dovereconomics

I lost 120lbs and for a long time I was in almost the same situation, but I can say I "fixed this problem".

I realized I didn't have a hormonal or even psychiatric issue: I was an addict.

Addicted to sugar, fat, salt in extreme quantities. I would always go from a bowl to a box of cereal.

So I quit it all. Cold turkey. It could "fit my macros", but I took no sugar, no junk food, no snacks.

Only food. Real food.

And I realized it's really hard to become fat on rice, chicken and vegetables. You"d need an insane appetite.

And, after some time, I slowly regained control.

I stopped counting calories, and now I'm happy to say I'm able to eat half a Snickers bar and not crave anything else.

And I'm fit! Happy eating, keeping a bit of muscle and a low body fat =)

Some decent points, but why can't anyone acknowledge the centralization of capital?

Sure, Uber lobbies city mayors, but what about the financial system that gives $6.6B to a single startup? The inception of all problems.

Politicians and lobbyists? I'd worry about the Fed.

Until last week, there was a popular conspirancy linking these increasing cases of brain damage to vaccines.

Inflation-adjusted, $10000 in 1981 translates to $26109 in 2015.

I'm Brazilian (not a shaddy judge though) and this comment is baffling. It reminded me why I left it in the first place.

> No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy

Indeed true.

That's why you see Brazilian politicians embezzling billions of dollars and running away with it. At the same time, impoverished individuals are imprisoned for years after stealing a basket of eggs (literally).

No, it's not the same as in the U.S. Many innocent Americans are put in jail because they didn't know their rights. Impoverished Brazilians are not even given that choice.

The law isn't the same for everyone. If a Brazilian with a college education is arrested, he goes to a different, more pompous, prison "by law".

Obviously, companies want less competition, but if they use a political system to do that, it's not free market capitalism.

No.

TPP, huge inequality, centralization, unemployment ARE NOT a consequence of free market capitalism.

In such case, automation just doesn't outpace the labor market.

Now, when tech companies are partying with an artificial economy controlled by the government, they have more than enough money to that.

It's dangerous and biased to assume a company like Apple had its stock increased because of 'innovation' or 'disruption'.

A lot of it was a consequence of Fed's policies mainly with ZIRP and QE. From that angle, overvaluation of public companies is more likely than the latter.

And, if startups are 'less undervalued'~'more overvalued' than public companies, it only means they're more prone to volatility, busts and bloodbaths.

Genuine capitalism doesn't have a government controlling money supply, which is behind your 'exponential growth'. Instead of growing an economy, the truest capitalist is focused on freeing an economy

If you wanna name the socialistic Keynesian experience 'Capitalism', that's your call. I can't do it.

While investors look for gold and bonds as a response to falling equities, they're actually just trying to find 'safety'. That doesn't tell anything about which asset they'll necessarily choose.

Take the EM crisis we've been experiencing. Yes, everything going downhill, but many EM investors bought USD as a 'response'. If USD has problems, maybe certain commodities go up. It's hard to tell.

You're confounding Capitalism with pure Keynesianism, which you'd probably revere.

Unfortunately, most people don't have minimalist lives.

With a 'humble' example:

$3000/month SF/NYC apartment,$1000/month on clothing(specially bankers), $1500/month on food(no time to cook, so $50/day), $2000/month on entertainment($500/week), $1500/ month on a decent car +gas. That's already ~110k a year. It's really easy to go beyond that.

To be honest, I believe the trend is to only become worse.

Every generation appears to become more hedonist and think less about retirement. Many of my friends(millennials) make six figures and barely save any money for retirement.

Carpe diem is failing on people.

> there will be plenty of angels or firms willing to cut a check or, at least, take a meeting.

What would keep them from ditching you and getting the deal without commission/bonus? 'Niceness'/'Decency' doesn't really work in this industry.

Some EM companies issue bonds in international markets not using their national currency

Even if unrealizable business don't pay very much(close to doctors/lawyers), it still is a distortion in the market that wouldn't be possible in a free market.

Btw, big players are also dependent on a ZIRP, which goes beyond simply 'more credit'.

>government structures the economic regime to favor the interest

That's it. If there's central planning(no matter to whom) it's socialism. And, regarding 'lock-in advantages', without a government-backed credit expansion, it'd be really difficult for companies to get as much market cap.

Cronyism, referring to a system where incompetent agents are given special favors, doesn't survive in the free market - merciless competition destroys any underperfoming organization.

Cronyism only exists when competition doesn't work by means of a government. Get some politicians, create regulations, build a monopoly. No matter how uncompetitive it is, you're still a billionaire.

Not really.

Anyone with a background on classical economics realizes the U.S is much closer to socialism than capitalism. The existence of 'prices' and greed doesn't imply it's capitalism.

Honestly, more and more, I challenge the idea of ever having a child: bright and smart kids have never been so intimidated.

Many of the hacks I did as a child could have gotten me in jail today. Something 'silly' or 'funny' becomes dangerous/offensive/harassment; creativity, ingenuity and imagination are turned into dullness, self-hatred and nihilism.

But... ,in a libertarian country, HP wouldn't exist in the first place.

Crony capitalism still is not capitalism.

or they just didn't have as much 'help' from the government

Okay, everybody will hate me.

But, why are more unicorns a good thing? Yes, there are less VCs willing to throw money at 'SOCIAL APP n', but most startups will tend to have something more concrete.

Plus, assuming unicorns are 'natural forces of free market' is ignorance and hurts the economy in the long-term. These 'natural monopolies' use/abuse a financial system created by government. In a free market(no government intervention), they'd never be able to raise as much money and takeover as much market cap as they currently do.

Less monopolies is not a signal of a interventionist economy. Quite the opposite.

Not necessarily.

Many talented students can't afford or avoid debt in elite universities.

At the same time, less competitive students may get accepted because of donations/connections/preparatory schools.

Many have disagreed and furiously downvoted you(your text is quite aggressive), but you've raised a valid point.

Young adults waste their time and money often by blindly having faith in flawed system. They could've been more productive, in an individual and societal level, by having more pragmatic experiences.

Beyond programmers, a century ago, you could get started in finance by getting apprenticeships and moving your way up the ladder. You'd have real work experience and have a position only Ivy-MBAs currently do. In your lifetime, you'd been more productive and probably wealthier.

Beyond questionable gaps, like gender gaps, it's blatant we're living under a modern caste system.

Spotting petty liars is the least of one's problem. As normal people expose more information in the Internet, it becomes increasingly difficult to be a liar, almost impossible.

Still, the 'big lies' are just getting stronger and these techniques are useless on them. How many political identities can be dismantled by 'surprise'?

Actually, they have children to support themselves.

Without mechanization, it becomes increasingly harder to support yourself without relatives to take care of you after you retire.

>The world’s poorest farmers show up for work each day for the most part empty-handed. That’s why of all the people who will suffer from climate change, they are likely to suffer the most.

So, these poor farmers will demand low-cost solutions to manage these problems. Entrepreneurs would sense this(Bill already did) and start building these tools. It's just how capitalism works.

Unless, there's a crony global economy where corporations buy up government and hold illegitimate monopolies.

As consequence, they are unproductive and unable to keep up with innovation. The world doesn't get what it needs. Bill would also be a good example.

I wouldn't be naive to try to point out reasons for such slowdown, but this response is somewhat dangerous.

The rhetoric of 'WE NEED MORE DEMAND' has hurt many countries and is probably one of the causes of this slowdown.