That's not what rational expectations means, it's just a way of saying things are priced in, so that if the price of eggs went up there is probably a good reason for it and it doesn't mean you can go and start an egg business to compete on lower prices.
> economists when people aren’t rational economic actors
This is more "economist selectively chosen by media that is trying to sell a downturn narrative when people don't act like there is an economic downturn when aggregate economic measures also don't show a downturn [...]"
Heck, even the article linked to support "people have drawn down their savings" in this article says notes of the reduced savings rate trend, "When the economy is good — like now, with the unemployment rate seemingly pinned below 4%, or back in the mid-2000s — people are more willing to operate with low levels of savings, because they're confident they're going to keep receiving a paycheck."
People aren't acting like there is a downturn because there isn't a downturn and media that is trying to sell a narrative about there being a downturn and the economists they select to respond are acting shocked that no one is acting like it is a downturn and using that to somehow sell the narrative that its even worse than if it was a downturn where people were acting normally for a downturn.
The other parts of the business are labor as well. Products don't magically go to market. Business models don't magically create and evolve themselves.
>> The other parts of the business are labor as well. Products don't magically go to market. Business models don't magically create and evolve themselves.
You are right, but it is about which labor comes first. The first labor is taking 100% of the risk without others taking any risk. Others have all upside and no downside. They have a free-option for the upside as the technologist does all the upfront work.
The idea that everything that comes after initial unpaid technical work to get to where you can bring on investment is "all upside and no downside" is so divorced from the reality of anything I've ever seen in any company that I'm having trouble processing it.
It is a surprisingly common reality for numerous technologists.
That doesnt mean that there arent good situations. I would LOVE to work with business co-founders with these backgrounds
- They already have 10 customers in mind, have done mockups, have done validation with customers, and you can verifiably know that the customers are interested in the technology at a particular price point before you build
- They have a friend/colleague at a key major customer who is willing to be the first customer before the technology is even built, and this can be verified
- They can bring in purchase orders before the technology is built out
- They can bring in conditional purchase orders contingent on some technical milestone
- They can bring in VC to pay technical co-founder for upfront work
- They can get front-row seat with some key industry group or policy-maker with influence
- They have prior verifiable successes (e.g., Steve Jobs, Elon as extreme examples)
All the above are worth gold. What isnt worth gold is someone who wants to sit back and chill while a technologist codes away for six months.
I think what the parent comment was saying is that when being held in a normal manner, the phone is facing about 45 degrees below the horizon, so it can't see much except people's legs. To film people's faces and such, you'd have to tilt the phone up much higher than you would if you were just writing a text message / email or browsing the web. If you try writing a text on a phone that's angled up to the horizon like that, it's harder to type and harder to read the screen.
True. I suppose the social conventions around overt vs covert use of smartphone cameras evolved before wide-angle cameras on phones became common, since wide-angle cameras on phones are a pretty new thing.
