lotsofpulp

How can business leaders and shareholders spend money on long term R&D and still be accused of focusing on the short term and next quarter? If they were focusing on making the next few quarters look good, they would reduce expenses, which include R&D, and make profits higher for the next few quarters.

>If Apple didn't sell iPods like hotcakes, they wouldn't be able to R&D the iPhone. That doesn't mean nobody at Apple had long-term vision, quite the opposite.

I can’t parse these statements. Are you or are you not claiming businesses like Apple and Micron shareholders are focused on the short term?

>If I can sell my things at a higher volume for longer vs higher price and less volume now, I'll go with the first, but not shareholders focused on quarterly numbers.

What if a business is maxed out on production capacity? What if a business can sell things for a higher price now, and sell things at a lower price later?

https://usafacts.org/articles/state-relationships-marriages-...

Marriage rate declines started in the 1980s, maybe even before.

Seems to line up with women gaining financial independence, and no-fault divorce.

Related, divorce rates have declined since the 1970s:

https://ifstudies.org/blog/divorce-in-decline-about-40-of-to...

Seems like there were a lot of partnerships of necessity before, and once that necessity goes away, so does the incentive to partner up.

Was that also capital looking for returns?

This “quarterly, short term” reddit-ism or internet-ism is baffling since the businesses that have earned the most money for shareholders (to the tune of trillions of dollars, eclipsing all other businesses), all have leadership making very expensive, very long term bets.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL31181

>The R&E credit is intended to encourage companies to invest more in basic and applied research and some stages of development than they would if there were no such credit. The credit reduces the after-tax cost of qualified research, which in turn lowers the user cost of capital for this purpose. In theory, a reduction in the user cost of capital would increase the number of R&D investments a company could profitably undertake.

>In addition, the returns on R&D investment can spill over to consumers and other firms through access to new or improved goods and services at prices below the prices they would be willing to pay for these goods and services.4 Empirical evidence suggests that R&D spillovers are "most powerful and diffuse most rapidly at the local and national levels.

That the government has used them to prosecute a man who assassinated someone or a large group of traitors does not seem to be an indictment of the capabilities.

An example of the government combing through records to pile on trivial charges to throw at a peaceful protestor or otherwise "over" charge them to create a chilling effect seems more apt for a discussion about the dangers of a panopticon.

Why should it matter if you are a 63yo grandmom or pastor?

This is just a mathematical fact of first past the post elections.

I also don’t buy the captured media claim. Broadband cellular internet has allowed everyone instant access to basically all available information. If people choose to consume nonsense, that is an inherent problem with the people. Good information is literally a click or tap away, but people prefer the tribal stuff.

Otherwise, your complaint is more about voters either being too stupid, too disinterested, or not having enough time participate in the democracy. Which is a problem, but real life comes with constraints and it isn't really easy to solve all of these by snapping one's fingers.

Claiming that there has been widespread election fraud when elections have been, by and large, free and fair, is anti democratic. Obviously, there have been issues with disenfranchising certain people's votes, making it harder for them, blah blah, but it had been trending better and better and access to information had been getting better and better.

It also might just be possible that people are too tribal and simply can't comprehend all the complexities of the world to make good voting decisions.

This is nonsense. Most, if not all professionals are interested in mechanism of action, but without Ms Frizzle, it is extremely difficult and expensive (time and money wise) to figure that out. So while the labs run the experiments with the very limited funding they have, we make do with using the second best thing we have, which are statistics.

https://landline.media/affordable-care-act-tax-penalties-end...

>The penalty for not having an ACA-compliant plan or forgoing coverage in 2018 is the greater of $695 per adult and $347.50 per child for a maximum of $2,085 or 2.5 percent of adjusted household income. The percentage penalty is capped at an amount equal to the national average premium for a bronze plan, the minimum coverage available by law

https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/

https://dqydj.com/stock-return-calculator/

Since Jan 1, 2010, 18% for UNH, 15% for MOH/CNC, 14% for CI/ELV/HUM/SP500, 8.5% for CVS.

Also, these businesses are competing to sell a completely fungible commodity good with tons of non profits like Kaiser Permanente, HCSC, Cambia, Independence Blue Cross, and many others. It makes no sense to expect those businesses to be able to earn any decent profit margin when their competition only needs 0%.

I wouldn't want a third kid just because I don't want to deal with carseats anymore.

If their profits are so good, their shares would be worth owning.

Could it be because their profit margins are actually terrible (3% if lucky), and they have to get the price of their product approved by 50 different state government employees, and the federal government constantly changes their customer’s subsidies making revenue and expenses extremely volatile and difficult to forecast?

I feel like I save a lot more money just buying whatever decent rated LG stuff on Costco and replacing it whenever it breaks (hasn’t happened yet).

Although the whole website has 1 post and there’s a prominent advertising link to some doctor book that then links to herbal stuff, so not sure if the whole thing is fake to advertise books.

Yes, you can allow patients to go uncovered. This hero mentality is what leads the bosses to not properly staff and the politicians to not properly fund in the first place.

It is not an individual’s responsibility to correct a societal failure by hurting themselves.