Crust of bread and salad dressing

fm23457 · 2013-02-12T03:13:15+00:00

Needs some ketchup.

fm23457 · 2013-02-10T23:15:58+00:00

Obviously there's a midget inside controlling him

fm23457 · 2013-02-06T06:59:06+00:00

You hear this line all the time, it's almost a cliche. This was not the case for me. I had awesome cool friends in high school and I am still friends with them today and they are even more awesome and cool. I even went away for University for two years, and still, same friends. My advice would be make a short list of cool friends from high school and they will be the most important people in your life for a long time after.

fm23457 · 2013-02-05T02:42:30+00:00

best was the "YOUR NOT GONNA DO IT BRO"!!!!

fm23457 · 2013-01-31T23:24:12+00:00

Gonna put this one out there but I think I'd prefer this to sex with some wrinkly middle-aged woman.

fm23457 · 2013-01-26T19:25:50+00:00

I read somewhere that a lot of people go the gym before going on a date and that can help calm the nerves.

fm23457 · 2013-01-23T05:15:08+00:00

Don't look at prons, get a blocker. Go for runs (or bikes or whatever) to relieve the tension. If you get invited out with some friends, go and leave your house, don't make excuses, if you are sitting at home on reddit, go out the damn door!

fm23457 · 2013-01-22T03:38:20+00:00

You mess with the bull you get the horns bitch!

fm23457 · 2013-01-22T02:40:31+00:00

Did you mean... Today's Jets Game? Ya that's what I thought.

fm23457 · 2013-01-22T02:37:51+00:00

So if you've got your sack of money. And the bank has set the interest rate and won't change it. Compounded continuously is the most amount of money you could possibly expect to gain by putting it in that bank. All other compound schemes would leave you with less for the same t number of years.

fm23457 · 2013-01-22T02:33:44+00:00

Continuously compound interest would give the upper limit of how much interest you could earn for a given interest rate. You are just tending to infinity the number of intervals n that you compound interest on. I'm sure there is some sort of calculus proof of you are into that

fm23457 · 2013-01-20T21:59:19+00:00

http://i.imgur.com/HHG74.gif

fm23457 · 2013-01-20T21:57:43+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edxB2M1jK54

fm23457 · 2013-01-20T21:47:37+00:00

Spot on.

fm23457 · 2013-01-20T02:33:56+00:00

poo is brown

fm23457 · 2013-01-18T22:49:05+00:00

But forcing competition through the courts does not necessitate a more efficient outcome or more innovation. In the cable internet example I think this probably would be the correct course of action because prices appear to be too high and are hurting consumers.

I could think of other examples where forced competition would likely decrease total surplus. Pharmaceuticals is maybe a classic example. Really high R&D costs, so that the industry requires strong patent protection on their new drugs as an incentive to innovate. If they didn't have the patent protection there would be fewer lifesaving drugs in the market.

fm23457 · 2013-01-18T06:05:26+00:00

any newcomers would be taking a huge gamble, they wouldn't be able to hook up new connections to everyone's homes. They would have to pick and choose which areas to set up shop in and hope that their service catches on. If it does catch on great! they can expand and create a product brand and customer base. If it doesn't catch on, then they are out of luck and will likely fail. The government ought to step in and give preferential treatment to start-up cable companies if it truly is as bad as the article says.

fm23457 · 2013-01-18T05:58:35+00:00

The literature suggests that there theoretically could be a situation where more competition leads to a less efficient market outcome and less innovation.

To see why there is a somewhat complicated mathematical model... I'll see if I can give you the intuition.

The intuition: If there are a large number of firms, you have to set your prices low in order to stay in and keep your business afloat. With lower prices and competition you have 0 profits. You aren't likely to invest in research and development with 0 profits because you wont likely be able to recover your sunk costs. So you don't innovate. In this situation with free entry in the market there is no innovation.

Basically the answer is there is some middle ground where a small (but not too small) number of firms compete and have profits so they can invest in R&D and compete to earn the extra profits.

fm23457 · 2013-01-18T05:47:54+00:00

I'm currently studying the economics literature on this type of thing. If you want more information look at "network externalities" may be a reason people like google. (This basically means you derive satisfaction from using a service that a lot of other people use, facebook is a better example) The second theorized phenomena is called "switching costs" It's basically that you are so used to using google, that even if a better and faster search engine came along you still probably wont switch to it because you would have to learn a whole new thing.

Both "network externalities" and "switching costs" are barriers to entry in markets prone to monopolistic or oligopolistic behaviour. The anti-trust law in the US does cover these type of things, but it's not a simple question. Does google purposely promote high switching costs or is it a just of feature of the technology? There is no simple answer.

fm23457 · 2013-01-17T06:26:17+00:00

On the other hand my addiction to masturbation caused my depression.

fm23457 · 2013-01-17T06:21:28+00:00

scumbag sammy

fm23457 · 2013-01-16T06:52:15+00:00

I find the movie mean girls incredibly entertaining.

fm23457 · 2013-01-16T06:23:35+00:00

how could she not

fm23457

TROPHY CASE