Also, if you're going to do something this scandalous, why bother to keep using the company's mail servers instead of something else.
Price gouging is not necessary and what's to stop consumers from voting for laws that make it illegal? After all if there are no rules then why should the public not follow the same logic that the corporations do and follow their own self-interest? If their is no fairness and only self-interest and it is every man for himself then fuck the corporations. Am i right?
Sure, the public could very well pass that law. I'm guessing that after doing it, a lot of companies would move out of that area. There's no law that says that they have to do business, so if there's no incentive, why stick around?
Capitalism and free markets operate on the principles that people (and collectives of people) are self-interested and greedy pricks. If you notice that someone is selling widgets for $200, but think you could sell them for $150, you're probably going to do it because no one wants to buy a widget for $200 when they can get them for $150 because the consumer is just as greedy as the producer. You don't price shop and then buy the same product at a higher cost do you? So really you're just as self-interested as the companies selling the products. Maybe you're some kind of self-styled "conscious consumer" that looks at something beyond just the price, but you're really still doing the same thing only weighing additional factors beyond the monetary cost. You're still greedy, it's just that you're greedy for something other than money.
If they have shown that they cannot and will not behave in an honorable manner then why shouldn't society force them to do so? If they themselves do not believe in any sort of principle other than self-interest they certainly cannot complain about it when the rest of us do the same. How about a law making any profit margin greater than 5% illegal and punishable by prison time?
So, would you do your current job for less than 95% of your current wage? I'm guessing that if you have any savings it could be argued that your wage is far in excess of your cost, therefore you're personally profiting from exploiting someone else. Should we now lock you up?
But what if a company just decides to pay their CEO a lot more so they're only making a 2% profit, or better yet they just pay even more and are now taking a loss? Are you now going to create a more contrived set of rules to determine who isn't being moral (and while we're on the topic, why is your moral code the correct one? Did God hand it to you on stone tablets?) and therefore deserving punishment.
But here's the best thing about a free and open market. When profits are absurdly high it encourages new competition. If someone is currently making $50 in profit for each sale, perhaps I could do the same and be happy with only $40 in profit. The problem becomes self-correcting and you only start to see problems as a result of some outside interference, typically from a government. The biggest example (at least for the technology space) being patent laws that prohibit the competition that markets need in order to naturally be effective.
I'll take the system that accounts for human behavior and self-regulates precisely because of that human nature over one that tries to accomplish results by government demand. Historically, the second hasn't worked out very well and if it were effective, the Soviet Union would have won the cold war. Instead the communist countries collapsed and the middle class has grown by leaps in bounds in those former communist countries because they've moved towards market-based economies.
Okay, lets say you have two independent papers which both come to the same conclusion. If they both independently have a 60% chance of being wrong, they only have a 36% chance of both being wrong. If you take 10 independent papers with 9 of them agreeing, it is far more likely that the 1 outlier is wrong than the 9 other papers, regardless of the reproducibility failure rate of each individual paper.
I think using a probabilistic model presents its own issues though. Take your example, but ask what if they both made the exact same major error (perhaps it was even a really easy one to make or due to some unknown factor that no one could have seen) then they're both 100% wrong in fact. Science is really hard, because there's a natural human tendency to ask, "What do I need to do in order to prove this correct?" when we should really be asking "Have I done every conceivable thing possible in order to try to disprove any possible other alternative explanations and account for factors that might also lead to a result?"
Your single outlier could be the one paper that has discovered and accounted for the previously unknown factor or discovered some other problem with previous research. You can't just conclude that since in the majority of cases this is unlikely therefore we can dismiss the outlier. You still have to look at it, have a discussion about it, and see whether or not it's worth considering or if it means the other 9 studies need to be rerun to account for new information.
This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...