That assumes that their mission is to stop anything. UNRWA's sole mission (like most large-scale nonprofits - not suggesting they're unique) is to continue to procure money for its 30,000 or so salaried posts.
Additionally, it assumes that the Irish, who broadly as a people support national liberation movements, would even want to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding, even if they could.
There's nothing morally wrong with not knowing when you want to take a holiday in advance and acting accordingly to cover your bases. What an interesting sentiment...
The only thing wrong with what she did was not to read the fine print and realize that paying for free cancellation meant paying Booking.com to pay on her behalf rather than directly paying the hotel.
True! Thankfully under Socialism there wouldn't be a Grand Prix in the first place, and the Hotel would be government-run and only house Party members during special events anyway.
I think you might be under informed... this is how authoritarian communism has worked, historically. But Socialism covers a massive umbrella of different ideas beyond just authcom ideas. Social democracy, democratic socialism, anarchism, syndicalism, authoritarian single party rule, council communism, etc etc.
Socialism also isn't the only system that isn't capitalism either. Capitalism is a relatively recent invention, perhaps 300 years old.
The important thing is that these things get funded. It doesn't matter what institute funds them. If an institute becomes stultified and corrupt, there's no reason to champion it over creating another.
That's true, but I have lots of experience with the NIH, and haven't found it stultified nor corrupted. In fact, did you hear they recently funded a project that reversed type 1 diabetes?
Besides what others have said, the government is immune from many of the multi-agent coordination problems that trap other types of entities. It's basically the essential reason we have government at all.
So no, not all things government does can be replaced by the private sector, for reasons of game theory.
It really does suck that US companies have belatedly figured out that demand is elastic and jacked up the prices. Where I live that happened long ago.
The thing is that he doesn't present any alternative. I know he's some variant of a communist, so does he suggest government control for everything? As if that solved anything? I guess what you find on empty market shelves is cheaper.
Truly a question - what's your solution? What's a solution? People have been arguing that everything is getting worse since forever. I've yet to see people organize and stop buying Pepsi or Coke. Should the government do it for them? Do you propose AI will solve the Socialist Calculation Problem? You're probably against AI as well...
Pepsi and Coke issue has been solved as there are multiple cola brands with store label or no label. You can buy cheaper cola and you do not need to buy Coke/Pepsi.
The direct fix is not that hard. I’m pretty sure the laws are already there, they just need to be used. Block mergers that create companies with massive market share. Break up monopolies. Severely punish price fixing.
The real question is, why doesn’t this happen? And answering that gets you to the real, difficult problem: the government doesn’t want to do these things because the government chiefly operates to serve the rich and powerful. Solving that is quite difficult indeed.
I think the classic suggestion is to breakup monopolies and block large mergers. We don't need to have people stop buying Pepsi or Coke, we need the company that sells Coke to not own a giant swath of the entire drink market.
Although specifically here, I think we need new regulations broadly banning the type of data broker price fixing that is discussed in this article.
Well, "win" as a noun is a word from Old English attested before 1150 [1].
And as a word firmly in the language it has its own specific uses in comparison to "victory". It would be silly or pompous to call a win in a sports game a "victory," for example. It would similarly be out of place to call a victory in a battle a win.
"Congrats *on the big win" doesn't sound out of place.
"Team A was victorious" doesn't sound out of place to me (ESL) though. Also pretty sure I've seen victory being used in a sense of "destroying the other team" - but I'm not defending its use.
reply