CCU on steam is down like 90% since launch. For whatever reason, the players are not sticking even though by and large players seem to appreciate the game.

Again, this definition of "markets = good" does not define an ideology. If the problem is money in politics, that free speech equals money spent, etc. then that's quite a different problem than using market forces to solve problems.

Because what you're describing isn't using market forces to solve problems, it's wealth consolidation - the very opposite of using market forces to solve problems. Corruption by it's very nature isn't using market forces, it's using preferential positions and power to ensure success. It's in fact contrary to the idea of free markets (at least Adam Smith would think so).

>As to what neoliberalism means in practice, take a look at the US as it is now, and do tell me that it's in a healthy place.

This is a tautology. "If the US is unhealthy, then neoliberalism must be bad." I can't see your chart because I don't subscribe to the atlantic. But I do agree, if this is the point, that the wealth consolidation is a big problem. I don't think, however, the definition of neoliberalism you're suggesting is coherent at all. Some policies that use market forces to solve problems are good, and some problems that use market forces to solve problems are bad. Of course not all markets are bad, so which ones are? In fact, the problem you're pointing to has nothing to do with markets - it's precisely the opposite. It's powerful, wealthy people using government to increase their wealth and power.

Like I said, that's a problem of tax policy (and to an extent, regulation and the lack thereof).

A legend in your own mind

The lead is deep in your brain.

I get the sense you're one of these people that complains about globalism while never voting.

It's always funny to me when people point the finger at liberalism (or "neoliberalism" which is just a catch-all for things they don't like.).

No, it isn't liberalism.

It's tax policy.

That's all it is.

Who asked?

"Analyst invested in other companies claims OpenAI is no good."

I find it interesting that supposedly technically literate people, particularly from Gen X, don't understand how the world is different from when they grew up. There were no machine learning algorithms on ICQ recommending the next chat room for you to join. MySpace didn't have endless reels to scroll. IRC wasn't min-maxing the attention economy.

Wake up - the world is different. Your anecdote is not valid at the population level. Just because you turned out fine (arguable, based on what we read here), doesn't mean that the way social media is optimized now is benefiting society in any way.

I think these people that fail to be conversational with AI are really just telling on themselves more than anything. Terrible.

You're highlighting my exact point - yes, if you pay people more they will switch jobs. But now the other sector has a shortage. You don't get any more workers that way, you're using the same pool.

Which is exactly why a country like ours needs more immigration, not less.

The age old myth that "americans just won't do the work" and somewhere between 1960 and 1980 Americans just gave up trying. You guys need some better myths.

>Raise the pay to 80 grand on these if you like. Won't matter. Most young men won't work a job where they're out digging in hot weather.

How many different stories can we come up with about why men are lazy, or entire generations are lazy, or whatever - with no supporting data - when the simple explanation, and the reality, is that there simply aren't enough working bodies.

God forbid we just allow more immigrants. Talk about cutting off your nose despite your face.

According to the unemployment numbers, 1.9M Americans have been looking for work but can't find it for more than 6 months. So that doesn't exactly jive with your speculation that a quarter of the country is unemployed and would work if they could find a job.

>It's actually a Wonder we don't have more social uprisings

Or maybe your BS number is actually wrong. Why make up an absurd contrivance when the data is publicly available?

>but there are plenty who could do low-end jobs and allow others to move up the food chain.

I love this idea that there are a bunch of people out there that aren't working but would otherwise work at *any job* if it paid the right amount. It's just not the case - unemployment is sitting at 4.5%. That's full employment.

>Its called supply and demand.

I have 5 apples and 10 customers that want to buy an apple. I can price the apple however I want, but I still only have 5 apples. Yes, the price will increase - but I will still only have 5 apples.

It actually isn't. The US has been short on labor for its entire existence, and immigration is one of the only ways to keep up with the demand. The labor shortage is at the macro level, not just in one industry or sector. By increasing wages, it doesn't solve the labor shortage, it just moves it around. There isn't some vast pool of unemployed workers just waiting to be paid more.