If greed is the primary mechanism for increased costs, then why do costs ever go down? It seems unlikely that someone gets less greedy. Is that the posited framework?
Frameworks which cannot predict the future well are not very useful.
The thing that gets me is that this is such an obviously bad model (that market prices vary based on participant greed variation) and I would expect people in tech to want a better explanatory mechanism and yet it is madly popular here. Really makes me question a lot of the other predictions and modeling in this community.
>If greed is the primary mechanism for increased costs, then why do costs ever go down?
Greedy people lose their influence and ability to call the shots as a result of popular outrage, which in turn is a result of comments on HN and other forums complaining about greed :)
That's actually already a better framework because it now explains price variation not with greed but with political and market dynamics.
You posit some greedy people and posit that whether price goes up or down is no longer due to their greed but due to their market power.
It is better because it is falsifiable. I think if you took this pattern of modeling and used a modern LLM as a Socratic teacher you would rederive a model of pricing that is more closely aligned with reality.
Ultimately, this is all very well-trod ground coming from the tradition of Popper and friends.
Frameworks which cannot predict the future well are not very useful.
For instance, did we envision Jeff Bezos suddenly found Jesus on this day? https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-s3-glacier-price-red...
The thing that gets me is that this is such an obviously bad model (that market prices vary based on participant greed variation) and I would expect people in tech to want a better explanatory mechanism and yet it is madly popular here. Really makes me question a lot of the other predictions and modeling in this community.