Nah, the progressive DAs are really reluctant to prosecute property crime, this discourages the police from making a case for prosecution.
I know a filmmaker in Oakland who had thousands of dollars of electronics stolen from their car (and receipts/insurance to prove the value of the electronics). One of the items stolen was an iPad that was phoning its location home, the filmmaker tried to direct the Oakland police to the house with the stolen iPad (itself worth >$950 dollars) but the police said they didn't think the case would stick and declined to go address the situation.
It may be 'in fact' that theft over $950 is a felony that police should take seriously, but in practice, it's really rare to see a thief prosecuted.
Oakland has less police per capita than most cities, so police tend to prioritize violent crimes. This has nothing to do with prosecutors. In fact, the last prosecutors election was an incumbent vs. a reformer. The incumbent won, so this has nothing to do with progressive prosecutors.
There's a huge hidden cost to price controls through - they don't promote innovation as much as markets do. The US develops over half the world's new pharmaceuticals, if we imposed price controls today, we would have fewer life saving medications tomorrow because the companies couldn't afford to do as much R&D.
well considering we already subsidize the early R&D for these companies with our University system, and insulin hasn't changed in 50 years, I see no reason we can't price control certain drugs. Could even use this as a guide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Me...
That is false. The insulins sold today are MUCH better than the ones sold 50 years ago. They're much better than the ones sold 25 years ago. Admittedly, the ones sold 25 years ago are effective, but it is much more convenient using an insulin that kicks in in 15-20 minutes and has a relatively short peak than one that kicks in in 30-60 minutes and has a long peak. It's doable either way, but the quality of life is much different.
Trivially untrue, right? Recombinant DNA technology is younger than 50 years so we used porcine insulin before that. It'll still work, honestly, if you're up for it.
Let's make sure people in their 20s aren't dying because they can't afford insulin before we start worrying about how to promote innovation in the insulin market.
If drugs are too expensive, then at some point more lives/quality of lives are lost because people can't access them than are saved from more drug development.
A balance must be found between ensuring fair access at affordable prices, and ensuring fair returns to the pharma industry. This is precisely the goal of pharmaceutical price regulation in the UK:
I don't think there are batteries that meet Toyota's durability standards.
Toyota wants their cars to be able to last a million miles in extreme environments (-40 degrees Alaska, +120 degrees F deserts). You can't do that with today's off-the-shelf battery technology.
Gas cars can't go a million miles on one engine, either, and need endless maintenance. EVs already get past a few 100k miles with much less work. EVs will be first to 10^6 miles.
Deflation isn't horrible unless you have a lot of debt, it rewards savers. It's probably less efficient for central banks to try to 'hack' inflation than just deploy fiscal policy.
And we're almost definitely seeing inflation in the finanical markets. It's not great that valuations are so divorced from fundamentals.
The demand fell, supply went up dramatically and there's a new equilibrium.
Very few advertisers are actually in a true "prisoner's dilemma" in the sense that they're fighting tooth and nail in the same market as another company and parsing back advertising will cost them dramatic marketshare. First, a lot of demand is supply constrained - lysol is going to sell their wipes no matter what, so advertisers can easily defect. Secondly, advertisers may be locked in a competition broadly but not in a specific channel. Your youtube channel probably isn't your best ROI or its easy to cut back spend and just invest in your most performant channel - it's often not youtube for these companies.
The cynic in me notes that unlicensed, Mhz-range spectrum would have been a game changer and created a serious challenge to incumbent cellphone and broadband companies. Unlike Mhz spectrum, the 5Ghz spectrum he mentions (as an alternative) in that old opinion and the 6Ghz spectrum in the recent notice is limited to private usage within a building. You can't do anything long range, not even from down the block--at least not in a commercially viable way. Using unlicensed Mhz spectrum you could provide competitive broadband directly from the street (if not further), removing all the expense of leasing or running wires to people's homes or paying extremely costly fees to incumbent cellphone companies.
I reconsider what I said about dissonance: there is none. His past and current positions are consonant with the view that rivalrous spectrum usage is best resolved by auctioning private property rights in spectrum--the classic Coase approach. By effectively being limited to within structures, 6Ghz spectrum isn't rivalrous even from a person in Pai's perspective.
Note: I went to George Mason Law school which has a faculty that's extremely active in the FCC spectrum debate, and I know Pai is intellectually (and in some cases personally) friendly with some of that faculty. The faculty are vehement advocates for private spectrum auctions. I've had more than one intense debate advocating for more unlicensed spectrum usage and none of them were the least bit kind to that approach. But that was 10 years ago; perhaps opinions have softened since then.
I generally, in my daily life, have more things to worry about than a couple of random people expressing their dislike of something myself or the people I live with, own. If you spend most of your time worrying about whether other people like your car you must have an extremely easy life and should absolutely donate a large percentage of your money to charities that help those who are not as well off as you.
I'm not. I'm supplementing my main point to address things that you have brought up. The actual goalpost hasn't moved. See:
- Why would you care about other people not liking it, if you like it.
- If you don't like it (i.e. it's someone else's), surely you have better things to care about with your time than what someone else thinks of a car that you didn't buy?
- Most people don't have the time or money to give a crap about what people think of their car, more than they do about things like fuel-efficiency and repair costs, so if your main concern is that other people don't like your car, you're very likely well-off enough to stand to donate that money to people who are actually worse off.
The first two are just two parts of the same argument, the third point was used to augment the second. You're the one who was moving the goalposts. See:
- The initial discussion was about the person buying the car (Your claim was originally "People buy Teslas because they get harassed less at traffic lights")
- I responded to that and you moved the goalposts to "People drive cars that they didn't buy" (Which is a valid point, hence why I responded, but not the subject of the original argument, because we were talking about the owner of the car).
Please don't move the goalposts and then accuse me of doing that?
You're probably putting too much explanatory power in 'electric' vs 'gas'.
I'll speculate that things are failing on your Audi because it's an Audi, not because its gas powered. Go find someone driving a 15+ year old Lexus and ask them if something new breaks every time they drive. It's unlikely that they'll commiserate.
I know a filmmaker in Oakland who had thousands of dollars of electronics stolen from their car (and receipts/insurance to prove the value of the electronics). One of the items stolen was an iPad that was phoning its location home, the filmmaker tried to direct the Oakland police to the house with the stolen iPad (itself worth >$950 dollars) but the police said they didn't think the case would stick and declined to go address the situation.
It may be 'in fact' that theft over $950 is a felony that police should take seriously, but in practice, it's really rare to see a thief prosecuted.