If you read the very next article, you will see how government oversight is also sometimes "fake". The difference is that you can simply disregard online reviews if you like, with no threat that you will be imprisoned or fined for disagreeing with them.
Free markets don't always produce the optimum solution.
400% price increases are far from optimum. There's never going to be a free market on antibiotics. The government mission should be a robust, safe supply at a reasonable price. They seem to care about safety only. So additionally focusing on enabling robust supplies at reasonable prices (without compromising safety) would be an improvement.
There are no patents on this. It's an old medication. What keeps other companies from selling exactly the same substance? Answer: Government regulation.
Government needs to do more to help more companies make these medicines at reasonable prices.
It's all greater fool. When GM went bankrupt, I couldn't trade my stock for a drill press or robot - only bondholders get to do that
Because GM value had gone down below zero and the bond holders had a contract. Other companies have positive values, so their stock has positive inherent value.
You seem to have developed an understanding based on one unusual thing that happened one time, disregarding everything else that happens every other time. That's a useful understanding for a specific set of extreme outlier events, but not for any other time. If you only want to be right once every 20 years, then I congratulate you on achieving that. It will be very useful when that day arrives.
Personally, I would like to be correct that day and other days also.
You bought a security with no inherent value, based on the idea that someone else would, for some reason, pay more for it than you did. It worked out for some people, didn't for others. But why would you think you had more than a 50/50 chance? (Very skillful traders can beat those odds by trading trends in price action and being extremely disciplined.)
Meanwhile, there are lots of assets and securities with real underlying value to trade. You can understand the value and even learn to anticipate changes in that value. Why not trade those instead?
Law applied as written, according to ruling by Federal judges.
You wanted the law to be violated? You wanted Federal judges to disregard the law? You wanted the FCC Chairman to be on the losing side — arguing against what the correct legal interpretation turned out to be, according to judges?
Or what? What should everyone involved have done differently?
Facebook is an advertising company. Uber is a taxi service. Twitter is an internet message board (ok, that's sort-of tech). Google is an advertising company.
Actual tech companies aren't having the same troubles.
I go out of my way to help my friends. Personal friendships aren't like national alliances at all. National leaders have a responsibility to always do what's best for their own people. Individuals can prioritize others over self.
Slashdot Mirror
If tech companies cared about families, they would locate more jobs outside Silicon Valley.
If you read the very next article, you will see how government oversight is also sometimes "fake". The difference is that you can simply disregard online reviews if you like, with no threat that you will be imprisoned or fined for disagreeing with them.
It still interrupts my music or web browsing. I don't want to see them at all.
No one will read the article unless it's about people complaining.
I want automatic Do Not Disturb mode for all numbers not in my contacts list. I can turn it off if I'm expecting a call.
Nah the 3 phones are obviously Tennis, Tenor, and Ten smacks. (Xs, Xr, Xsmax)
It’s not hard to say "ten smacks"
How is slavery America's "peculiar institution"?
Playing victim in the US can get you paid.
The Progressive religion is coming for you sinners and blasphemers!
Free markets don't always produce the optimum solution.
400% price increases are far from optimum. There's never going to be a free market on antibiotics. The government mission should be a robust, safe supply at a reasonable price. They seem to care about safety only. So additionally focusing on enabling robust supplies at reasonable prices (without compromising safety) would be an improvement.
There are no patents on this. It's an old medication. What keeps other companies from selling exactly the same substance? Answer: Government regulation.
Government needs to do more to help more companies make these medicines at reasonable prices.
Crass commercialization sours my Amazon browsing experience. We live in a fallen world.
So Starbucks and Dominos Pizza are tech companies?
It's a very risky transaction facilitator because the value is too volatile.
It's all greater fool. When GM went bankrupt, I couldn't trade my stock for a drill press or robot - only bondholders get to do that
Because GM value had gone down below zero and the bond holders had a contract. Other companies have positive values, so their stock has positive inherent value.
You seem to have developed an understanding based on one unusual thing that happened one time, disregarding everything else that happens every other time. That's a useful understanding for a specific set of extreme outlier events, but not for any other time. If you only want to be right once every 20 years, then I congratulate you on achieving that. It will be very useful when that day arrives.
Personally, I would like to be correct that day and other days also.
You bought a security with no inherent value, based on the idea that someone else would, for some reason, pay more for it than you did. It worked out for some people, didn't for others. But why would you think you had more than a 50/50 chance? (Very skillful traders can beat those odds by trading trends in price action and being extremely disciplined.)
Meanwhile, there are lots of assets and securities with real underlying value to trade. You can understand the value and even learn to anticipate changes in that value. Why not trade those instead?
Federal judges don't like cynical attempts at workarounds to their rulings. Just FYI.
Law applied as written, according to ruling by Federal judges.
You wanted the law to be violated? You wanted Federal judges to disregard the law? You wanted the FCC Chairman to be on the losing side — arguing against what the correct legal interpretation turned out to be, according to judges?
Or what? What should everyone involved have done differently?
Facebook is an advertising company.
Uber is a taxi service.
Twitter is an internet message board (ok, that's sort-of tech).
Google is an advertising company.
Actual tech companies aren't having the same troubles.
I still can’t find a Starbucks there.
"And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."
I go out of my way to help my friends. Personal friendships aren't like national alliances at all. National leaders have a responsibility to always do what's best for their own people. Individuals can prioritize others over self.
I'm pretty sure the people 10,000 years from now won't be saying : I wish people had recycled plastic and paper.
Neither of those are raw materials, nor do they have anything to do with recycling.
Yes. Exactly like that. Keep telling ordinary Americans you hate them.