LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:06 pm
Page 1 of 193
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:04 am
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:26 am
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:47 pm
Why is this funny?
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:07 pm
Glad someone asked. So I don't look like I don't get it. (I don't.)
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:53 am
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:20 am
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:41 am
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:19 am
Is the blonde a dude?
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:10 am
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:53 pm
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:00 pm
You don't think unregulated monopolies overcharge?necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:53 pmThat's not funny. It's a fucking horrible idea. Why would you want inefficient and overpriced gas?
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:50 pm
But they arent inefficient nor do they run up the tax bill.
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:57 pm
So price gouging is fine as long as it is not inefficient, got itnecronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:50 pmBut they arent inefficient nor do they run up the tax bill.captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:00 pmYou don't think unregulated monopolies overcharge?necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:53 pm
That's not funny. It's a fucking horrible idea. Why would you want inefficient and overpriced gas?
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:19 pm
If you go with evidence rather than your gut neither model is intrinsically more efficient. Both have potential flaws that regulation can avoid. A private company with a monopoly will price gouge if it isn't prevented from doing so, because the normal check to that, competition, is not there. On the other hand it tends to lead to higher infrastructure investment.
Edumacate yoselves if interested.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/li ... ciency.pdf
Edumacate yoselves if interested.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/li ... ciency.pdf
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:39 pm
The LOLZ thread isn't very LOLZ.
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:51 pm
Manly handshake? IDK...
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:06 pm
Nice leap in logic. However, I'd rather the private company gouge me and it run well than the government gouge me and it run like shit and then tax me to get it to run like shit.captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:57 pmSo price gouging is fine as long as it is not inefficient, got itnecronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:50 pmBut they arent inefficient nor do they run up the tax bill.
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 pm
I'd prefer competition, no monopolies, including the government monopoly, and shitty taxes.analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:19 pm If you go with evidence rather than your gut neither model is intrinsically more efficient. Both have potential flaws that regulation can avoid. A private company with a monopoly will price gouge if it isn't prevented from doing so, because the normal check to that, competition, is not there. On the other hand it tends to lead to higher infrastructure investment.
Edumacate yoselves if interested.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/li ... ciency.pdf
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 pm
Maybe?
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:09 pm
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:09 pm
Did you skip the last part?necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:06 pmNice leap in logic. However, I'd rather the private company gouge me and it run well than the government gouge me and it run like shit and then tax me to get it to run like shit.captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:57 pmSo price gouging is fine as long as it is not inefficient, got itnecronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:50 pm
But they arent inefficient nor do they run up the tax bill.
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:10 pm
Cause that's what the government is known for. Amirite!!captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:09 pmDid you skip the last part?necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:06 pmNice leap in logic. However, I'd rather the private company gouge me and it run well than the government gouge me and it run like shit and then tax me to get it to run like shit.
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:15 pm
If you feel that it is being run incorrectly you can vote in Opposition or run for the position yourself. Or I can stand in front of the company with a sign. One seems more effective than the other.necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:10 pmCause that's what the government is known for. Amirite!!captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:09 pmDid you skip the last part?necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:06 pm
Nice leap in logic. However, I'd rather the private company gouge me and it run well than the government gouge me and it run like shit and then tax me to get it to run like shit.
Re: LOLZ (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:25 pm
There's only one set of infrastructure. It's an inherent monopoly that can only be mitigated by government regulation. This is why it's one of the areas where public and private actually achieve about the same efficiency results. When private companies get involved they are bound by the kinds of rules that restrain public companies from fucking over their customers.necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 pmI'd prefer competition, no monopolies, including the government monopoly, and shitty taxes.analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:19 pm If you go with evidence rather than your gut neither model is intrinsically more efficient. Both have potential flaws that regulation can avoid. A private company with a monopoly will price gouge if it isn't prevented from doing so, because the normal check to that, competition, is not there. On the other hand it tends to lead to higher infrastructure investment.
Edumacate yoselves if interested.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/li ... ciency.pdf