On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 9:49:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:08:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:
On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!
https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07
I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in the dark
Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to eliminate the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.
This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for the same way we paid for the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the
rich and decades of war with public money appropriated by Congress,
Ocasio-Cortez said.
We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.. We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the "Green
Deal".
We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone
Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees"..
She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.
The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.
And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.
The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.
That's because monopolies are few and far between. I can't think of a single
company that's actually a monopoly unless they are a utility like power,
water, cable, etc. And those are regulated. There are companies that the
govt has gone after that have had lots of market power and that have tried
to use that power illegally, eg tying products, forcing a company to buy
other products to get a sole source product.
Microsoft is a monopoly in the office PC business and it's major
competition is going to be the cell phone/tablet running Android.
BTW what regulation is there on cable companies? It is certainly not
price controlled or forced to give the customer decent service like Ma
Bell was.
IDK how it works in FL, but here in NJ cable companies are price controlled
by the state regulating authority.
Maybe you are not old enough to remember what anti trust law actually
meant.
I know exactly what it means and it's not what you think.
IBM had a lesser market share than Microsoft and the government
coerced them to break up into separate business units actively
competing with each other, much like GM used to be.
That is false. The govt would up dropping it's antitrust case against IBM
and there was no govt ordered, govt forced breakup.
The criteria was controlling more than 90% of any given market.
BTW the most oppressive monopoly is the drug companies who buy up
drugs that used to be cheap or even free, nobody can compete with them
and they spike the price 1000% or more.
That is wrong. Show us in the the law, where there is any criteria of 90%.
There isn't. In fact, under law, monopolies are perfectly legal. And again,
just because a company has a sole sourced product or even many sole sourced
products, doesn't make the company a monopoly. I think the drug situation
you're referring to is in fact, the one being driven by govt. The FDA has
decided that old drugs that have been around for 75, 100 years, that never
went through testing like modern drugs have, need to go through that process.
Through the powers vested in them by law, they can strike deals with a drug
company, where the drug company does that testing and in return gets
exclusivity to that drug for a period of X years. An example is colchicine
which has been used to treat gout for 100 years and cost maybe 20 cents
a pill. Now that is no longer available, it's become Colcrys, available
only from one company and 10x or 20x the price. But it's the govt that did
it. Does that mean that drug company is now a monopoly? No. There are
other drugs available. Should this whole unholy process be looked into?
Absolutely. For starters, it seems to me there should be a public auction
process open to all bidders, to compete to win the rights to this kind of
contract, where they bid on what the price they will charge for the drug
for the number of years they have exclusivity. And while the FDA forcing
this testing is likely doing more harm than good, the studies do have the
potential for some benefit too. In the case of colchicine, they found
that it's just as effective at a lower, better tolerate dosage, for example..
Not saying that justifies it becoming 20x the cost, just that there was
at least some new good that came from it.