How are they dumb? Do they make decisions that have a negative impact on them? Well no, they have a very positive impact on them, they get votes and contributions. It's not stupidity it's willing suspension of disbelief.
Jay you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think. These are people who do well at running the old business model. If their companies decided to go with a new, better one they'd probably find they need different people to run it well. So where is the incentive for the old management to bring in a new, better business model?
I would think that Jews everywhere would be googling ' "Ruppert Murdoch" jewish ' in the hope of finding evidence that he's not. Certainly as an Australian I always hoped to find evidence that he was actually born in New Zealand.
Why do you think they have the power to freeze your assets? So they can destroy your business (and your ability to hire a good lawyer) before you see the inside of a courtroom. Why do you think the Arthur Anderson accounting firm plead guilty? Because while they were under indictment they couldn't take any auditiing or accounting work so they'd be bankrupt in a few months. Get it straight, if you're a corporation and the US government decides to screw you, you're pretty much screwed.
The weird thing is if they really believed we could do the stuff our characters could do why would they want to fuck witnh us? I mean seriously considering what my characters can do why would a suburban housewife not just go, "Ok do what you want just don't summon a basilisk in my living room."? Of course that wouldn't be necessary, they would just realise we're not the hobbyists they're looking for.
Unfortunately it's not always clear who is a lord since those fools got rid of the sumptuary laws. Some poor cop might actually lose his job because he innocently tried to suppress a serf and bothered a lord instead. The injustice of it all.
Sorry still doesn't get around the massive looting that the government is effectively doing. If the non-profit was the only one providing child-only insurance (and it looks like it would be) they'd take all the losses from people not insuring their kids until they get sick. So the non-profit effectively goes bankrupt subsidising bad decisions (made good by legislation) by parents.
Is it just me or could a car company make more money in the long run by making repairs cheaper? Think about it, the cheaper it is to repair a car the more it's worth to buy the car in the first place. If we assume that the cost to repair a car becomes well known fairly quickly then the increase in sales price should more than compensate for loses on selling overpriced repairs.
If Western Union managed to get a monopoly with government help it's a breakthrough in economic theory since no other natural monopoly appears to have existed. All monopolies were the result of government interference and the claim that e.g. electricity is a "natural monopoly" contrasts sharply with the facts. Thomas DiLorenzo's "The myth of natural monopoly" sets out those facts including "natural monopoly" business that competed for 80 years.
The practical implimentation is easy, about several hours to write the software that makes you "consent" every time, 5 minutes to write the software that bypasses it. Total time less than one work day.
Actually the NYTimes has an interest in a bill that protects "mainstream" journalists but nobody else. Remember the biggest enemies of capitalism are capitalists, and kneecapping the competition has a long and undistinguished history in the US.
So in other words it is entirely believable that the students would win and win easily. I've just read the sunday Sydney Morning Herald and it contained articles on how the poor cops were being maligned about the Haneef case (so they jailed an innocent man on no genuine evidence, it's hard to get it right), Iran's "secret" nuclear facility (the one they openly announced) and how video games rot your brain (studies say the opposite). This from a "quality" newspaper.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Michael Price.
Re:
Re: (as Michael Pric)
(untitled comment)
What you thought that wasn't SOP?
Re: Re: Nothing new... again
Re: The question that comes up in my head
They always were
I would have thought they were appealing at the time, otherwise they wouldn't be in the video.
Re: Sleazy???
Re: Ha
Is this irrational?
Aint no natural monopoly.
Corporate lawyers against competition, what a shocker!
A lawyer for a big corporation against competition is about as surprising as a bank robber against guards carrying shotguns.
Re: so
Re:
Re:
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Michael Price.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt