You’re not taking taxes and interest on your mortgage into consideration and historically there’s a higher return on investment to just use the money to invest in the S&P.
If landlords don’t exist, what’s your solution for people who don’t want to own or aren’t financially or mentally able to have that level of responsibility? You can be able to rent a house without wanting to own it, doesn’t mean you want to live in a state owned apartment either…
The state doesn’t pay if the flood comes from a pipe bursting
Yeah, it’s kind of misrepresentation by medias that they refer to indexes so much when talking about markets health, ideally they would mostly talk about broad market ETFs’ performance instead since they would be invested in everything at once.
The real bullshit is replacing products to use the alternatives people are buying due to inflation to make it seem like inflation is lower.
If I’m buying tofu instead of chicken that shouldn’t be what the calculation is based on, otherwise we’ll go all the way down to only have beans and rice in the basket and say “See, inflation isn’t so bad!”
If people don’t want a Reddit clone they’ve come to the wrong place
My question is… Why from there? 🤔
“that will be impossible now”
Life uh… Finds a way.
deleted by creator
You cannot base your decision on if the monopoly seems friendly to you or not, what kind of Mickey mouse logic is that? Fucking hell.
You’re going to wait until it’s problematic to do something about it? Man, I hope you show more logic in how you managed things in your personal life!
“I’m definitely against monopolies”
No, you’re not, you’re against the monopolies you don’t like, there’s a major difference.
Well no shit they’ll look at the highest price on the market and use the same price everywhere, but the highest price is based on the fact that the distributor takes a 30% cut!
No matter the reason, private monopolies are a bad thing for consumers.
The game devs and publishers set the price by taking into consideration that 30% goes to Valve, without that 30% games would be cheaper as they wouldn’t need to sell for as high a price for the devs and publishers to recover their investment.
No need to have studied economics to understand that if you need to have 30$/copy in your pockets in order to cover your cost and someone takes 30% from every sales then you need to sell to the consumers for 43$.
No matter how nice Valve acts towards consumers (in many cases because it was imposed to them, not by choice), in the end you’re defending a billionaire while you make less a year than he spends running one of his yachts for a single day.
A monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly.
Stop defending them, monopolies are never good to consumers.
By your logic they shouldn’t be broken because it’s the competitors’ fault if people don’t do business with them instead.
Well no, if your company is big enough that it doesn’t make sense to go for the competition then no matter what the competition does you are so far ahead that they’ll never catch up and you can sway the market as you please.
The profit in dollars increases exponentially as the price goes up, punch that in a graphics calculator and tell me it’s not a curve that becomes steeper.
It’s just something I’ve noticed as these discussions started yesterday, a bunch of people defending a multiple yachts owner while also pretending to hate the rich in other discussions.
There are no good billionaires, it’s that simple. If someone became one it was done through exploiting people that are just trying to make it through life. You’ve got people saying they “hope to be able to retire at some point” also defending Valve by gaslighting themselves into thinking that they get their money’s worth when buying on Steam. Well, no, people just think they do because they were conditioned to believe that their money is worth a whole lot less than it really is in order to enrich people like Gaben.
These people aren’t on your side, if they were they wouldn’t be billionaires in the first place, they’re on their own side and just want to become richer and richer.
And I mean…
https://lemmy.world/comment/10588480
That’s from your own history so I guess you should be the first one wanting to point out when people are hypocrites, right?
Then you go after the publishers next.
It’s clear that Valve’s cut has an influence because it being a % it means that as development costs go up the price of the games need to increase exponentially to compensate for the 30% Valve gets no matter the price.
To quote myself for some numbers:
It you need to make 30$/copy to cover costs in 2015 and Steam is taking 30% you need to sell for 43$/copy, Valve is making 13$/copy.
Development costs go up by 20% over the next 10 years, you now need to make 36$/copy to cover costs, with Steam’s cut you now need to sell for 51.50$, Valve is making 15.50$/copy.
If it was 15% instead? 35.50$ and 42.50$ would be the prices.
A company that makes a billionaire out of its owner is overcharging you, no matter how much you like the company or the owner.
It’s funny because if it was any other companies I’m sure a bunch of you would be happy about it, but it being against Valve you can’t help but defend them.
Should I dig in everyone’s comment history to show who are the hypocrites that otherwise act like they’re left wing?
No need to have 100% of the market to be a monopoly, just need to have enough influence that you control the market, which is their case.
And that’s an issue with the instance system, losing access to tons of communities you have no problem in because you happened to piss off the instance’s admin in a community they frequent? That’s completely ridiculous.
You just made me realize that I have been banned from some of the communities over there while never having posted on them, mods are reading conversations in other communities and preemptively banning people…
Or if you only play single player FPS games so you don’t have to care what anyone thinks