things I would have talked myself into needing. Anyone can do this. It starts with separating 'want' (which is everything you acquire) and 'need' (which doesn't really exist), every time you reach for your wallet. Thanks for your time.

This is a very imperfect explanation. Gemini actually disagree a lot about my definition of transactional complexity and adverse selection. I think I should restudy those again.

Selfish genes is the idea that what is selfish is the genes. Not individuals. Genes maximize copies of themselves. They like to help their brethens, often living on another body, to reproduce.

One good approximation is that genes control you. So you tend to choose to benefit your own bloodlines.

For example, parents bequeath and spend a lot of money for their children even so much as forgoing buying another yacht so his children doesn't starve.

Kind of obvious isn't it?

A way to see it is that parents are selfish. They just happen to satisfy this selfishness by benefiting their children. Something not so obvious without selfish genes theory. Without selfish genes theory we would expect parents to just spend all their money on consumption and they provide for their children because the state put them in jail if they don't.

Selfish genes provide simpler explanation. Parents bequeathing money to their children aren't just unselfishly benefiting other organism. The genes themselves simply mind control the parents and allocate resources to their brethren that live on the child's body.

The kind of child support that is natural, however, is very different than the child support mandated by the states.

A rich parent usually want to support children long term so the children can produce grand children. Left to a father's choice, a father will invest in the children's portfolio instead of squandering money on current consumption. Government mandatory child support usually requires father to pay a lot to increase child consumption when the child is a kid and is not reproducing grandchildren.

Also the child's mother is NOT the father's bloodline. Government usually want father to pay mother, which can simply squander or save the money for herself.

Selfish genes also predict that most prostitutes will be female.

Basically men has smaller gametes. If sex lead to reproduction at price point 0 more men wants to have sex than women. Women having to get pregnant 9 months and nursing baby are far more choosy.

So top 10 percent men will gladly have sex with top 50 percent women.

Supply and demand don't meet at price point 0. Market clear at higher price where men pays eomen for sex.

If we take into account all expected and possible resources transfer between men and women, we can see that marriage is a form of a very inefficient prostitution. Again, usually men end up sending resources to women and correctly or not expect sex in return.

Government rules are again very different from normal market mechanism.

Given choices men would provide resources to women if and only if he got sex and heirs. Government, on the other hand will try hard removing the link. So women tend to get paid a lot for divorcing taking children away from men, for making false rape or false paternity accusations.

When a deal is almost guaranteed to be win win or both sides simply walk away, government will prohibit that.

Basically when it comes to sex government maximize transactional complexity.

When transactional complexity goes up transactions drop and we have low transaction and in case of reproduction, lower birth rate.

That's how adverse selection works. It's like market of insurance where insurance company can't discriminate based on fitness. Under free market such market will simply disappear.

Unsurprising to most people here I assume, but very interesting to me that often more wealthy postcodes get lower prices on things like Uber Eats for fast food while lower wealth postcodes get higher prices.

Many leftists decry it as exploitation of the poor, not realising the obvious conclusion is that these pricing models have determined that poorer people tend to be LESS price sensitive than richer people when it comes to unnecessary luxuries, indicating that there is in fact a connection between poor spending habits and poverty that is substantial enough to inform pricing decisions.

Like the government, some people never have enough money no matter how much income they get, because they make terrible decisions.

I feel like corporations have had the most power they have ever had. Gone are the days of good customer service. If you need to contact any company after you have bought something, or any service you are using, good luck to you. You may get lucky, most times you will have to jump through hoops to even find an actual person.

But that's not the rant. The rant is these massive corporations that sell us food, gas, energy, entertainment or internet (probably a lot I am leaving out here) are out of control with price hikes. They have figured out that not only do they not need to provide you excellent service, they don't need to even need to provide you a competitive price or a good value.

They know we are all going to buy it anyways, at any cost.

The middle class has become the poors. The poors have become the peasants and the rich are sucking every cent from any class below them.

Do you think that 2008 crisis was a failure of free market economy as neokeynesian economists say?

“I would like to see it so that every single CEO/founder/entrepreneur does what I did, which was to give equity to every single employee," Cuban said. https://fortune.com/2026/07/20/mark-cuban-income-inequality-company-stock-spacex-ipo-cost-plus-drugs/?utm\\_source=native\\_share&utm\\_medium=mobile&utm\\_campaign=social\\_share

I found this interesting sequence of articles where the author simulates capitalism and extract conclusions about a Laissez-faire, and strong Socialist simulator settings. Of course is simplified simulation but very much interesting all the insights, and counterintuitive that a Laissez-faire can survive but under very specific conditions.

“TL;DR: Nobody actually knows what Capitalism is, so I built a simulator. I firstly defined what Capitalism is, and discovered it creates a built-in tension between Capitalists (extracting surplus value) and Workers (creating it). I ran a bunch of scenarios and broke my own beliefs: the "no State, let markets figure it out" thing only works if productivity is massive and Workers capture the gains —super hard in practice. Strong State? People live well. Mostly public ownership? Most people end up upper class. I freed the simulator so you can run it (it’s a website, here).”

https://open.substack.com/pub/postcapitalistrobots/p/i-built-a-capitalism-simulator-and?r=hk3td&utm_medium=ios

So after the season didn't went as predicted and we had massive losses so my boss told me and my coworkers if we could cut a bit of our salary (as well as his i hope ) to not go on debt, so my question is, if is the capitalist the one who takes the risk (therefore the one who benefits the most bcs of so) wouldn't be him the one who must pay for the whole debt??

Peter Turchin’s theory of Elite Over-Population contradicts the Marxist view in saying that it is not the lower-class who organizes and funds a revolt. He states that during the decline of society, the wealth gap increases, the middle class either falls or rises to be a lower-elite that want power, and the higher-elite aim to maintain the status quo, but their family’s and circles grow which means they must either remove some elite, charge the poor, or acquire land and people. This divide causes instability and low social cohesion until the lower-elite lead a revolt and the “peasants” will fight on both sides of the war.

Lmk if you need me to expand on it. But we’ve seen a decline in social cohesion and a major jump in disparity of wealth since the 80s. Lastly, we know the higher-elite are those in the federal government, right? So assuming this theory is correct and the current U.S. system is headed for collapse, who would the lower-elite be?

The problem with modern politics especially the free market conservatives

People say they want "small government," but history tells a different story. During the Gilded Age, many defenders of laissez-faire opposed laws against child labor, unsafe working conditions, and other labor protections, calling them government overreach or even "socialism." Today, most people recognize those regulations were necessary.

The real issue isn't big government vs. small government—it's who government works for. Many politicians oppose government programs that help ordinary people, yet support subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts, and government contracts for large corporations. When corporations break the rules, they often receive lighter treatment than small businesses, which face regulatory burdens they can't afford to navigate as easily. That's not a truly free market—it's corporate favoritism.

The same applies to taxes. Calls for "free markets" and "small government" are often used to justify cutting taxes on the wealthy and creating loopholes that primarily benefit those who already have the most wealth.

Monetary policy can also widen inequality. Wealthy people own more assets like stocks and real estate, which often rise in value when the money supply expands. They also have better access to cheap credit, allowing them to borrow before inflation pushes prices higher and repay those loans with dollars that are worth less. Meanwhile, people who rely mostly on wages and savings often see their purchasing power fall if their incomes don't keep up with inflation.

If you're against government intervention, be consistent. Oppose corporate welfare and favoritism just as much as you oppose welfare for individuals. Otherwise, it's not really about "small government"—it's about deciding who gets government support.

We need to make corporate lobbyists illegal in politics.

Adam Smith says people bake cakes not because they are good. They bake cakes because they are selfish and baking cake is profitable.

So why do they bake cakes? Why not just rob neighbor?

Because if they rob their neighbor government will punish.

Okay. Got it. So as long as we have government that punish agression, everyone can be selfish and everyone is rich. Economic as a whole will be maximized.

That's libertarianism 101.

Should government be selfish? No. Government should be "moral". That's standard libertarian model. Government should be "good" and "libertarian". Then we blame commies for voting differently.

That's how common laws work. We got "impartial" jury and perhaps "impartial" voters?

That's just not reality. Perhaps when a country is poor it can sort of work. When a country is rich, many voters, quite realistically can vote for more redistribution of wealth.

Besides, everyone is selfish. Expecting peasants to be selfish, entrepreneurs to be selfish, and yet expecting politicians and voters to be virtuous is absurd.

Another alternative is replace government with "nothing". That's how pure anarcho capitalist is.

May or may not work. I'll show the problem latter.

Here is another alternatives.

Most government roles can be replaced by private market place.

Sample. Government use to build markets.

Now we have eBay.

Government use to regulate taxi. Now we have Uber.

If Uber taxi is bad, do we sue? Too much work. We just give 4 star and in exceptional circumstances we give 1 star.

Sometimes when there are buyers and sellers people do not cooperate well. Buyers send money sellers don't send goods. Sellers send goods buyers don't send money.

So what do we do? Escrow. Ebay. What are the rules? It can vary. The way it works is eBay would make reasonable rules. If not we don't use eBay.

In corrupt country like mine, private marketplace is just a must. They took very little fee and they keep things fair.

What about if eBay itself is fraudulent? Well, they lost reputation and stuff. Worse come to worse we can sue ebay. That means our reliance on government is already far less. Out of 1000 conflicts, only 1 need to go to government. eBay customer service handle 999 of them.

Notice this is very rarely. Even without government ebay has reputation to maintain.

Our local supermarket is more fair than our supreme court.

What happened if we don't use private market place? What happened if we want to buy iPhone and just advertise in say classified ads and then meet and pay cash and got iPhone? Someone got shot that way.

But why most people use private market places instead of government? Private market place is run for profit. If they are not fair people use more fair market place. Transactional complexity works like tax. If I can scam you, or give you bad deals, every buyer need to take into account worse case scenario. So private market place where people can't scam will win because worse case scenario is better.

What about government itself?

Government that is run for profit will behave like eBay. Here, government becomes some sort of pimp of pimps. For similar mechanism with eBay, unfair governments will not attract tax payers.

Currently our planet is divided into many nations most of which are peaceful and independent to each other. War is few.

All voters in most countries need is they make more money if they arrange that their interests is more like shareholders of eBay or Uber than neutral virtuous voters. The latter is impossible anyway.

That's the case of network of privatized for profit cities.

If one company

Sets the atmospheric price,

It's dictatorship.

If a poor widow working 40 hours each week earns gross only $7.25/hour, then the CEO can get a $72/hour! (or $150K/year maximum, including all bonuses, freebies, allowances, etc.)

The same must apply to any government, state, city or county employees! (If the legal minimum for poor widows and orphans is $7.25/hour gross, then no one shall get paid more than 10X!)

KIV: Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted! For the LORD will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them! "One who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and one who gives gifts to the (CEO's) rich- both come to poverty! (100%!)" 

"You shall not abuse any widow or orphan. If you do abuse them, when they cry out to (God) Me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will ki-ll you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless! (100%!)"

Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor!"

KIV: Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

KIV: He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: but he that honoureth (God) Him hath mercy on the poor.

"If you close your ear to the cry of the poor, you will cry out and not be heard! (100%!)"

KIV: In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the mr. Devil the Satan ex-Lusifer (rip-off-public-ans) whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that underpay his citizens/ employees! Wherefore by their $ fruits ye shall know them!

KIV: For the love of money is the root of all (100% all!) Evil: which while some (CEO's) coveted after, they have erred from the Good Faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these money addiction things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, good Faith, heavenly love, good patience, meekness....

-Poor self-employed widow with 3 children making gross $65K/year pays 40% from her income: 15.3% base self-employment payroll tax (12.4% for Social Security and 2.9% for Medicare) + 10% sales tax + school and property taxes (state, county, and city) + 10% tithes SDA (or Mormons. etc) mandatory from all widows and orphans + fuel tax, new Tariffs, use tax, utilities tax, 911 tax, and all insurances (health, property, and car insurances). Note: no one mentioned F-income tax!

Anyone who makes less than $65K gross income pays 40% in various taxes, deductions, fees, dues, insurances, etc. The top 15% pays less _____ % of all incomes!

Consumerism and technology optimized society for profit, not mental health. When every app, product, and algorithm competes for your attention, it's not surprising that anxiety, loneliness, and depression have become more common. It's not the only cause, but it has fundamentally changed how we think, socialize, and spend our time.

I have been reading lots about authoritarian politics and what conditions within a country enables or causes them to gain office.

As I am sure most people are aware its through political failures of either war, economic collapse or massive inequality sometime a combination of all three.

When people have little to no agency over their or their families prosperity they will turn to radical angry voices who rail against the perceived problems.

As in the uk we are seeing the rise of these would-be authoritarian politicians it is surely time to have a look at the economic situation which has enabled this.

In 2012 the bbc ran an article on how little starbucks was paying in way of tax. I dont think much has changed since then in regards big companies accepting the responsibility of maintaining the infrastructure which enables their profits.

It therefore has to be logical to follow this knowledge in asking at what point does it become a political or even a national security liability to have so many extractive companies operating off of our economy?

A real word example of this would be education or health care. With a country's assets now stripped and its taxes disappearing through loopholes how can it realistically afford good education and health care.

In the youtube debate with Mehdi Hassan we saw a young man proud to call himself a fascist, a man who grew up, not under trump, but under bush and obama. How come his education is so poor he does not know basic facts about fascism? One anecdote is not data but you only need look at the amount who would get swastika flags to see the size of the problem.

Incidentally is it possible to be a patriot to the usa while flying the confederate flag?

If in relativly stable times, education and economic stability with social mobility and inequality are not improved then surely their is a bigger issue at work.

Is it the fault of these companies and the politics of both left and right which have enabled and been enabled by them that we now find ourselves in this situation?

BBC News - Starbucks 'paid just £8.6m UK tax in 14 years' - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19967397?app-referrer=deep-link