Since this monopoly was created by government regulation, we have neither a market free of regulations nor a market free of monopolies. This means Austin chose none, which I allowed by saying "[c]hoose at most one."
I was in Seattle the first weekend of May this year. I got sunburned.
No. It only ever creates a new equilibrium where your ISP's profits are higher.
That's only true in a monopoly or oligopoly. In a competitive market, the ISP would be forced to return the money to its customers if it wants to compete with other ISPs.
Yes, government involvement is always needed to prevent market failures. Breaking up monopolies is another example.
And maybe encourage saving energy more strongly.
The word "encourage" implies social engineering. No, I don't want to be manipulated by the government into doing anything. Instead, let's stop encouraging the burning of fossil fuels by internalizing their externalities into the price of electricity and gasoline. Then people would naturally seek out cleaner forms of energy without any government "encouragement" necessary.
Except that Libertarians tend not to believe in externalities because it would require that the government intervene to fix the market failure. Non-intervention gives fossil fuels an advantage above cleaner forms of energy; therefore, Libertarians don't really want the level playing field they claim they do.
It's an example of the wealthy oppressing the poor, like laws that prohibit crossing the street between intersections even when it doesn't violate any vehicle's right of way. Or laws that require bicyclists to stick to the right edge of the roadway when other slow-moving vehicles don't have to.
The core concepts in Word and Excel apply to other free and commercial word processors and spreadsheet software. Yes, the certifications benefit Microsoft more than other vendors, but the important question is whether the MS-based certifications are a net benefit to society as a whole.
Myth busted... how?
First, a single study 50 years ago can not mean studies have "consistently" shown anything.
Second, the claim implies that 85% of drivers is the only correct number, but the study only says a "majority" of drivers. So any number between 51% and 99% is also correct.
Third, the claim assumes that the majority of drivers travel at a reasonable and prudent speed, which is false.
Studies have consistently shown that the safest drivers are around the 85th percentile by speed...
And did you know that 88% of U.S. drivers think they are the safest 50% of all drivers? I don't think we should let them determine the speed limits.
The economy is terrible.
Is that a good reason not to eliminate a market failure?
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy when you claim that you cannot afford to invest in your own future.
There are just too many shows that I like that either aren't available at all or would cost me $3 an episode to watch.
$3 per episode comes to about $6 per month ($3/episode * 24 episodes/year / 12 months/year). At that price, you can afford to buy a lot of TV shows online for the cost of cable TV.