Last time I went to a theater was the last Jason Bourne movie, 2016. Haven't been back since, as that was such an unpleasant experience - music too loud, too much spam before the movie, etc. (And I'm getting too old to sit through a movie without a r/r break!)
And there's the old saying, "There's nothing new under the sun." Are there any original ideas even left? I get that studios need to make money and movie fans want something to see, but surely there are diminishing returns from pumping out the same old recycled ideas. Before "Jason Bourne" became a thing, even Matt Damon said something to the effect that the next installment would be called, "The Bourne Redundancy" because there wasn't really anywhere else to go with the story. Guess they found a couple of new ideas, but overall this is the trend of the movie industry (all entertainment, perhaps?) in general: The Big Redundancy. Ho hum.
From my earlier response in this thread: As I understand it, "capitalism at its base expects individuals to act in their own best interests most of the time. So, to me, that suggests that capitalism only works if most people are selfish & greedy. Which to me is just sad and a big failing of capitalism. (not saying that socialism or communism work that great either)" And at a higher level, it's sad that corporations also are expected to most of the time act selfishly & greedy, in order to make the biggest profits possible for their stockholders and pay the ridiculously insane executive salaries. (I know I'll be in the minority when I suggest that all executive salaries should limited to a fraction of what they are now, and if the execs have a problem working for that, this shows they probably only care about money & greed, not the company.)
Yes, in my opinion, auctions could be considered another form of greed. The seller could just as easily post a single price that seems fair to them and buyers could take it or leave it. The prices for too many items get bumped up into the stratosphere to completely stupid levels. Just because a bunch of people want your item, that doesn't mean you can't just sell it to the first person who pays your posted price.
But I don't see retail stores as an auction for that very reason - stores post prices and buyers can take it or leave it, you don't see haggling over the sale of each individual item (except in car dealerships & such, but those aren't retail stores). And again (in my lame opinion, of course), competition alone is NOT sufficient justification for raising prices if the situation does not somehow increase production costs for you.
So if your skillset becomes more scarce, or suddenly in much higher demand (it's a ratio, doesn't matter which part changes), you won't charge employers more for your skills then, right? Because that would be immoral, unconscionable greed to do so?
No, I would not charge more just for that reason. It's nothing but greed. As I mentioned elsewhere, if the whole situation somehow increased costs to where I had to, just to cover those costs, then I would have no choice if I wanted to stay in business.
Based on my understanding of economics (which is admittedly not that great), capitalism at its base expects individuals to act in their own best interests most of the time. So, to me, that suggests that capitalism only works if most people are selfish & greedy. Which to me is just sad and a big failing of capitalism. (not saying that socialism or communism work that great either)
A price discrepancy happened to me one time on some sleeping pills. Turns out they had just neglected to update the posted price. I think they gave me the old price that one time. Price Chopper (regional grocery store chain) used to give you the item free if the price was posted wrong. Strangely(or not!), they quit that policy.
In general, I can only remember vaguely what the prices were for my last store visits, so I guess I might have to start taking pics or writing them down, or something.
"It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." -- Alfred Adler