Yes. They were temporary cuts so that they could claim they didn't raise the deficit. Now they are claiming that everybody knew they were going to be permanent. So they either raised the deficit in that cut, or the current one. It's the same party, claiming they didn't raise the deficit either time. And Americans put up with this shit.
When tariffs are imposed by the other side, they’re called “sanctions” and are considered one step short of declaring war. If they’re so great then they wouldn’t be used as punishment.
Economists pretty much universally agree that tariffs are bad for both sides. It can make sense to use them to preserve strategic industries even if it’s less efficient economically. For example, tariffs on food could make sense to ensure an enemy can’t starve you with a blockade. But as a blanket policy it’s just bad.
If I make the observation that some vaccines can have anaphylaxis as a side effect, am I making an argument against vaccinations? Obviously not. In that case, you’d take precautions at vaccination sites: have EpiPens available, make people wait 15min after taking the shot before leaving.
In this case, I’m sure you can apply yourself and think of ways we can counter the effects of wage compression now that we’ve unemotionally identified the fact that it occurs.
To stay in your vaccine narrative: if I say that you expose other people to a health risk for not getting vaccinated - then yes this is an argument for getting vaccinated.
The observation is not that vaccines have (side)-effects, but how these effects affect other people.
The analogous argument would be that vaccines cause anaphylaxis and don’t prevent disease. If you made those statements then that’s clearly an argument against using them.
Good lord. “Poor people don’t benefit from increased wages since poor people make all the stuff they buy” is quite a take. This site is incredible, five stars.
Price discovery is impossible to do except on the market. You can call up everyone you know and ask them, but there are limits to forecasting.
We all knew the Switch 2 MSRP, but we had to wait for launch to see the eBay Buy it Now price.
In this case, the banks are Best Buy. They sold out quickly! Other market players are eBay sellers: the ones that knew what they were doing made a killing selling to consumers.
An auction for IPO price is much easier to manipulate and can lead to much volatility. Pre-allocating to the entities that are not expected to sell quickly or participate in pump-and-dumps (pension funds, etc.) is considered a better long term strategy for the company, as the sister comment says.
Yes. But Google being Google it got top notch planning advice from world class auction experts that Goldman pulled in to advise them on the IPO.
Most companies without such expert advice could step into some pitfalls. Just a guess, I am not an expert, but if my company were doing an IPO I would prefer it not to play financial games to eke out a percent of IPO price and instead focus on long term price stability to become a solid stock. My 2c.
Figma's stock quadripled in price from 33 to whatever it is now. Not saying it's good or bad, just that those gains must have been nice with effort akin to staring spreadsheets a while and babbling in meetings.
Likely nothing once the stock is actually trading with some history. But for initial placement wall-street-bets action could be very disruptive.
The company wants to avoid sharp drops after the IPO, as those encourage employees to get out ASAP, which increases the volatility and discourages large, stable investors.
People like it when an IPO pops. It's a good news story and it makes all the banks who participated happy. If it was priced perfectly it'd get reported as the stock was flat, if it's a bit underpriced then you get headlines as the hot new stock that's taking off
“That can happen but isn’t normal” is exactly the kind of thing that insurance should be for. Unfortunately, US health insurance is more oriented towards covering everything rather than spreading out the risk of rare high-cost events.
If you get the PPO, you have an in-network annual benefit cap of $2,500. So you're paying your insurance company to pay your dentist for you? And as soon as the bill gets large enough that you'd actually need insurance, they tap out?
We have a ton of public intervention in health, it’s just not very well done. The US government spends more per capita on health care than other developed countries, while covering only a fraction of the population. We’ve had universal health care for almost forty years, it’s just bad and nobody wants to call it that. A law called EMTALA says hospital emergency rooms can’t turn people away for being unable to pay, so anyone can get care, just in a very inefficient way. Properly covering everybody is Socialism(tm) and therefore isn’t in the cards.
It's not about lack of knowledge, it's greed. For doctors with flexible morals, garbage medicine is a shortcut to wealth.
Since non evidence based treatments aren't covered by health insurance, these practices are cash only. And cash only = $$$ because the doctor is getting the full payment and not just a fraction of it.
Dr. Oz is a good example. He was a CT surgeon at Columbia, which is considered the mecca for American CT surgery. But even if you are at the very top of your field as a doctor, there will be a cap on wealth, and you will never find fame. Oz gave up surgery, started hawking essential oils and is now very likely the only CT surgeon in the country with a net worth in the 9 figures.
And remember that this actually stokes antisemitism. Israel is demonstrably out there committing atrocities. If officials are conflating anti-Israel with anti-Jew then it prompts people opposed to those atrocities to oppose Jews.
The current war was initiated via a sneak attack by Hamas militants from Gaza who committed rather unspeakable atrocities against Israeli civilians. Not justifying their actions but as an uninvolved third party I’m going to at least acknowledge the history of the situation before judging their actions.
Have you looked at the history before that? It seems you're missing 77 years of frequent massacres by Israel, a brutal occupation/apartheid of the West Bank, and a 17-year blockade of Gaza.
I don’t think this administration cares about Jews one way or the other. “Antisemitism” is a cudgel to use on their enemies. Any other effect is incidental.
reply