Agreed, in the abstract the system is better if people and businesses are more protected from events that are out of their control.
The argument that the system should punish people for not risk averse enough to protect themselves against bank failures is like saying that languages with type checking are bad because they make soft programmers who can't protect themselves, even though the safer system is easier to use, and allows its users to focus on different, more important/business relevant problems.
Amazon is ok with internal competition, so this could just be a way of keeping options open while locking in a large customer. Maybe Stripe is better in some markets or verticals but Amazon will still rely on Amazon Payments for others. Long term there could still be a convergence on one or the other. (Amazonian but this is complete guesswork)
If I were you I'd get a neurological test and try to rule out all serious possibilities. Not because they are likely but because its good to catch many of those possibilities early and the fact that you are posting here suggests it is at least a possibility. IANAD
The value and worthiness is subjective, I'd support astronomical expenses and hardship humans to improve wildlife habitat because I think its important and care about it more than most other possible things to spend money on. The reason that makes sense to me is that we have no way of bringing extinct species back, and we are killing them off at record speed. The different life forms on our planet are absolutely amazing, why shouldn't we do everything in our power, for any cost, to replenish and improve habitat for them so they can survive for our descendants to see?
why shouldn't we do everything in our power, for any cost, to replenish and improve habitat for them so they can survive for our descendants to see
you don't really mean what you've said, everything in our power? for any cost?... If we literally spent every bit of cash we had to do as you say and maximize biodiversity, our descendents would survey the biodiversity while wearing animal skins and hunter gathering and striving to someday reinvent agriculture, fertilizers, pesticides, and internal combustion engines.
No I was simply using strong language to suggest that I feel strongly about it. I'm not sure where to draw the line but as a concrete example, I'd consider voting for a law which created a large tax to fund biodiversity protection. Say 10% of income for high earners, or perhaps a corporate tax, etc etc. At the end of the day its almost an aesthetic decision, I'd like to live in a world with high biodiversity and where humans are well integrated with nature, where there's animal crossings over roads and all kinds of ridiculous things like that, and I'd be willing to pay for it with some non-trivial amount. Anyway, I'm commenting on hacker news, don't take me too seriously.
the money you pay your housekeeper? part of the economy. you cleaning your own house? not part of the economy.
your point is valid, that it "has a value" and the economy "depends on it", and there are economists and critics who have said "we need to fix this", but definitionally economics at present is what it is and isn't what it isn't.
Is the same focus. Pumas would reduce the number of deer collisions that kill many people each year. Thus, they are making the roads safer for people. Saving lifes and property.
Moreover, each time there is a car crash, somebody in the road must allocate resources to clean and deal with it. Call the police, ambulances... This is expensive also. Less collisions for the city means having more money for another needs.
Maybe she got nervous and her brain stopped working for a minute? Has happened to me when asked to explain something I've designed or code I've written at work and for some unknown reason I got flustered and once that happens it can take some time before I can remember things that I normally know very well. Could explain making a mistake that makes absolutely no sense, I could totally see myself doing it. (I also think some people don't have this issue as much and might not understand how it can happen).
The argument that the system should punish people for not risk averse enough to protect themselves against bank failures is like saying that languages with type checking are bad because they make soft programmers who can't protect themselves, even though the safer system is easier to use, and allows its users to focus on different, more important/business relevant problems.