There are absolutely scalpers that reduce total supply. They’ll only list a couple of consoles that they scalp at a time even if they buy in massive bulk, and it’s all done on the pretense of a limited supply from the original seller that they’re artificially limiting past what the market would naturally do (by buying a ton of them up). Given a literally infinite supply, scalpers lack an ability to do anything. Put another way, when they can’t restrict supply, it’s not a viable strategy.
It’s not that they refuse to sell some of their supply, it’s a temporary restriction (all supply restrictions can be viewed as temporary because we don’t have total knowledge of future supply). The temporary restriction benefits them because they can start bidding wars over the reduced supply, and get a higher price per unit at the cost of getting the money over a longer period of time.
The exact same thing works for housing, when you have the same company renting out tons of units but also keeping tons of units in the same area off the market. It means the bidding wars for the smaller supply of units results in more money per unit (lower supply, same demand, means higher costs).
The concept of a prisoners dilemma here only works if houses are fungible, but they’re not. There are sometimes very similar units or even houses in a neighborhood in the same location, and these are almost fungible, but even in these contexts those nearly identical units in nearly identical locations are usually owned by a single entity (corporate or otherwise), so again there’s no prisoner’s dillema, they can restrict supply effectively to increase yield.
The time vs value calculation is different for housing too compared to smaller things like groceries. If you’re a grocery store, and your local distributor of apples lowers the price of apples, some of that will likely go to the customer because of local competition pushing prices down, and you have a constant supply tied to a constant demand of these (from a buyer’s perspective) essentially fungible things.
Houses are different because if you see the price of houses in your neighborhood drop by some significant amount, individual actors who may otherwise want to sell will actively choose to not list their house because they know the value will go back up, and so these actors are all incentivized to vastly limit supply if something in some area cuts the prices of houses (like a huge influx of new homes for example). These individual actors could be literal individuals or corporations.
Look to other forms of scalping to see how this works at a smaller scale. Scalping isn’t done through conspiracy, but a bunch of small, self-interested actors reducing supply in the market to inflate prices.
On top of that there are actors that are more coordinated and not as small, like corporations that own hundreds of thousands of homes. These corporations can just coordinate internally (not conspiracy, business) and reduce supply to increase their own returns.
This works for smaller actors too though. As long as the number of houses owned is more than a couple, then it’s likely they’d profit from temporarily restricting supply, and locking in renters to leases for more money. They’ll try to slowly sell off their supply without “flooding” the market and hurting the value of their own supply, just like other scalpers.
I support creatives with direct donations. When you buy Netflix, you’re supporting extraordinarily wealthy capitalists.
If you actually care about supporting creatives, end all your subscriptions, pirate all your media, and give 100% of your previous subscription costs directly to the creatives you want to support.
I don’t know if your second to last paragraph is a meme, but all humans reject immoral behaviors that occur in the wild, not just vegans. Lions also commit infanticide so their genetics carry on and competing male lions don’t, it makes sense biologically. Yet humans don’t commit this behavior because we know it’s wrong. Dolphins rape other dolphins, which again for the furthering of your own genetics makes sense. You should implant your seed in as many helpless victims as you can, and yet again, humans don’t do this because we know it’s wrong.
Pretending like vegans are the weird ones because we’re simply consistent about our morality is wild. Non-vegans even get upset at the idea of eating dogs or cats, so it’s not even like they’re universally in favor of torturing and slaughtering helpless animals, only the ones that have been objectified by whatever culture they live in.
This is gish-galloping, to properly address your points, every paragraph would require 3ish paragraphs, so I’d have to spend the better part of 2 hours responding, which is totally unreasonable to expect in a forum like this with a stranger you have no personal attachment to.
From what I gather, your main issues are social ostracization and false equivalencies. Using social norms to drive your moral decisions is obviously problematic, you can think of a ton of atrocities committed by humans when those atrocities were socially normalized. People aren’t born evil, with an intent to cause harm. They’re taught to be ambivalent, and can perpetuate atrocities through apathy.
As for the idea that there’s some false equivalence, you’re misunderstanding the thought experiment. Yes, eating humans is more dangerous than eating chickens or dogs, but that’s a happenstance of nature. It’s possible we could figure out a way to eliminate prion diseases and other harmful effects of cannibalism, and then farming disabled humans who process information at the same level of a cow would be morally permissible to a logically consistent non-vegan.
Of course, essentially no carnists are logically consistent. They use emotion and preference towards certain species to guide their decision instead of rationally considering when it’s okay to harm something (taste pleasure isn’t a high enough bar to inflict pain and death, obviously).
Autonomy and choice is important, do you think less intelligent humans also deserve a right to autonomy? What about less intelligent animals? If you answered differently to these two questions, why?
Humans generally understand restricting choice is a good thing if the choice in question is committing harm. We don’t let people choose to rape, murder, etc. We don’t let people farm mentally disabled humans for their skin and meat. We don’t let people farm dogs and cats for their skin and meat. We do let people farm cows and pigs for their skin and meat.
Vegans have rectified this inconsistency, non-vegans haven’t. If you told me that you were fine with farming disabled humans, dogs, cats, etc. I’d at least applaud your consistency, but I have yet to meet a single non-vegan who is this consistent.
Normative truths are just as foundational as descriptive truths. You use the same logic to get there. I hope you’re intelligent enough to be an epistemological nihilist, so hopefully you know the basis for all scientific and descriptive understanding of the universe is self-evident axioms. The same is true for moral truths. Harm is axiomatically bad in the same way that our senses are accurately able to translate information of an external universe into our brains.
If you disagree with the former, we can’t have moral discussions, and if you disagree with the latter we can’t have scientific discussions. This is how the whole of epistemology functions.
You’re also strawmanning me. Ought implies can, so an animal without an ability to act morally obviously has no moral obligations. I hope you somehow just severely misunderstand the vegan position, and you’re not intentionally spreading misinformation.
Factory farms aren’t us allowing them to sort out their own problems. We spawn billions of sentient creatures into torture boxes every year just to slaughter them when they’re a few months old in brutal and terrifically painful ways.
If you think that’s awesome, keep buying meat, more power to you, you’re just probably a psychopath (though I obviously can’t give you an official diagnosis).
I was part of the vegan cult for years until I read this comment, thank you for saving me.
I was a wimp. I didn’t enjoy the idea of harming and killing animals, I had watched videos of animals being gutted alive and having their throats cut and squirming for literal minutes afterwards. This was uncomfortable, but only because I was a wimp.
After reading your comment I manned up and took my dog and 2 cats, strung them up while they were whimpering (which was hilarious), and slit their throats, cooked their delicious innards, and am finally able to walk again (I was only able to crawl because I had been nutrient deficient for so long despite what my libtard doctors told me).
I’m happy to live in a free country where I can do whatever I want with my property. In China I bet you can’t cook a dog because the government is just a bunch of moralizing leftists. God gave us domain over animals, and so I get to choose what I want to do with the animals I purchase.
Within the context of one person’s career, socialism on its own can do quite a bit to transform people’s relationship to their workplace. No longer would your job be at risk because you’ve all done too well and it’s to “cut labor costs” while profits soar. No longer would you be worried about automating away your job, instead you’d gladly automate your job away and then the whole organization could lower how much work needs to be done as things get more and more automated.
Democracy would massively improve work-life balance.
Of course this comes with problems, all of which exist in capitalism (how do we care for people outside of these organizations who won’t have access to work, for example). But if I had to choose between market socialism and capitalism, the choice is pretty clear, and it’s something much easier for liberals to stomach.
The system is broken (lemmy.zip)
Once a pirate, always a pirate (discuss.tchncs.de)
It's almost like a zombie movie for them (startrek.website)
I'm too high for this (i.imgflip.com)
Lemmy might, MIGHT have a small bias towards the left (lemm.ee)