1) If you get the cheapest price online, then you shouldn't worry about price discrimination
Non-sequetor. Unless you mean "the cheapest price anyone paid" as opposed to "the cheapest price offered to you."
Price discrimination often isn't price discrimination at all....Price discrimination by definition is two identical products offered at different prices
Except price discrimination does not have to be between two fully identical products. It's a silly No True Scotsman argument.
And using computers to automate the entire system allows that system to happen so fast and frequently that it totally changes the nature of the interaction. Consider the difference between assigning a cop to patrol an area and look for crimes (/. approved) and putting up the ring of London to spy on everyone (/. creepy).
It's ironic that you leave your phone in airplane mode most of the time. Maybe you should get a cheap texting/calling phone for communication and get a tablet that can be tethered to it when you need connectivity?
Sorry, there was some bad typing there. Consider children of single mothers on welfare - there are two groups, one whose mothers are forced to work, others who are not. Studies show that the children in the group with mothers who are forced to work are (a) more likely to end up on welfare and (b) more likely to go to jail. What these imply is that any benefit of "seeing a work ethic" is outweighed by the lack of a parental influence. Certainly, these studies suggest we should not force welfare moms to work.
There may be some changes, once kids are in school.
then you easily come to the conclusion that something must be preventing people from building housing
Your Econ 101 answer ignores a lot of things. For instance, houses are not interchangable. So, building 2 houses is frequently less profitable than one bigger one. In fact, complexes where I live are being replaced by smaller, more expensive ones. You also ignore that there is a limiting factor in land. Capitalism works great for shoes, because you can produce as many as you want. Housing faces a much quicker falloff in marginal benefits (as you leave urban areas). Further, the "they" was intentional. Unless you have a large plot of land, you cannot replace it with more smaller apartments. So, either a high rise, or a few acres or something. But, that becomes prohibitive to collect, because those are already owned by people. So, there really tends to be oligopoplies of real estate groups that can afford to build new housing in areas.
Housing also is one of the areas with huge externalities, so obviously there needs to be regulation.
don't let facts get in the way of a good story, but even if their mothers don't work, the average number of jobs per adult in areas with lots of welfare moms is more than 1. That is, they are poor because they have non-well paying skills, not a lack of work ethic.
But, more importantly, as I said: studies show that children of welfare kids do worse with regards to "not going to jail or themselves ending up on welfare". So, whether you think seeing such a "work ethic" is important, it clearly is empirically worse for the child. As, you know, being less likely to go to jail or end up on welfare seems to be ending the "cycle of squalor", which happens when mothers mother.
If you're wondering why I put "work ethic" in quotes, it's because I think parenting well is a job. Not one well recognized monetarily, but certainly a job.
You realize that there's not much distinction in corporate ownership, right? NBC is Comcast is 30% of Hulu (ABC has 30%, Fox 30% and Turner 10%). Heck, many popular YouTube channels are owned by the same cartel. PewDiePie's channel was owned by Disney/ABC.
Does anyone stop to think that Google could be a front for the NSA
No. Why would they risk the (currently theoretical, but may someday happen) Congressional oversight on data use. As a private company, they have way more ability to abuse your data. And, if they ever wanted the NSA to fuck up your life, they could instead forward selected bits to them.
AirBnB is better, short term, for the consumer sure. However, even that weed hotel has to have safety standads that the quiet room doesn't, so it's entirely possible that rarely AirBnB is much more costly. Beyond that, AirBnB imposes huge externalities on the rest of the society you are staying in. Amazingly, those places, democracies, are far more interested in their quality of life than you saving money when you visit. Hence, the hotels, which concentrate shortterm rentals away from residential areas, have a much easier sales pitch than taxi companies do.
It wouldn't be a problem if there were enough houses built. Supply and demand would then pull rents down naturally to the point where there isn't enough incentive for corps to buy up all the houses and pay property taxes on them all.
And why would they build more housing, lowering their profits, then?
Sounds a lot like you are opting, because of incentives, not to leave the USA. If you have your passport, and it has not been flagged, you can totally just hop a plane to West Africa. Other than preventing a minor child from getting a passport, I've never heard of custody agreements affecting emigration before.
Now, they may affect whether you can bring assets with you- but that's just more incentivization.
Compare to, e.g. people in Soviet Russia, where they could not legally leave.
.Actually, I lived in a very low tax country in West Africa for a year and I lived like a King and spent very little money doing it. The only reason I haven't moved back is because unfair domestic relation laws (which benefit women claiming victimhood) have trapped me here.
Bullshit. Unless they took your passport away because you are under criminal charges, you can just fly their an live. Even if your assets cannot follow you, it should be no problem. You, unlike those poor Africans, have the work ethic to make it all back.
Even if it cost money I don't know many working people who wouldn't fork over another $20 just to make everyone else have to get up in the morning too.
Hi! I work. I have no desire to spend extra dollars on this at all.
Aside from just sounding vindictive, it would be stupidly short-sited. Making single-mothers on welfare work makes it far more likely their kids will go to jail or end up on welfare.
Google can provide the answer more cheaply and in a better format that appeals to most users
Google can provide the answer more cheaply because they are scraping his data. It's similar to how a torrent site can produce a movie more cheaply than a studio.
And, as for appealing, it may or may not be appealing. What it is, is earlier in the pipeline. And that's an advantage Google will always have on anything. You may recall it as analogous to when Microsoft had a "more appealing" IE 6 preloaded onto Windows machines.
If a single drug costs $2.5 billion for certification
That would be a very different world.
You are misreading an article that was misrestating research. First, half that value just imputed from the long time between patent and approval - this was greatly exacerbated by drug companies moving to filing patents very early in the R&D cycle. In other words, $1.2B was actually just lost profits some guy thought companies should have. But, really you could just as easily claim that limited patents, instead of longer ones cost $1.2B. What it really implies is that most drug research is so uninovative that its a race to the patent office. That's a good thing for everyone. For the $1.4B of development and testing cost, with most of the money going to testing early on.
And, for fun, your anti-FDA point falls down, as this was a worldwide survey.
Considering Pepsi (who owns Frito-Lay) also owns a good chunk of the relevant Japanese comapny, I think there would be worry about cannibalizing sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Non-sequetor. Unless you mean "the cheapest price anyone paid" as opposed to "the cheapest price offered to you."
Except price discrimination does not have to be between two fully identical products. It's a silly No True Scotsman argument.
So is not dying of smallpox. Standardized pricing is not as big an advancement, but it definitely is an advancement.
Have you ever lived in such a society? Or is this your idealized free market assumptions?
And using computers to automate the entire system allows that system to happen so fast and frequently that it totally changes the nature of the interaction. Consider the difference between assigning a cop to patrol an area and look for crimes (/. approved) and putting up the ring of London to spy on everyone (/. creepy).
It's ironic that you leave your phone in airplane mode most of the time. Maybe you should get a cheap texting/calling phone for communication and get a tablet that can be tethered to it when you need connectivity?
Sorry, there was some bad typing there. Consider children of single mothers on welfare - there are two groups, one whose mothers are forced to work, others who are not. Studies show that the children in the group with mothers who are forced to work are (a) more likely to end up on welfare and (b) more likely to go to jail. What these imply is that any benefit of "seeing a work ethic" is outweighed by the lack of a parental influence. Certainly, these studies suggest we should not force welfare moms to work.
There may be some changes, once kids are in school.
Your Econ 101 answer ignores a lot of things. For instance, houses are not interchangable. So, building 2 houses is frequently less profitable than one bigger one. In fact, complexes where I live are being replaced by smaller, more expensive ones. You also ignore that there is a limiting factor in land. Capitalism works great for shoes, because you can produce as many as you want. Housing faces a much quicker falloff in marginal benefits (as you leave urban areas). Further, the "they" was intentional. Unless you have a large plot of land, you cannot replace it with more smaller apartments. So, either a high rise, or a few acres or something. But, that becomes prohibitive to collect, because those are already owned by people. So, there really tends to be oligopoplies of real estate groups that can afford to build new housing in areas.
Housing also is one of the areas with huge externalities, so obviously there needs to be regulation.
don't let facts get in the way of a good story, but even if their mothers don't work, the average number of jobs per adult in areas with lots of welfare moms is more than 1. That is, they are poor because they have non-well paying skills, not a lack of work ethic.
But, more importantly, as I said: studies show that children of welfare kids do worse with regards to "not going to jail or themselves ending up on welfare". So, whether you think seeing such a "work ethic" is important, it clearly is empirically worse for the child. As, you know, being less likely to go to jail or end up on welfare seems to be ending the "cycle of squalor", which happens when mothers mother.
If you're wondering why I put "work ethic" in quotes, it's because I think parenting well is a job. Not one well recognized monetarily, but certainly a job.
You're right - owning vast swaths of the EM spectrum, esp. the same frequencies coast to coast - is clearly valueless.
You realize that there's not much distinction in corporate ownership, right? NBC is Comcast is 30% of Hulu (ABC has 30%, Fox 30% and Turner 10%). Heck, many popular YouTube channels are owned by the same cartel. PewDiePie's channel was owned by Disney/ABC.
No. Why would they risk the (currently theoretical, but may someday happen) Congressional oversight on data use. As a private company, they have way more ability to abuse your data. And, if they ever wanted the NSA to fuck up your life, they could instead forward selected bits to them.
AirBnB is better, short term, for the consumer sure. However, even that weed hotel has to have safety standads that the quiet room doesn't, so it's entirely possible that rarely AirBnB is much more costly. Beyond that, AirBnB imposes huge externalities on the rest of the society you are staying in. Amazingly, those places, democracies, are far more interested in their quality of life than you saving money when you visit. Hence, the hotels, which concentrate shortterm rentals away from residential areas, have a much easier sales pitch than taxi companies do.
And why would they build more housing, lowering their profits, then?
If the app and its data are on your device, how can it be shut down?
If the data is not on your device, why would you want to use an app designed to be able to be shut down?
The problem is that almost no one who wants one has gotten one, not that the product is not good.
I have no idea why Nintendo has such a hard time producing in sufficient quantity to fulfill demand.
You left out the Pokemon Go Plus, which also was insanely limited.
In Europe, probably. Their governmetn's seem to subsidize startups.
Sounds a lot like you are opting, because of incentives, not to leave the USA. If you have your passport, and it has not been flagged, you can totally just hop a plane to West Africa. Other than preventing a minor child from getting a passport, I've never heard of custody agreements affecting emigration before.
Now, they may affect whether you can bring assets with you- but that's just more incentivization.
Compare to, e.g. people in Soviet Russia, where they could not legally leave.
Bullshit. Unless they took your passport away because you are under criminal charges, you can just fly their an live. Even if your assets cannot follow you, it should be no problem. You, unlike those poor Africans, have the work ethic to make it all back.
Hi! I work. I have no desire to spend extra dollars on this at all.
Aside from just sounding vindictive, it would be stupidly short-sited. Making single-mothers on welfare work makes it far more likely their kids will go to jail or end up on welfare.
Google can provide the answer more cheaply because they are scraping his data. It's similar to how a torrent site can produce a movie more cheaply than a studio.
And, as for appealing, it may or may not be appealing. What it is, is earlier in the pipeline. And that's an advantage Google will always have on anything. You may recall it as analogous to when Microsoft had a "more appealing" IE 6 preloaded onto Windows machines.
That would be a very different world.
You are misreading an article that was misrestating research. First, half that value just imputed from the long time between patent and approval - this was greatly exacerbated by drug companies moving to filing patents very early in the R&D cycle. In other words, $1.2B was actually just lost profits some guy thought companies should have. But, really you could just as easily claim that limited patents, instead of longer ones cost $1.2B. What it really implies is that most drug research is so uninovative that its a race to the patent office. That's a good thing for everyone. For the $1.4B of development and testing cost, with most of the money going to testing early on.
And, for fun, your anti-FDA point falls down, as this was a worldwide survey.
That was true until 2012. Then, there was this giant scam caused the FDA to start getting involved in software startup diagnostics.
Considering Pepsi (who owns Frito-Lay) also owns a good chunk of the relevant Japanese comapny, I think there would be worry about cannibalizing sales.
100% of doctors surveyed* believe vaccines cause autism
*Survey sample drawn from names suggested by Jenny McCartney.
Except I have far more than 10 (even 20 if you count toes) distinct usernames across various services that are not linkable to each other.