Companies Hate You

“Hello, can we have your liver?” – The Meaning of Life

On weekends sometimes I drink water, you know, to keep my liver guessing.

In 2018, a Goldman-Sachs© researcher asked the question:  “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?”  This was in relation to what should be considered great news, a company coming up with a one-shot cure for hepatitis C that was over 90% effective.

Where is the profit in making people better?  As someone who depends on my precious liver to take abuse like a housewife in Egypt every Friday and Saturday night, I’m all in favor of things that keep them healthy.  But it doesn’t make sense to Goldman™, because they’d much rather have me be an income stream forever than solve my problem.

This is an example of a world where the Libertarian ideals fall apart, precisely because they presume the lowest common denominator when it comes to morality in society.  There are many flaws with Libertarianism, and this, along with optional personal bodily hygiene intervention are two big ones.  I mean, it isn’t a violation of the non-aggression principle to request they replace the mustard-coated shirt, is it?

A friend of mine stole a lightbulb once.  He said it was because he was in a really dark place.

Let’s look at other places where the free market falls apart.  What about Tinder™?  What happens if Tinder© brings together a guy and a girl and they fall in love and get married and stay married for the rest of their lives?

Tinder® loses two customers.  Forever.  It is not in the algorithm’s interest to make people happy.  It’s in the algorithm’s interest to get two people to meet and not like each other.  Wait, better yet, to like each other superficially enough that they hook up and then both feel hollow and empty inside, driving them to find someone a little closer to what they want.

Yes.  That’s what Tinder© would like best in the whole world.  Unhappy people swiping on their product, generating revenue.  It’s sad, especially because a 9 or 10 guy will break down on a dry-spell Friday night and swipe on a 4 woman, bang her, and now she thinks that she’s worthy of a 9 or 10.  So, she stays on Tinder™ waiting on Prince Chad to sweep her off her feet instead of out of her panties.

Tinder™ is profitable, though, so there’s that.  Match Group©, which owns nine other dating apps, made about $3.5 billion in revenue.  They didn’t make that much money because people got married and abandoned them.  They get rich because of psychological manipulation and the destruction of fertility.

He was sad, he said she was matadorable.

Also in this group with Tinder©?  Social media that feeds your outrage.  I’ve written about quite a bit, and won’t retract a syllable.  While we’re on software, Tinder© is freemium, but there’s worse.  There’s SaaS.

SaaS SuckS.

What’s SaaS?  “Software as a Service”.  Remember the “you won’t own anything, and you’ll love it” soy-face guy with an expression of, “I hope my wife’s boyfriend likes this chai latte I made him”?  Yeah, that’s where this fits in.

I bought Microsoft© Office™ a decade ago.  I had to re-buy three years ago when I bought a new computer.  Couldn’t find that pesky key.  Yes, I know there are free alternatives, but it was worth it to me.

Anyway, I bought it for $149.99.  It costs $99.99 a year.  I’ve already made back almost $150.00.  Well, $150.00 if you round up because pennies in 2026 are as common as black Cambridge© professors that can read.  What Microsoft® really wants, though, is for me to be a customer forever, paying each month, like a little software child that shows up for its allowance and then runs off to the shareholder meeting.

How often do airplanes crash?  Most of them, just once.

And, to do this, they’re willing to sacrifice and continually make the software worse with teams of Indians hired to, well, I guess be Indian and dispose of their trash in National Parks.  How will they pay those H-1Bs in their eternal quest to make your software worse?  With your monthly payments.

It’s not just Microsoft©, but many other software companies like Adobe® are out there, sniffing around your credit card.

But there was a time when at least some people realized they could get rich by being good.  Crazy idea, that.  An example?

Henry Ford famously raised the daily wages of his workers, doubling them while cutting the hours worked each day from 9 hours to 8 hours.  To be fair, his desire wasn’t entirely due to altruism.  He had to hire about 50,000 people a year to keep 14,000 making cars.  In reality, doubling wages ended up lowering Ford’s© cost and doubling his profits.

There was a catch.  To qualify for the full wage increase, you had to be a married man properly supporting your family, or a man over the age of 22 who could prove they were thrifty.  Your wife couldn’t work.  She had to stay home.

I accidently glued myself to my autobiography.  It’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

What a monster!  Ford wanted to make sure that his company produced quality American families based on quality American values.  Of course, he got sued.

Today?  It’s a race for the bottom wage by companies that don’t see the United States as their home, just a profit center or division.  And, it has spread.  Universities are now attempting to hire H-1B volleyball coaches making less than $50,000 a year.  Why?  Because no American understands volleyball?

No.  Because they can get someone cheaper.  The idea is that jobs in Missouri should have wages based on Mogadishu or Mumbai.  Jobs in Nevada should compete with Nairobi or Nigerian wage levels.  As pointed out in the last post, when men don’t get raises, women don’t make babies.

It’s a simple way to replace a people, but only after you’ve made them poor.  Medicine should make people feel better, and a cured patient, is better than one on a perpetual prescription.  Unless you’re Goldman-Sachs©.

I just found out I’m colorblind.  Boy, that came out of the orange!

Them?  They want my liver to stop working.  Not entirely, just enough that I have to pay them every month to keep it going, while using crappy software, surrounded by unmarried Gen Zers who can’t get jobs because they’re not from Punjab.

Libertarianism might not be dead, but it’s dying since the only people foolish enough to buy it can’t afford the mortgage on their liver.