Search results

Scorch will never dominate mankind. His motivations lack an economic bent so he'll not win over the materialistic masses. Unless he gives out free plasma TVs.

I had burritos for lunch.

I think he means atheism, secularism and muslim.

That's not the point.

I wonder how she feels about her boyfriend earning more than her in the SAME JOB with the SAME QUALIFICATIONS.

Riet likes to be dominated by sexy catgirls.

True. And most of the people responding in this thread of no or little exposure to the professional workforce, so it's hardly surprising, is it?

To be honest the OPs hypothetical doesn't lend itself well to economic interpretation. Your bread analogy is a bit rough but I agree that his business strategy isn't plausible (which is why the hypothetical doesn't lend itself to economic intuition). So let's stop with the economic insight...

The female labour force is a seriously different subset of the labour force than the male labour force and there are going to be fundamental inequalities (this is not an excuse for wage disparity). When they say equality they mean equality of opportunity, as in your gender is not grounds for...

You're completely right, HSC Student of 2010.

Don't forget the non-monetary benefits like access to Teachers Credit Union, Teachers Health Fund, both of which are top quality products, employment security, great superannuation schemes... Teachers don't have it too bad after all.

fixed that for you breuh

Teachers are not underpaid.

lol you're assuming the market conditions didn't dictate that $2000 was an appropriate price. Because he couldn't satisfy ONE CUSTOMER (Heinz) suddenly he's stupid and isn't acting rationally? This is all assuming that he is the sole provider of the drug which isn't really an assumption...

Yes. And it's probably more feasible than breaking into a high security lab, or something. But it isn't the hypothetical moral dilemma we're discussing so WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP YOU PENK. you dont understand utility at all go away

Technically the monopolist druggist wouldn't be happy (satisfied) because his utility isn't maximised... I think it'd be more appropriate to say the druggist's dissatisfaction would be mitigated. Edit: so it's a matter of reaching a socially acceptable compromise between the satisfaction of...

That was my point. That and the fact that the free market and profit maximising may NOT be the solution to this situation (more like are not). edit: I thought my point was obvious, woops

If Arnold enjoys it all men should.

The premise of your argument is contingent on the supply conditions of radium. If the supply was constrained then no, he isn't an idiot. It would not be rational for the druggist to sell the drug to Heinz if Heinz could not pay the price which optimised the druggist's profit subject to supply...

.