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.

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.

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

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.