I'd buy the argument made in the article more if they could explain what harm the scammers are avoiding by weeding those of us who can spot a misspelling as early as possible. Do they immediately start investing a great deal of time in a possible "mark" right after one reply from them?
Most people are terrible at pricing an item over its full lifetime. A smaller cash outlay almost always attracts a sale, even if the item has a much shorter expected lifespan than a more expensive alternative, or will require constant repairs, etc. Seeing a low base price on a car, fridge, etc will sway people to buy an item even if there's now a larger operational expense. You're not just powering a device you own anymore but also "unlocking" the Ice Maker Feature(tm) for $5/month.
This feels like businesses are trying to force everyone in the debt trap that keeps the poor where they are. Having to pay a monthly subscription for basic functionality isn't _that_ different from being in debt. But instead of floating consumers a loan, these companies are selling an item that selectively breaks if they miss a payment.
Part of it is simply, why would it sell for cheaper when they can get away selling it for the same?
And part of it, I believe, is inflation. I.e. I believe inflation is vastly undercounted and underreported, because a good chunk of it hides in "shrinkflation", decrease of manufacturing quality, lower-quality components, replacing customer service with "AI" chatbots and recently also voicebots, more ads and upsells, and - of course - extra subscriptions tacked on to everything.
> The only difference here is that there’s now the option to change the program over the air.
The mutability is the part that bothers me. Remotely disabling features and the option to hike prices for monthly subscriptions to have functionality in the car serve to erode the concept of ownership. I'm not a Tesla owner but I believe they also allow paid upgrades that neither stick with the owner nor with the car during a sale. How is that not exploitative?
It’s exploitative if it is not sticky and isn’t clearly communicated. But it’s not relevant for the Mercedes case where it’s very clear that it’s a subscription.
For my personal case, it still doesn’t matter, of course.
It's obviously possible to buy gold in non-USD currencies. So I think the gist of your comment applies to the dominance the US has over oil markets. So while the "petrodollar" era is still ongoing but its day seem numbered, e.g. by pushing Russia to seek other export markets besides the West, by the increasingly cool perception of the US by OPEC nations [1], etc.
Not just oil markets- usd dominates gold markets as well. Russia will be selling oil to other countries at a “discount” but to what? The price of oil in usd which is why some counterparties consider the trade. If usd was losing dominance, countries would be offering a premium to purchase oil for something other than usd.
I agree with the general premise of your comment, that this is a small sign of the deglobalization which is _already_ under way.
But, what are the UUUGE tailwinds benefiting India? India, even more so than China, seems likely to "get old before it gets rich." Its TFR is already below replacement and falling rapidly.
I strongly disagree with on demographics, it looks really good for most of the century. Everything including TFR, young population, working population and even elderly populations looks REALLY good. Especially relative to China.
Demographics aside, India is a perfect replacement for China in high tech manufacturing. Stability is a huge factor here giving India a massive edge compared to south east asian alternatives.
On top of that, you have young highly skilled & literate workforce. A largely discounted wealthy diaspora investing back into the motherland. Huge pool of software talent.
IMO it makes for a huge Shenzhen like moment for India. Again, I leave a massive amount of room for India to duck this up but it is India's opportunity to fuck up. The winds have shifted heavily in their favour.
If PRC's official population is as low as Yi thinks, then her per capita GDP is already "secretly" high income at ~14000 USD. She would technically already have gotten rich before old. CCP has incentive to overreport population / underreport GDP to keep "developing" country status.
>India ones are still over replaceability
Indian overall TFR this year is ~2.0, but more important to break down Indian TFR by state, which will reveal all the high HDI/developmed/educated regions are ~1.6 and trending down, while the underdeveloped and poorly educated regions are still >2. The TLDR is India's demographic divident in her high potential regions is basically over, while low potential regions are generating excess bodies that will have little opportunity develop. Recipe for disaster in democracy, and hence:
> India, even more so than China, seems likely to "get old before it gets rich."
Of course India is going to grow, by a lot, but much of her high potential demographic divident is already tapped out while stuck in low middle income unless the system get it's shit together.
They obey his Law of Gravity and his Laws of Motion. Newton was not incorrect and Einstein did not invalidate Newton's laws. It's only that Newton could not explain the source of the "force" of gravity, and he was honest about this.
I've never heard anyone from the US or Europe claim that plastic will degrade back into the ground. Somehow they changed their "entire culture" to put trash in cans.
>Ideas, especially those that stoke resentments, are like viruses.
The problem is that people make statements like this but apply them selectively. E.g., platforms like major news networks are happy to give airtime to the claim that people alive today, who never owned slaves and are very likely not descended from anyone who did, must pay reparations to others alive today who were never enslaved and may well not be descended from slaves. These same platforms also give airtime to those claiming all societal ills stem from one ethnic group or another (as long as it's the "right" ethnic group being blamed).
This incredibly skewed double standard isn't fooling anyone.
Another measure might be the extent to which it leads to an unequal distribution of knowledge. Censorship can be seen as means of preventing misinformation, and sometimes quite effective at that, but a potential negative byproduct is limiting the output of (interpretable) factual information.
