You've answered your own question.
Consumables don't form bubbles (except in times of hoarding), because they are consumed, not resold.
A bubble occurs when an asset is bought, not for its inherent value or utility, but purely for the belief that it can later be resold at a profit to another buyer.
Eventually the market runs out of buyers at the ultimate elevated price, and the bubble bursts.

It will happen just enough times to cancel out the profit made on the winning runs.
In the long run, you can't beat the probabilities.

Yes. To repeat my earlier post:

Your screenshot demonstrates this perfectly.
You've made a return of less than 0.5% of your investment.
You will be able to do this almost all the time.
And then, on that one really unlucky run, you will lose it all.
Your expected return, over a long enough series of runs is negative.

No, it isn't.
You will, on average, lose more than you win.
You are likely to win a small amount, but there is a small chance of losing everything.
The expected result of any truly fair gambling with a house edge is negative.

They aren't.
They are choosing which businesses they choose to have as their customers.
Or do you think authorize.net should be forced to accept customers they don't want?

No it isn't.
Really, really isn't.

By increasing prices for all customers, not just credit card customers.
Therefore it makes sense to use a credit card, as you pay the same increased price, but get the extra security and cashback.

You are just defining yourself as being right.

In feudal times, lords had an obligation to provide their own military service, and that of a set number of their serfs, when called upon by the King.
It wasn't until much later that they had the option of providing money instead, to buy themselves out of that service.
The debt of labour came first, the monetary equivalent much later.

Indeed you could say that the same is true now of any country with compulsory national service. You owe a debt of labour, which does not have a monetary equivalent buy-out option.

I disagree.
People can owe a debt of labour/service, and have done so throughout history.

MEC profitability calculation is broken again.

You said:
a) if accommodation and food had no independently expressible exchange value, then they could not be owed in exchange for labor
b) This independently expressible exchange value requires money

You have therefore said that accommodation and food cannot be owned in exchange for labour.
But that is clearly possible in a barter economy.

You seem to suggest that a barter economy could not exist without money, which is wrong.
I can agree to mow your lawn for a week if you fix my car.
We need to agree that the value obtained by each of us is relatively even, but we don't need to be able to express that value in monetary terms.

You seem to be confusing capital requirements and deposit guarantees again.

This appears to be reporting a 'news' that retail deposit guarantees are restricted to amounts below a certain level.
That isn't news, it has always been the case, at least in the UK, and I think most of Europe.
And in the UK, that limit has been raised, not lowered.

Now seems to be fixed.

So what is up with MEC?
Its profitability figure has been showing as - for about a day now.

Your miners will deliver a large amount of heat in a very small space, which the opposite of what you would want to heat a house.

Also that you use -a quark on the command line.

Now you are requesting 1, but accepting 1/65536.
I'll shut up now.