Depends on what you mean by minorities but prepared minorities do use test prep. Poor black kids at disadvantaged high schools in my experience never did.
But are they using any tactics other than being cheaper and faster to ship? Their decision not to carry a Chromecast is sad, but, I was also unable to purchase one at radioshack.com. No one would accuse Radio Shack (do they even really exist anymore?) of attempting to use their weight against Google. My point being, it's just a simple business practice not to sell something competes with you in your own store. Apple doesn't sell Dell products either.
>tactics other than being cheaper and faster to ship?
Amazon regularly undercuts people to drive them out of the market - this is known as predatory pricing and it isn't new. It is an abuse of dominant position.
But most Western anti-competition efforts have measured abuse of dominant position in terms of consumer facing price gouging.
Operating under those assumptions, predatory pricing looks GOOD because it lowers consumer pricing, despite the fact that it liquidates market players, removes competition, and creates the accurate perception that you will use your bankroll as a barrier to entry of other market participants.
Once that occurs and you have control of the market's pricing and a dominant position on the logistics, your market already has price discovery problems, even before any further abuse of dominant positions occur. Best of all, this creates a 'new normal' which you can then use as evidence that things are fine in discussions with the competition bureaus you're dealing with.
>We live in an era of noise, and we are in desperate need of better filters. How do we detect an argument made in bad faith? How do we respond once we know an argument can't be won? I don't think we have good answers to either question.
We place faith in effective political and social institutions and aggressively defend them from those that attack them or bypass them.
The stock price is the present value of the future profits. Since this shouldn't have a huge effect beyond 4 years, that's saying profits for Intel in the short term would be down by 20 percent.
I find it supremely hypocritical when the super poor lecture people about their tax avoidance when they pay an order of magnitude less.
The tax rate is what matters there not the total tax. Similarly, look at the emissions per dollar not total emissions. If you care about monetary inequality, complain about that directly, don't drag global warming in.
He monetarily donated to support a position that half of America supported. One simply can't expect demand that level of moral purity in a free society.
