Yeah if arbitrary and capricious individuals use personal power to restrict supply or destroy demand on a whim, then I agree 100% that prices won't reflect the real or natural supply and demand. How often and how much does that happen?

Is this supposed to be a criticism of capitalism? Because I don't see that as being particularly capitalistic. Are you thinking of monopolies? I compared capitalism to fire in my first post, and this is one of the ways in which the fire of capitalism has to be watched and banked, to keep monopolies from having too much power.

I have to confess your Fischer Black quote was a bit too dry for me. It seems very theoretical, and you can see my sig to know how I feel about theories. If he has recommendations that have been put in to practice and shown to work in practice, then I'll take more notice.

Well, I wouldn't claim that unregulated capitalism is a good thing.

What does lead to a rational calculation of supply vs demand? I don't think the track record of external influences deciding what's rational is all that good. I vaguely remember reading that when Deng Xiaouping was asked to decide on how to value the Chinese Yen, he asked what was it trading at on the black market. When he got the answer he said that's what we set the value at. So maybe the black market is the place to find out the rational calculation of supply vs demand.

I'm still not sure I get this focus on noisy prices being a feature of capitalism. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by 'noise' here. Looking at the history of Capitalism over the last couple of centuries, has noisy prices been a prominent feature?

I think wherever there is a government, the economy is planned to some extent. That includes the USA. It's a matter of degree.

There are so many factors to consider when looking at a given country's economy. Culture matters. And what natural resources do they have? If they have a lot of oil for instance, the citizenry might be prospering, but they might, in the long term, suffer from the 'dutch disease'.

OK, let me say again, I'm don't want to be Capitalism's nr 1 Cheerleader. But I question whether all the problems the USA has faced in the last 60 years are due just to Capitalism. I think it's a lot more complicated than that.

Also, while China has prospered in many ways from Capitalism, there seem to be more people trying emigrate out of China than immigrate in. I wonder why that is.

I suppose there is no efficiency in capitalism when prices are noise, or in any other economic system either. Your question leads me to ask, when are prices noise? The only time I can think of is when there is outside interference, as from governments, which would mean it isn't an innate feature of capitalism that prices become 'noise'.

I don't feel entirely comfortable in being the staunch defender of capitalism. I've already said I don't think it's perfect. I just get annoyed when people casually dismiss it without coming up with an alternative that has a good track record in the annals of history.

Was that just a question question you asked, or were you trying to make some kind of point?

And what is your alternative to Capitalism?
In my opinion, every economic system is flawed because they all have to deal with human nature, which is more complex and shifty than will fit into any neat little economic model.

Winston Churchill is supposed to have said that Democracy is a terrible form of government; it's just better than all the others. That's how I feel about Capitalism.

Sometimes I compare Capitalism to fire. It's great for some things, but it's also dangerous and has to be watched and monitored all the time. Too bad we don't have an economic system that you can just wind up like a clock and let it run all on it's own. A lot of people would like that. A lot of people seem to think they have something like that, until it gets tried out.

Being an old ('get off my lawn' vintage, except I don't have a lawn) timer, I don't have one of those 'wallets'. I can guess at what they are, and I think I've seen people using them to pay for things with their smart phones. But, does not having a wallet make me immune to this particular kind of thing?

I've read that increased CO2 in the ocean is acidifying it. Coral reefs are dying etc. Wouldn't this add to that problem?

For those who use Linux or FreeBSD (or OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc). Will there be dirt cheap but still good used PCs to purchase?

I think what they meant to say was that they are ditching Android for their own custom version of linux.

If the only problem were global warming/carbon emissions, then I would agree with you. But plastics in the environment are a problem in their own right. So, finding a way to get rid of them benefits the environment a lot in that regard. One might say that plasics 'sequester' carbon, and this process 'releases' carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and is harmful in that regard. So, I dunno, maybe it's an overall win. maybe it isn't.

Oh, so now any random person should know and use and contrast multiple search engine results for routine searches, good, good, that will definitely happen. And common people definitely do check website security certs, which are also not a thing that anybody can get for their random domain. And anybody who falls for it is a crybaby. Great insight.

I don't know where you got that worldview, but I wish you could reevaluate.

You'd be surprised to know that people exist outside the USA and Canada, and we don't really know what your phone numbers look like, so both those numbers look plausible.

As for your "Where do you go to find the URL for a site you haven't been to before for a company you know?", the whole point is that *the trusted search engine is now lying to you*. But now try https://www.royaicaribbean.com... ? Would everybody notice? You willing to bet? When the link is the first result on Google?

So where and how should people find this verified public portal?

If you're about to say "you can use the exact same method they used to find the phone number" and you don't see the issue, you have a problem.

Are AIs actually trained in critical thinking? That plus positive goals would seem more productive and reliable than 'guilt', which is often irrational, dwelling on what can't be fixed. Guilt teaches us, at best, not to make the same mistake twice, though it can lead to overreacting in the opposite direction. Critical thinking is better in the 'learn from your mistakes' department.