You guys don't have Hershey products in your sissy country?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Printable View
You guys don't have Hershey products in your sissy country?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yes we have that shit. Far inferior to Cadbury's, even now that Cadbury's is shitter than it used to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The demise of Cadbury's is sad. Once, my home city was home to world class chocolate, on a par with Swiss and Belgian chocolate. Now it's bog standard.
Still, much nicer than Hersheys.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...b029405162.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's popular among people whom only claim to like it as a smear campaign against vanilla.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I can tell 'cause the best chocolate doesn't taste like disappointment.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Dark European chocolate w/ high % of cacao is OK, but it's still near the bottom of my "that counts as a treat" list.
Take this commie nonsense back to Al Quada, you nazi ISIS terrorist SJW cuck!Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's still sweet, and my pancreas over-produces insulin (kinda the opposite of diabetes). I crave a sweet snack after a meal because my body over-processes the sugars out of my blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The unprocessed sugars enter my blood stream and are immediately pulled out... in excess. The "good" sugars I've eaten will restore the balance in about 20 - 30 minutes, but during that period, I have a sweet-tooth craving.
It is only during this window of opportunity that chocolate breaks through my notion that it's not that good, but not really bad, so ... sugar wins.
Nope. It makes the bottom of the list of food treats.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm not campaigning. Just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Chocolate is meh, and the conspiracy to convince me otherwise is laid bare for what it is.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me.
Besides, anyone who pretends they don't agree with me is clearly a lying manipulator who thinks they can play me.
***
(I think I found the tone to communicate with Mr. Stand.... how'd I do?)
Not bad for a first try, but could use some more condescension and vitriol.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
oh puh-leeeeeeeeeezeQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Chocolate doesn't need to cheat to blow vanilla out of the water. Vanilla does a good enough job being totally shitty on its own.
All chocolate is a disappointment. It's 100 calories per cubic inch, and tastes good for a nanosecond. Fucking physics dude.Quote:
I can tell 'cause the best chocolate doesn't taste like disappointment.
I think your criteria for "treat" is kinda demented. Also, the fact that you have a list of what 'counts as a treat' suggests a significant eating disorder.Quote:
Dark European chocolate w/ high % of cacao is OK, but it's still near the bottom of my "that counts as a treat" list.
That's a pretty violent reaction to losing dessert. Again.....you might have an eating disorder.Quote:
Take this commie nonsense back to Al Quada, you nazi ISIS terrorist SJW cuck!
Called it.Quote:
It's still sweet, and my pancreas over-produces insulin (kinda the opposite of diabetes).
So.....eat less sugar at dinner.Quote:
I crave a sweet snack after a meal because my body over-processes the sugars out of my blood.
I'd suggest that maybe you just tough it out for 20 minutes. Maybe use logic to override your 'sweet tooth'. Like just tell yourself "I've eaten enough calories for this sitting, my body has enough fuel to perform the tasks I expect to require between now and the next insertion of sustenance. Terminate eating sequence"Quote:
The unprocessed sugars enter my blood stream and are immediately pulled out... in excess. The "good" sugars I've eaten will restore the balance in about 20 - 30 minutes, but during that period, I have a sweet-tooth craving
If you're going to respond to that suggestion by calling me a communist Al-Queada sympathizer, you might want to look up "eating disorder".
Luckily the treatment won't be too difficult. Basically you'll go to rehab and sit in a room full of itchy, irritable junkies and tell your story. You can tell the guy who left his kid at a bus station while he went to buy heroin that you can't go 20 minutes without a cupcake after your sirloin.
I'm betting you'll only need one session.
That's called an addiction. Honestly man, I think it's 'neat-o' that you have this fancy, biologically sound, scientific explanation for what's going on in your body. But here in the real world, that's you unable to control a craving. We don't consider that excusable behavior in this society sir. Get a grip.Quote:
It is only during this window of opportunity that chocolate breaks through my notion that it's not that good, but not really bad, so ... sugar wins.
I'm guessing the top of the list involves dumping granulated sugar into a bowl and dousing it with maple syrup. Then wash it all down with a Pepsi.Quote:
Nope. It makes the bottom of the list of food treats.
Flat out, don't believe you.Quote:
I'm not campaigning. Just saying. Chocolate is meh,
Fixed your postQuote:
anyone whopretendssincerely demonstrates that they don't agree with me is clearlya lying manipulator who thinks they can play me.gravely concerned for your health and wants you to stop pounding sugar before you lose a foot.
7 out of 10. Need way more 'dicks' and 'fucks'. The staccato hard K sounds are really aggressive and provocative.Quote:
(I think I found the tone to communicate with Mr. Stand.... how'd I do?)
It takes patience and commitment to truly become a world class twat.
Can confirm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Of all the things to become an expert at...lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
"Super-mighty pre-emptive strike" lol. They can't even get a missile to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Actually it comes quite naturally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The saltiness is a natural side effect that comes with the burden of having all the answers.
The downside of being better than everyone else, is that people tend to assume you're pretentious.
I'll bet they could get it to work if US operatives didn't sabotage it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
To prevent a problem, we need to sabotage ALL of his missiles. To create a problem, he only has to fire one.
It's really not a laughing matter. I predict shit is gonna get real bad, real fast.
https://charlierose.com/videos/30381?autoplay=true
tl/dw: According to this guy they do have missiles that can reach Seoul right now. They have intercontinental missiles that could potentially reach as far as Washington but haven't been tested.
Yes, and there's no better move for N. Korea than bombing Washington and getting themselves erased from the planet in return.
Oh yeah let's all be scared of North Korea lobbing nukes about, even though they haven't successfully tested their long range missiles, while ignoring a nuclear armed "ally" in Pakistan that allows ISIS to thrive in their nation.
Gotta love our "national security" based foreign policy.
I see wuf lurking.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html
Read it. You won't regret it.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...engthens-them/
Quote:
As US prepares to gut net neutrality rules, Canada strengthens them
Let's all post links that noone will click.
And by noone, I mean me.
Wait, that reads like I'm reading them but noone else is.
The opposite of that.
U missing out mate.
Now I'm torn between finding out what I'm missing out on, and being stubborn. I need to think this through.
That was the plan. Muahaha.
Well I read some while I ate pizza, then read more while I smoked, then noticed after half an hour or so that I was probably 20% through the article, so I gave up.
ADD?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Considering I can play SimCity for an entire day, I'm gonna say no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I'm up to ~1/2 way, and it's taken me a few tries so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Also, I skip a lot or just scan through the familiar stuff.
I still have no idea what a wizard hat is.
I picture you playing original Sim City in black and white on a 20 year old computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
With one of those long, elbowed desk lamps refit to hold a spliff next to your head.
haha "Sim Copter One reporting heavy traffic!"Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Nah I've moved on to SC4 with mods and everything.
My housemate made a spliff holder for his x-box controller.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I had forgotten about that.
I vaguely recall typing "imacheat" over and over to get free monies. Same game?
I forgot that cheat. On SC4, there's weaknesspays, which gives you 1k (peanuts), or riskymoney, which causes an earthquake, but gives you 10k, so you do it shitloads before you start building. And now with mods you can simply enter the exact amount of money you want, so I generally start with a 10m budget. Money has ceased to matter in the slightest bit.
imasupercheat
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...ot-arab-spring
With all the talk of Russia juking the American election, it's nice to get a peak into how government agencies try to game current discourse.
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I'm glad the world is so simple for you.
My only wish is that it were so simple for everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I stopped trying to make sense of this mad world years ago... Such a load off my mind.
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/0...er-review.html
Probably the worst possible outcome here.
I said this in the beginning, you don't want people holding out for huge sums when a flight is overbooked. That just makes air travel more expensive for everybody.
Think about it. 10G's, divided by however many people are on a plane (maybe 150-200?). Everyone's airfare just went up $50-$60 per ticket.
Thanks Dr. Dickhead. Next time just do what the fucking cops tell you.
TIL I learned that in liberal cesspool known as Oregon, you need a license to criticize the government.
https://heatst.com/life/man-fined-50...lights-system/
That's a bogus call, and the counter-suit will surely prevail.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
He's right that they're essentially telling him that the reason his critique of the gov't was considered illegal is due to his use of math... not that his math was flawed, nor that his data or analysis was mistaken.
I believe that in Oregon, you need a license to pump gas. As in, there are only full-service pumps in the state.
When I was working at a gas station in Seattle, the occasional Oregon driver would pull up and sit in their car for 5 - 10 minutes before coming into the store to complain that no one was serving them as a customer. I'd simply explain that in Washington state, we trusted them to figure out the incredibly complex process of using a gas pump.
I had the opposite experience. Full service gas stations are 98% extinct in my area. Once I drove to Atlantic City and stopped for gas in Jersey where all stations are apparently full-serve. I got out of the car and started pumping. A guy ran over and shut me down like I just crossed a picket line.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Here's a tip: If random passers-by can steal your job, you should get a better job.
DEY TURK R JUBSQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
but they didn't even have shoes :lol:
I guess what I really wonder is whether training and licensing someone to pump gas actually means they are better at reducing the pollution inherent in the process.
From what I recall, gasoline fumes released to the air while fueling is a considerable portion of the pollution attributed to owning a car.
I wonder if these supposedly trained workers are actually more adherent to the environmental codes associated with pumping gas, and if that marginal difference is worth their wage.
I'm gonna bet the under. Heavily.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I see it more as a cover-your-ass-anyway-possible kind of tactic.
Remember the related but unrelated MCD hot coffee incident? They are trying to account for that one fool with suicidal tendencies wanting to go out with a bang who decides to smoke at or near the pump
A person in his or her right mind cannot even fathom such a possibility, but as we know all too well, not everyone is in their right minds at all times. Don't come up with the "but it's never happened before" defense, because you know all too well that's not how it goes.
No. That's just the lie they told to cover up the real reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/...ot_safety.html
I'd have thought insurance prices would make a difference, doesn't look that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The real reason is Americans are lazy and expect everything on a platter.
At least we drive on the right side of the road!!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And the real reason has to do with lobbyists for the gas industry buying politicians.
I live in NH and we don't even have a seat belt law. You might think that's crazy, but fuck you, we Live Free or Die around here.
Driving un-seatbelted does absolutely nothing to affect public safety. It doesn't really affect anything that's within the government's purview. The only reason a state would enact a seat belt law, is if lobbyists for the health care industry offers money to a politician and asks "Can you make it so there is less broken people we have to fix?"
Here in the granite state we decided that we won't run our government like that.
Hence, we don't wear seat belts, or helmets, and we only have self-service gas stations.
A market free of government regulations and the influence of special interest resulted in the best solution for consumers.
Imagine that.
We use both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Good point, except for the fact a cigarette won't ignite gas - despite what you may have seen in the movies. Neither will a mobile phone for that matter, despite what you haven't seen in the movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The mobile phone wasn't a movie thing though it was a weird omg science DANGER situation. They have a strange habit of going we don't know so don't do it no matter how improbable something happening is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
While possible, it's really far fetched.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But still, you can never discount lobbyist influence and money in politics whenever you see (in your opinion) stupid shit going down.
Why do lobbyists from the gas industry want people to have to be hired to pump gas? If the article explains it (well) do so and I'll read it.
Which is exactly why I believe it's very far fetched
It's an opinion piece, not an article, so don't get too excited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
But basically, by forcing all gas stations to be full-serve, they eliminate the threat of a lower priced self-serve competitor.
It's the same reason that mom and pop merchants in little developing towns all get together and cause havoc at city council meetings whenever Wal-mart or some other low-price, faceless, corporate monolith wants to open a store in their town. These businesses refuse to accept or adapt to changing market conditions. They ignore the demand from their customers for cheaper alternatives and lower prices.
They simply want their own business to continue to run unopposed, free from threats, free from competition, and totally insulated from free market forces by a protective government.
LOL, how many states in America have seat belt lawsQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The exact same circumstances that you claim are far-fetched are what led to those laws being passed.
Sounds to me you subscribe to something not to far from anarcho-capitalism. Good for you. Now let me smoke this fucking spliff while you don't wear a seat belt.Quote:
A market free of government regulations and the influence of special interest resulted in the best solution for consumers.
But in the gas station example they can do the exact same thing? The reason small family shops want to stop the big guy is because they can't compete. The gas station example just sounds like them wanting to increase their own costs for little/no reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I should make it clear that I 100% agree that they would do it if there was a benefit I just don't really see that benefit. I also think the family ran shops example you give is a good example of bad intervention for the consumer.
Gas price varies from pump to pump in the USA? FiguresQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
There, FTFY little pigionQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Typo obviously. Typos are fine, stupity isn't. I know which one I should use.
usually I ninja that shit but you were too fast for me.
Nah yanks are weird, anything involving government is a fuck you don't tell me what to do but at the same time the law is the law and bad things are bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's not like that everywhere? Who decides what the gas price is then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Doesn't sound like it's a free market of consumers calling the shots. Enjoy hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Which is why I distrust every single corporation in the world. Good that you see this, even though I'm 95% sure you didn't know you saw it just yet, and will quote this post to oblivion on how much you disagree with
Every single one cares for just one thing: Profit.
And, if left unchecked, unregulated, and to do what they do best, this is the exact market position they strive for. Bankroll this behaviour (old money, previous gains, whatever) and other mini businesses, particularly mom n pop shops, are fucked right out of existence by lobbyist armies. Competition? Fuck 'em.
Impossible hamster much?
Who do you think?Quote:
It's not like that everywhere? Who decides what the gas price is then?
Government.
Switch to self-serve? Sure. But what do you think happens to profit margins when you decrease service and are forced to compete almost solely on price?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
They're doing more than just increasing their costs. They're providing more service. That means more revenue. And more profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I don't know about the nuances of the gasoline industry, but an overwhelmingly common practice in every business that I've ever seen is to apply mark-up as a percentage. In other words, if you want a 10% profit margin over your costs, then more costs means that 10% = more dollars.
For example let's say it costs the self-serve station $2/gallon to dispense gas. They mark it up 10% and sell it for $2.20, netting $0.20 in profit. Now let's say it costs the full-serve station, with it's higher costs, $2.10 to dispense gas. They mark it up 10% and sell it for $2.31, netting $0.21 in profit. In that example, the full serve station is making an extra penny per gallon over the self-serve station.
If it were left up to the market, that penny would go into the consumer's pocket, rather than a faceless corporate interest running the full-serve station.
Now, if the full-serve station is offering additional services and higher quality that people are willing to pay for, then fine. They have earned the extra penny. Good for them. Hard work paid off. That's great!
But what if the additional services/quality were not wanted by customers? Or what if they just don't care about those things as much as they do prices? Would it be right then if the full-serve owners used their extra penny to buy political influence and remove that choice from consumers?
That's extra extra extra fucking bad.
Open your eyes dude. Lobbyists are a thing. What 'benefit' do politicians see when they play ball with lobbyists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
The "benefit" doesn't always serve the public good. You're assuming that politicians only act in public interests. News flash! They don't.
Fixed your postQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Nope. Most of our petrol cost is tax. Like, the vast majority of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
LOL Banana, the world is a little bit more complex than you thinkQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This is why we can't have nice things. I don't see the point in your specific example as to the benefit this would give the lobbying group.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Anyone telling me to open my eyes whilst trying to have a normal conversation about something (of which I've made no claims against) is just incredibly off putting.
No need to quote into oblivion. Let's say you suffer from intense delusional paranoia and leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Sounds to me that when Wal-mart moves into a small town and displaces the long-standing locally owned hardware store, you see that as a bad thing. You disagree with the premise that allows consumers more choices, because it's more likely to negatively affect someone with a name, rather than a faceless corporation. That's totally irrational. Those consumers have names too. So do the people employed at the Wal-Mart.
You seem to think that a hardware store with a limited selection of higher priced items should never have to address those competitive disadvantages. You seem to think it's unfair for another store to offer a wider selection of lower priced items, along with the convenience of also selling t-shirts, tostitos, and Tv's all in one place.
You're also totally ignoring the boom experienced by any other business in proximity to the wal mart. Imagine owning a car dealership, gas station, or pizza parlor across from the Wally World. Easy game!
Finally, you're ignoring the fact that the mom n pop hardware store is basically dependent on Wal-Mart before wally every comes to town. Don't believe me?
Let's say the hardware store wants to sell shovels. They call up a shovel manufacturer and order 100. The shovel manufacturer says "Ok, they're $12 each". The HW store buys them, and sells them for $20 each.
What you're not seeing is that the shovel manufacturer is only offering a price of $12 because his operating costs are diluted by the 100,000 shovels that Wal-Mart ordered. Without Wal-Mart, mom n pop might have to pay $25 for their shovels, and sell them for $40. I doubt they'd even be in the shovel business at all at that price.
I illustrated it quite clearly. In my example, the full-serve station can make an extra penny of profit per gallon if the consumers are denied the ability to exercise their choice in a free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Your exact words were "i don't really see....". In that instance, I think 'open your eyes' is a perfectly apt suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Paranoid? Not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But you are putting a lot of words in my proverbial mouth there too, that I "ignore", "see that as a bad thing" and I "seem to think"
Just making a read man. Show your hand and prove me wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
If wal mart wants to open a store across the street from 'Gramps Local Hardware Store', whose side are you on?
Is it
A) you're on Gramp's side because he's being overrun by a vastly more powerful competitor, and that's not fair.
or
B) you're on Wal-mart's side because the overall economy is effected positively, even if Gramps is affected negatively. You also recognize that Gramps didn't do shit to compete in a changing market place, or address the changing concerns of his customers.
I'm gonna guess you lean heavily toward A. But feel free to tell me differently.
I said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
So we start here
Quote:
When AT&T promises broadband—but delivers only 300kbps
For new homeowners, accurate information from Internet providers is hard to find.
Dave Mortimer went house shopping in 2013, and he made Internet speed a top priority. His standards weren’t incredibly high—he just wanted 20Mbps or so to make sure he could avoid some trips to the office.
But Mortimer learned the truth after moving into the house in Lowell, Michigan, a city of about 4,000 residents. Instead of AT&T’s U-verse fiber-to-the-node service, which could have provided up to 45Mbps, the best AT&T could actually offer him was up to 768kbps download speeds over DSL lines.
Since it was the only wired Internet option available, Mortimer subscribed. He soon found that the "up to" in AT&T's description was there for a reason; Mortimer said he could only get about 300 to 400kbps, a fraction of the 25Mbps download speed that meets the US definition of "broadband.”
https://arstechnica.com/business/201...-only-300kbps/
Then we go here
Quote:
AT&T refuses to offer low-income discounts for sub-3Mbps Internet
AT&T is required to offer $5 Internet to poor people, but many are out of luck.
When AT&T purchased DirecTV, merger conditions imposed by the Federal Communications Commission required the ISP to offer Internet service for either $5 or $10 a month to people with low incomes.
But AT&T has found a way around this requirement in areas where the company has failed to upgrade its network to anything remotely resembling modern Internet service. If you live in a place where AT&T's maximum download speeds are less than a paltry 3Mbps, you can't get the discount from the new "Access from AT&T" program.
The FCC merger condition appears to require discount Internet service only in areas where speeds of at least 3Mbps are available. In most places, AT&T must offer either 5Mbps or 10Mbps Internet service for $10 per month to poor people. But in areas "where AT&T has deployed broadband service at top speeds below 5Mbps," the FCC merger order says, "the Company shall offer wireline Broadband Internet Access Service at speeds of at least 3Mbps, where technically available, to qualifying households in the Company’s wireline footprint for no more than $5 per month."
https://arstechnica.com/information-...mbps-internet/
And today we are here
Quote:
Study on AT&T’s fiber deployment: 1Gbps for the rich, 768kbps for the poor
https://arstechnica.com/information-...l-study-finds/
AT&T's deployment of fiber-to-the-home in California has been heavily concentrated in higher-income neighborhoods, giving affluent people access to gigabit speeds while others are stuck with Internet service that doesn't even meet state and federal broadband standards, according to a new analysis.
"Because there is no regulatory oversight of AT&T’s fiber-to-the-home deployment, AT&T is free to choose the communities in which it builds its all-fiber GigaPower network," UC Berkeley’s Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society wrote in a report released today. "Our analysis finds that AT&T has built its all-fiber network disproportionately in higher income communities. If this pattern continues, it has troubling consequences for low- and moderate-income Californians, leaving many without access to AT&T’s gold standard all-fiber network and exacerbating the digital divide."
AT&T is in this position, because it dominates in the markets in question. It dominates because of its monopolistic position here. It acquired its monopolistic position by being heavily subsidized by the government (which is taboo nowadays) and keeps getting big slices of the government telecom pie https://arstechnica.com/business/201...nment-funding/ (despite claiming to be “free marketists”), and as you can see, its sheer position does not allow “mom and pop” telecom industries to come in and compete.
So, can they give much better internet access for less? Sure they can, they even get subsidized to do just that.
However
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
What keeps Walmart from raising its prices once 'Gramps Local Hardware Store' is gone?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
All their other competition. The idea that a company can just raise prices and nothing happens even if they have a very dominant position in the market is madness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
tl;dw, the 4 were?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
TargetQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Amazon
The Ghost of Gramps
Do a little research on Wal-Mart's operational strategy. They don't raise prices.
"low prices, always" isn't just a marketing slogan. It's a mission statement.
They do not raise prices
Check out a book called "The Wal Mart Effect" pretty interesting stuff.
I'm not saying Wally is a saint. Not everything they do in the pursuit of low prices is 'worth it' in my opinion. But putting Gramps out of business is totally fair game.
In the given hypothetical example, only target and the mom and pop shop were actorsQuote:
Originally Posted by Savy
In the example I gave, the actual real world one, only AT&T was an actor. And this one was the real world one
Watch it and maybe you will knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Or don't; it's your choice
Yeah but it was your assumption that there was no other competition which is a ridiculous assumption to make. There are examples of markets that do have this problem but that tends to come from ridiculous networking problems, such as internet, railway, telephone lines, etc. It's disingenuous to imply that "mom & pop shops" would be the competition here though. It just takes profitable chances for other big companies to move in that have the resources to compete. Especially when they are already in that sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
It's similar in the UK how universities almost always charge the maximum amount of money that they are allowed to charge when the price is raised. Obviously they do because there is nothing that allows others to compete due to the structure of the whole thing. Sort the market out and this wouldn't happen.
Yeah I won't, hence asking.
I'd lay 20:1 that you never familiarized yourself with the facts in the McD hot coffee case, if this is what you think it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
It doesn't make sense to me that she - a 79-year-old woman in the passenger seat of a parked car, with her grandson in the driving seat - intentionally dumped hot coffee on her thighs, causing 3rd degree burns to 6% of her skin, which required over a week in the hospital getting skin grafts.
Whether or not the court's ruling was justified is another issue.
Yeah, that's why I mentioned it being related but unrelated.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Whether or not grandma wanted to spill that coffee on herself, the end result is the same; a very public suit and reputation points which MCD ended up losing both of. Of course it could have been an accident, it could have also been sheer stupidity (on either or both parties), and yet the end result is the same
As examples, had McD had some sort of measure in place ensuring that its coffees can't be too hot, it wouldn't have happened. Had the granny expected the coffee too be too hot and handled it with care, it also wouldn't have happened. Which brings us back to the pump assistant.
BTW: I happen to have familiarized myself with the case. I also look at things in various ways, always looking for the reason why
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
It was a hypothetical. I thought that was the constraint, particularly due to the manner it was presented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Yeah, and it sucks right? It’s happened to book shops when Amazon showed up. Videorental stores when Netflix showed up. If before there were 100 in any given city, now there’s 1. Or 2. Perhaps none even. The competition which will kill you does not necessarily have to be right in front of your place.
Would I rent a vid at the corner store or on Netflix? I would choose Netflix every time.
Did Netflix kill the videostar? You can bet it did.
Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily for me, but it sure sucks for that video rental store. It should have seen the writing on the wall and changed its act long ago to survive anyway.
However, you have to always keep in mind it’s not easy to build the next Amazon. The next Netflix. The barrier of entry into a hell of a lot of fields has gone up amazingly recently (in certain markets, anyway)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Exactly. They (corporations) are masters at weaseling themselves in this exact position every fucking time they can. You see this behaviour/result time and time again. And then, guess what? Regulatory bodies need to (or should) step in. Regulatory bodies which should be looking out for the populace rather for the corporation. But the corporation pays them, I’m sorry, I mean “speak” to them since money was considered speech in recent times. The populace does not have that voice most of the time.
Is it possible for the market to correct itself? Maybe. Yet we run into that barrier of entry thing again, thinning the possible competition field drastically. And never forget the bought regulatory bodies. Think Ajit Pai.
There are countless real-world non-hypotethical examples. Look, for instance, at biotech as a whole. How cures are being bought up, patented, repackaged and sold at 100,000% markup overnight. That raise in price was on top of the price that that particular drug was available for forever.
I see playing with people’s lives. Others see profit driven motives, nothing wrong with earning an extra buck whatever it takes, charge them as fucking much as you can legally get away with.
There I go on my socialist rants again rah rah ;(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
You’ve made your choice; don’t worry about it
So you're saying solve the problems of free markets with regulation that has basically done nothing but create more problems in every situation you name.
Or am I missing something?
Things like patent laws are bullshit protectionism in their current state. That's is what allows biotech companies to to take the piss. It was something that was brought in that has been nothing but counter productive. That being said without those mental profits R&D into a lot of drugs wouldn't exist (go look up the costs and losses on those that don't work) and if those drugs where the prices are so ridiculous aren't selling then they don't sell.
ALSO why would that company that owned the drug sell it to someone only to let that person raise the price and make loads of money? Why would they not do that themselves?
The specific example you're talking of where someone bought a drug, repacked it, sold it at mental prices ended up losing that person loads of money and was a nightmare. Just so you know.
The game is rigged*, has been rigged for quite a while. So long as that riggedness isn't fixed, nothing will be accomplished, not with regulation, particularly not with entirely free markets. In the meantime, the marauders keep raidingQuote:
Originally Posted by Savy
*Hint: money = speech, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
For reference:
“In May 2014 Retrophin acquired the rights to market Thiola, a drug used to treat the rare disease cystinuria.[54] Shortly before Retrophin fired Shkreli, Retrophin raised the price of Thiola from $1.50 to $30 per pill; patients must take 10 to 15 pills a day.”
That drug already existed before that.
‘On August 10, 2015, in accordance with Shkreli's business plan, Turing acquired Daraprim (pyrimethamine), a medication approved by the FDA in 1953,[62] from Impax Laboratories[63] for US$55 million.[64] The drug's most prominent use as of late 2015 was as an anti-malarial[65] and an antiparasitic, in conjunction with leucovorin and sulfadiazine[66] to treat patients with AIDS-related and AIDS-unrelated toxoplasmosis.[67]
The patent for Daraprim had expired, but no generic version was available.[68] The Turing–Impax deal included the condition that Impax remove the drug from regular wholesalers and pharmacies,[65] and so in June 2015, two months before the sale to Turing was announced, Impax switched to tightly controlled distribution.[26] In keeping with its strategy for pricing in the face of limited competition (see above), Turing maintained the closed distribution.[60] The New York Times noted that the deal "made sense only if Turing planned to raise the price of the drug substantially."[26]
On September 17, 2015, Dave Muoio of Healio, an in-depth clinical information website for health care specialists,[69] reported on a letter from the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association to executives at Turing,[70] questioning a new pricing for Daraprim.[67] The price of a dose of the drug in the U.S. market increased from US$13.50 to US$750 per pill, overnight, a factor of 56.[71]”
That drug existed in its exact form since 1953.
“A drug maker was accused of slowly hiking the price of a life-saving medication used to treat infants from $40 a vial to more than $34,000 a vial, and preventing other pharmaceutical firms from creating a competitive drug.
The company, Mallinckrodt, agreed Wednesday to settle charges of anti-competitive practices by paying a $100 million fine and allow a competitor to produce a similar medication.”
And yet another
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Good question. Yet maybe they already did, and then the others throw it as a cherry on top. But the answer is probably “lobbyists”
But I got something:
‘Lawsuit: Mylan’s epic EpiPen price hike wasn’t about greed—it’s worse
With higher prices, Mylan allegedly dangled deep discounts—if buyers excluded rival.”
But god damned you are going to have to click a link to see more
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...eed-its-worse/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
>>INSERT DRUG WAR CONSPIRACY HERE<<
In truth, this is the one you have heard of. It’s been basically standard practice in recent times, and 90% of the time they get away with it completely clean. The ones you hear is simply those that catch the eye of some journalist that decides to cover the story.
Bernie wanted to import prescription Canadian drugs. Lobbyists rallied to stop his bill. People were citing Canadian drugs being unsafe, yet for some reason they forgot mention that those drugs were the exact same thing, and yet drastically cheaper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEAB9aXXcwU
Nurofen.Quote:
The specific example you're talking of where someone bought a drug, repacked it, sold it at mental prices ended up losing that person loads of money and was a nightmare. Just so you know.
Is this not an example of people buying the named brand rather than the other? i.e. stupidity. It's like women how moan that women razors cost more than mens therefore they should be banned/forced to be the same price. Well no, just don't buy them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
As for JS you're just arguing against what I say for the sake of it with contradictory points literally within different quotes of mine. Other stuf fmay well be viable in the argument but you're literally C&P from wiki and if you're too lazy to put it into better english and give the source (rather than give the argument provide the source) then you can't be all that mad that people ignore you.
edit - I should also add that with my thinking of bullshit patent protectionist bullshit I also think things like being able to buy drugs from "over the border" should be perfectly legal. My idea of a free market doesn't stop at man made lines. The bullshit between them being exposed by such is more of a + than a -.
I'm really struggling with apathy in my life currently, anyone got any suggestions?
I do, but I can't be bothered to tell you (haha).Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Have you tried setting yourself some goals?
Well yeah but Nurofen repack a drug and sell at mental prices (relative to how much ibuprofen costs), Nurofen make tons of money, so lots of people are stupid enough to buy it.Quote:
Is this not an example of people buying the named brand rather than the other? i.e. stupidity.
Pink plastic costs more to manufacture, love. Now pop the kettle on.Quote:
It's like women how moan that women razors cost more than mens
Sorry to hear, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Maybe you've become separated from experiences which inspire you?
You have a love for mathematics. Spend some time looking into the most recent discoveries and developments in the field. I'm sure you'll find something which captures your attention.
Have you been practicing self-disciplined learning to maintain a skill?
E.g. practicing a musical instrument has profound effects on my ability to focus and reminds me that my creativity is always with me, even when it feels distant.
Are you in a bit of a rut? / Have your daily experiences become wholly predictable?
Maybe make it a point to get out in the world and be exposed to unexpected sights and situations.
Are you keeping up on your physical health?
Adjusting diet / getting some exercise can make a noticeable difference in your brain's chemistry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Those are examples. But do I have to spoonfeed them to you?
There are links, but I’m not sure you cba to click them anyway. If you want the sources when they are not provided, google the keywords.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Like I care. I am not inventing things however.
Are you more interested in shooting the messenger?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
And I tell you that the companies selling the drugs don’t want you to do that. Because the ones over the border, despite being the same thing made according to even higher standards, or even literally the same thing but repackaged, will kill you somehow. They are in favor of the free market until they are against it.
Speaking about free market: a synthetic version of marihuana with a lot of adverse side effects was approved for sale by the DEA. The real marihuana does not have as many side effects as this synthetic version.
However this one can be sold, yet the real thing is illegal.
“A pharma company that spent $500,000 trying to keep pot illegal just got DEA approval for synthetic marijuana”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.43143be1f981
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7e1ee63b1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Ah. Find something you like, and then do something about it.
I don't have a love for maths and tbh even if I did I've not done any for like 4 years now (arguably didn't really do any at uni either) so just meh.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I've been doing things, playing squash & pool/snooker, diet for the past week or so has been shit but before that it was pretty good for a while. I don't really have any skills I want to learn.
I've got three things I want to sort out, one is unimportant, the other two are learning to drive & getting my teaching application sent off. Both just feel incredibly trapping.
As for setting goals, learning new stuff there just isn't anything that really interests me or that I want to do. Maybe I just need to get out more, weather is getting decent now.