The day of the election

I really thought that Javier Milei was going to win, but when it actually happened, it was unbelievable. It was a mix of feelings: I was happy, then I was worried because hyperinflation was coming and if it happened, Javier Milei was going to be kicked out of office and libertarianism would NEVER EVER be seen again in Latin America. But that madafucker shut my mouth and it never happened. I’m really happy about it (after all, I’m poor and if hyperinflation had hit, I would’ve had to do some crazy shit to eat).

First three months:

It was hard, but necessary, obviously. For example, he cut subsidies to transportation, and prices skyrocketed. So I had to quit the gym because it was in another town and I depended on public transport. Besides that, living with 25% monthly inflation was CRAZY. Clearly, it wasn’t his fault, but I’m just narrating what actually happened.

Six months:

WTF, I NEVER THOUGHT THIS GUY WAS GOING TO PULL OFF THIS SHIT. He went all out: inflation went down from 25% to 4.2%, then the country risk dropped from 3000 to 1000. He ACTUALLY fired 30,000 public employees who really, but REALLY, did nothing and didn’t even go to work... With just 15% of Congress and 10% of the Senate (in terms of representation of his party), he was able to pass the biggest reform in Argentina’s history. That reform included a regime to encourage massive private investment, with tax reductions, legal certainty, and a lot of other things. Literally a month after that reform, a bunch of big companies started announcing huge investments in the country.

One year in:

According to the newest data, Argentina’s poverty went down from 57% to 38.9%. Apart from that, inflation is now 2.4%. He has cut two major taxes and is planning to cut even more. He says he wants Argentina to be the freest country in the world, and he’s actually going down that path. I’m so happy, guys. I’ve been writing a book this year talking in depth about how Milei won, what Argentina was like a year before Milei, how it is now, and how you can replicate this in your own country. It would be a pleasure if you want to buy it, here it is: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DRDHN5SJ

So this 16 year old kid came up with an idea for “inclusive Christmas products” and it’s all over the news. It’s considered a great idea and customers seem to like it too. Great story right? My take on it that whatever the story or product a 16 year old kid cannot start a business without financial backing. How did he get the money to produce his inventory and shipping materials? The answer is nowhere to be found but I would guess he’s backed by his wealthy family. So this means that kids who have $$ can start businesses and kids without cannot, no matter what their great ideas are. It’s a story that has happened many times but it shows that the concept of the level playing field is deeply flawed. Not everyone who works hard and has a new product can be a success.

So recently I have started to view things differently, realising that capitalism is evrywhere, even in things that I have thought only promoted good values.

I am a big fan of hello Kitty and sanrio characters, but I have started to think that the creation of the character and the feeling it brings me is only a strategy to push me buy their stuff . And it's the case for everything, why do I need to buy ? To fulfill the satisfaction to own merch ?

What are your thoughts ?

People have been saying that the market is going to crash forever now, is it ever going to? Everything is so expensive and it feels like inequality is just going to keep continue growing

I am writing an essay on how AI will impact the future of global capitalism, and I’m really struggling on where to start. Does anybody have some readings and sources to help me get started?

Thanks! :)

What insurance company do is effectively "legal" fraud.

A legal fraud is a grey area. Libertarian basically says anything is ok as long as it is not coercion or fraud.

What counts as fraud is often not clear. How misleading something is to count as fraud? There are many ways to deceive others without strictly fall into strict category of fraud.

Usually fraud is defined as

1. Something is factually false
2. The guy that says it know it's actually false
3. He said false things.

Many things have ambiguous meaning. Does it have to be said? What about material non disclosure of material terms?

I once bought an insurance. I am not interested in the insurance at all but my lawyer recommend me for some absurd reason. So the insurance come with investments and I specifically ask that I just want a little insurance and the rest of the money is invested.

In my country, insurance companies can have fees that's 1000 times normal. The fee is deducted from the "investment". If customers know about the fee they wouldn't buy.

So how does the company sell?

They don't write the fee clearly. In one page it's written normal premium is this. In another they said 50% of some type of premium is invested.

If customers ask things like, how much money is invested and how much go to insurance, insurance agents will say all money is invested.

I put $7k I found out latter that there is a fee $3.5k.

But....

It's not LEGALLY fraud.

At least not according to many lawyers that I talked about.

They said it's true all money are invested. The whole package is investments.

And they don't just do it to me.. They do it to most of their customers.

What about if customers ask about the fee via email? They will schedule a one on one verbal meeting for one of their agent to "explain". In one on one meeting they can lie or use marketing language or whatever. And latter when found out they will just tell the customer that what they said is "true".

But they will not want to repeat their retarded claim in public because anyone that see they said that will be puzzled. In one hand half of the money goes to fees. On the other hand, they said all money is invested. What sorcery is this? But privately, they can just say all money invested. Customers that don't know that half of the money will go to fees will just buy.

What about if you ask their agents in public? None of the agents will reply.

Also there are other legal complexity. For example, not like the agent explicitly say there is no fee. Not that it matters what the agents say. The agent is an independent contractor of the insurance company. So the company is not responsible for what their agent do.

Also the agent can pretend that they don't know it's false. For all the agents know, all the money is really "invested". That's what their marketing team taught them. So technically the agent didn't lie, or it's going to be very difficult to proof the agent know it's not invested.

The company? All they did is just obfuscating fees. Again it doesn't say materially false statements.

To add the insult. Because technically it's not fraud, the company is protected from freedom of speech. Anyone that say it's fraud publicly can be prosecuted for defamation.

Don't we have regulation for this sort of shit? Yes. But the regulators are most likely bribed and this practice is simply not against regulation.

In fact, the regulator in Indonesia makes insurance expensive by prohibiting cheaper insurance. For example, one start up manage insurance by grouping people together and charge a small fee. So the cost is a mere 10%-15% than actual cost of paying claims instead of 100000% on actual costs like the insurance I bought.

My government simply ban the cheaper reasonable insurance under pretext that their arrangements are similar to insurance and hence have to follow insurance regulations that is of course, marketed to people as way to "protect customers"

You think it's only happening in Indonesia?

Recently I've heard that a gold investment companies allow people to invest in gold with 15% fee. The fee is "explained" verbally via phone. I explain the scam in scam forum in reddit. They said it's not a scam because the fee is "explained via phone. And then the post is deleted. So I can't explain, aren't you suspicious why the absurd fee is explained via phone? Why not conspicuously on the marketing material?

Now back Luigi.

The CEO that he shot belongs to a company that rejects claim a lot.

Is the company in the wrong in rejecting claim?

Why not just sue and see what the laws say?

Well, the laws are most likely on their side.

So why people choose such shitty company? I don't know. But my guess is it's like in indonesia. There are regulations that prevent normal insurance companies from coming in.

Basically the terms are so vague, the companies can deny claim for any reason and suing such companies in court will be too expensive.

So what's the choice?

I do not try to justify what Luigi did. But I understand. Dealing with crooks that are willing to do anything to win, it doesn't seem fair to constrain ourselves with too many morality.

Till today I hate insurance companies. I would love to unmask them. I join group with fellow victims trying to bring awareness. But what I can do is limited. Insurance companies can sue for defamation and judges in Indonesia can be bribed.

One day, real capitalism will fix that. There will be insurance in blockchain free from government infested regulations that anyone can use.

Till that happen, I don't care what happened to that CEO. Statism cause this mess. Insurance all over the world are scams. I have heard in US it's mandatory, with stupid regulations, like they can't take into account prior. Also I wonder if insurance companies have to pay for silly drugs like those for trans surgery or $5k pill to lower weight.

It's as if you have to take all those expensive drugs whether you think it worth the money or not because you already paid the insurance. Hence, pharmacy can raise drug price sky high knowing that customers are no longer elastic. What a scam.

So to be honest?

I don't care that CEO died. It's as if morality doesn't matter anyway. Everyone do whatever they wants anyway.

Imagine an otherwise capitalist economy where publicly-traded corporations were not allowed to exist, thereby effectively eliminating the existence of the stock market. What other aspects of the economy and life in general would change? How and why?

Imagine an otherwise capitalist economy where mergers were prohibited. What other aspects of the economy and life in general would change, and how?

Any large system must count on nobody being able to crack it, even if they want to instead of counting on people not wanting to crack it due to morality.

That is why your card has pin. So that even if immoral person find your cards they cannot steal your money.

That is why Bitcoin has many encryption. So immoral people can't steal your Bitcoin. Imagine if Bitcoin counts on morality, like liberty dollars counting on government being moral enough not to seize gold. Then government will just seize the gold.

That is why your doors have locks. So even if people want to grab your stuffs they can't because it's difficult.

The less you count on moral and the more you count on good uncrackable systemt the more successful you are.

This is why marriage fails. Marriage requires love and respect and whatever. Women that backstab her husband got rich. So marriage fails a lot. It's designed to fail.

The only system that works for anything is making it explicitly transactional, making it cheating proof, and make sure that both sides know that they can't cheat profitably and that the knowledge is common knowledge.

Marriage fails those common sense defined.

Any cracks and the whole system will crumble and is unreliable.

Before you engage in any relationship with anyone ask yourself. Am I trusting this person? Is trust necessary for relationship to work? If so, then it won't work.

Pure ancaps maybe as impractical as communism.yet most benefits of ancapnistan can be gotten through network of private cities.

Right of the bat I know that anything requiring moral will not work.

Why?

100 th monkey. Even if 99 people are moral, if just one guy is immoral and profit from it, the whole system crumble.

Most humans are actually immoral. That 100 th monkey is actually 80 percent. That is true no matter what your moral system is. If you are libertarians, then you know 80 percent of people aren't libertarians. Many are extreme anti libertarians. They will oppose freedom even if it profits them.

For example many communists do not mind they are poorer if the rich are poorer too out of envy and those people, if live among us, can either vote or terrorize.

Many Muslims would rather kill anyone drawing Muhamad cartoon instead of economic progress.

In fact, democracy has a point to a certain extent. If someone has power over community, might as well let them vote. That way you avoid civil war.

If people can profitably be parasitic, others will see that the immoral one is profited and follow. Also the fact that it's possible to take advantage of the system immorally itself means the system is unfair, which is a moral flaws.

This is why we have cradle to grave welfare recipients.

Adverse selection. If a system can be abused, if people can take advantage of it immorally, you will attract parasites.

Insurance industry go the extra miles making sure that those with prior can't get in without higher rate.

Christians and feminists go the extra mile convincing that those who sell sex actually lose. Feminists will call the one buying incel and the women selling exploited. Any different of opinions are censored under pretext of misogynistic.

The truth is consensual transactions are economically optimal and explicit transactions are simply way more consensual because people explicitly agreed to terms of deals.

Alimony is not very consensual. People agree to get married not expecting it will happen. Pay for sex is consensual. Both sides know what they get and what they offer pretty explicitly.

The same way ancapnistan will need ways to keep economic parasites out. That means borders. That means not ancapnistan.

Of course what's moral is often vague and subjective where what we think is moral differ from one person to another.

That is why a good system don't count on morality.

Capitalists have brainwashed the workers to think that they give workers a job rather than the workers giving the owner class a business and profits.

A business can't exist without workers and labor, nor can it produce anything or turn a profit.

A workers labor alone is still valuable, whether a business exists or not. They can still produce for themselves.

What do you think when you read the word or hear someone say, "capitalism"?

Aren't you confused that GINI index for income and wealth and number of children are very different?

Like Gini index for wealth is low. There is huge GINI index for wealth. Gini index for income is higher. GINI index for children is almost 1?

If GINI index is similar, for example, then wealth inequality will be gone in one generation.

Say guys with 1000 times wealth have 1000 times children.

So in one generation, each child inherit the same amount of wealth. Then we start of again. Children with "talents" for serving fries will be rare and have higher salary than those that can only code or lead companies.

That means equality without socialism. Equality of starting condition and even result but each man is still very motivated to be rich so they can have more children.

Of course if we have one guy having 1000 times wealth and bequeath that to one or two children, of course wealth disparity get bigger and bigger. That's the real issue of wealth inequality. The economically productive make too few children.

We almost have equal number of children.

Like even Elon only has 14 children. Not like he has 1 millions times more children than American average.

Naturally there will be inequality.

Richer more dilligent people can be richer under capitalism.

Once they are richer, under libertarian capitalism, it's very simple to just pay very smart and very pretty women to fill your harem producing children.

In fact, many rich guys have many pretty women. Elon, Xu Bo in China are samples.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/11iw23l/chinese_sonpreference_billionaire_xu_bo_has/

But why not many rich people have children?

One reason I can think of is retarded child support laws. Child support laws make having children more expensive for the father but do it in a way that provides minimal benefit for the children and minimal incentive for women to pick the rich father.

For example, if you pay women to give you children, the mom has huge incentive to give you children and stick around. But under child support laws, mom would have strong incentive to take the child with her and win custody. Many rich men probably don't want to risk it.

Rich fathers also want their children to be rich. Simply giving the money to the children for investments or for capital will do it well. But child support is paid to the mother and at best spent on luxuries for the children instead of business capital.

Worse than that. The money may not even go to the children.

Marriage will just make it worse with alimony and palimony again, giving strong incentives for women to leave.

And that seems to have huge effect on gini index. Even the richest among us don't have that many children.

And when there is too much equality, usually there aren't much production either.

Just like communists are usually poor even though they are technically equal. The same way, most westerners have roughly equal number of children and fewer children.

Many families today find themselves in terrible financial situations because they don't know how to make the right decisions at the right time, and much of this is due to a lack of knowledge and also a lack of provisioning. Many of these problems would be solved if schools taught financial education from an early age. Wouldn't it be better for a country to have its population educated about its own economy? The way the currency operates? The functions of the central bank and everything else? Why is it that today we still don't have financial education as something important for the future of a nation?