Should the Wall street journal........

[ill]

If you were critically thinking you would see my question isnt if the wall street journal can legally do what they are doing now............it is, SHOULD they legally be able to do what they are doing now. Should the news be treated in the same regard as any other commercial product????????

Is poverty reason enough for someone to lose the right to be informed?????????

Should a person not have the right to know certain things because they dont have the money to pay for a subscription to this paper????????????

If yes, do you feel that way about the news as a a whole or just certain faucets of it.........LIKE THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION (that you dikkheads seem to be singly focused on)

What happens if the news is one day priced in an amount that most people can not afford?????? News that is relevant to things that directly effect them. Is that ok with you???

This is a logical streamline of thought for the question i posed.....not the shyt thats being posted in this thread.

The fact is, there are stories on the wallstreet journal about things that are happening in the world that are no where else on the internet. These stories dont make the news and without a wallstreet journal subscription you would be unable to know about them.

I really dont understand whats so hard to grasp about this concept

Also, you say if the news is public domain then the public will find a way to find out about the news...........wtf does that mean????? Are you implying that simply because the news is not top secret anyone should be able to find it if they want to? HOW WOULD THEY KNOW TO LOOK FOR IT IF THEY HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF ITS EXSISTANCE








And if your answer is yes, then where

I give up. You clearly aren't trolling, which might be more sad than your grasp on life. The only advice I can offer you is to continue going to school. I'll give you a few last bits of help. Go on wikipedia and research how the world works, how newspapers work, how private companies work, how people make money, etc. You must be under 16 with the way you "grasp" this subject. News isn't a given right to humanity. It is a business. People are in business to make money. If they have something you want, then you have to pay them for it. Its really that simple. No newspaper has a monopoly on ANY given news. The WSJ or any other paper may have created an article that only they possess. If you want it, then you pay for it. Its that simple. And to answer your question, yes, if you cannot afford it then you remain ignorant. Same principle as going to school, paying for college, paying for a grad degree, etc.

Now take a deep breathe and take your L and hit up a library.

 

[JasonSJackson]

I give up. You clearly aren't trolling, which might be more sad than your grasp on life. The only advice I can offer you is to continue going to school. I'll give you a few last bits of help. Go on wikipedia and research how the world works, how newspapers work, how private companies work, how people make money, etc. You must be under 16 with the way you "grasp" this subject. News isn't a given right to humanity. It is a business. People are in business to make money. If they have something you want, then you have to pay them for it. Its really that simple. No newspaper has a monopoly on ANY given news. The WSJ or any other paper may have created an article that only they possess. If you want it, then you pay for it. Its that simple. And to answer your question, yes, if you cannot afford it then you remain ignorant. Same principle as going to school, paying for college, paying for a grad degree, etc.

Now take a deep breathe and take your L and hit up a library.

Youre an idiot. Thanks for finally directly answering the question tho.

If we ever started being charged for air, im sure idiots like you would lead the defense of the corporate entities doing the charging.

Youre "education" has made u into a prideful idiot.

 

[ill]

Youre an idiot. Thanks for finally directly answering the question tho.

If we ever started being charged for air, im sure idiots like you would lead the defense of the corporate entities doing the charging.

Youre "education" has made u into a prideful idiot.

 

[ill]

Do yourself a favor and go up to the smartest person you know and ask them these questions. If you don't have any smart friends, go to your local college and ask a professor his views on your question. Seriously.

 

[JasonSJackson]

Do yourself a favor and go up to the smartest person you know and ask them these questions. If you don't have any smart friends, go to your local college and ask a professor his views on your question. Seriously.

its funny to see how smart you really think you are. lol

 

[theworldismine13]

nobody has a monopoly on news, if you dont want to pay for it, that's a personal problem

 

[Serious]

Now take a deep breathe and take your L and hit up a library.

you know the library probably has the WSJ for free too.

 

[Serious]

Youre "education" has made u into a prideful idiot.

 

[JasonSJackson]

nobody has a monopoly on news, if you dont want to pay for it, that's a personal problem

u just couldnt let the stupidity die could you?

Even the response you just made contridicts itself.

sigh

smh

anyways, barring a legitmate response, this is the last time im addressing the simple remarks made in this thread.

The wallstreet journal has news stories on it that are not available on any other news outlet. That is a fact. They charge a fee to read the news stories they have that no one else does. That is a fact..........it is also by definition a MONOPOLY


"the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service."

The supply in this situation being the news that no one else has.........the control being them 1. reporting it as they please 2.charging a fee to view that report

Even if they didnt charge a fee to view the news, the fact that they are the only news source that has the information still gives them a monopoly on that information.

See, i can explain why it IS a monopoly. Can you explain why it isnt?

Or will you simply resort to the simple rebuttals the rest of the people who cant defend their points in this thread have?

 

[JasonSJackson]

get off my dikk

 

[theworldismine13]

u just couldnt let the stupidity die could you?

Even the response you just made contridicts itself.

sigh

smh

anyways, barring a legitmate response, this is the last time im addressing the simple remarks made in this thread.

The wallstreet journal has news stories on it that are not available on any other news outlet. That is a fact. They charge a fee to read the news stories they have that no one else does. That is a fact..........it is also by definition a MONOPOLY

"the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service."

The supply in this situation being the news that no one else has.........the control being them 1. reporting it as they please 2.charging a fee to view that report

See, i can explain why it IS a monopoly. Can you explain why it isnt?

Or will you simply resort to the simple rebuttals the rest of the people who cant defend their points in this thread have?

that isnt a monopoly, A NEWSSTORY is not a trade or supply, so owning a particular news story isnt a monopoly using your own definition

for the WSJ to have a monopoly they would have to have exclusive possession of the entire supply of newstories and/or the entire trade of selling newspapers, they dont, therefore they do not have monopoly

you basically dont understand what the word "supply" or "trade" means, your assertion is equivalent to saying that cash money records has a monopoly in the music industry because they have a song that you can only get it by buying it from them

 

[ill]

u just couldnt let the stupidity die could you?

Even the response you just made contridicts itself.

sigh

smh

anyways, barring a legitmate response, this is the last time im addressing the simple remarks made in this thread.

The wallstreet journal has news stories on it that are not available on any other news outlet. That is a fact. They charge a fee to read the news stories they have that no one else does. That is a fact..........it is also by definition a MONOPOLY


"the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service."

The supply in this situation being the news that no one else has.........the control being them 1. reporting it as they please 2.charging a fee to view that report

Even if they didnt charge a fee to view the news, the fact that they are the only news source that has the information still gives them a monopoly on that information.

See, i can explain why it IS a monopoly. Can you explain why it isnt?

Or will you simply resort to the simple rebuttals the rest of the people who cant defend their points in this thread have?

Hahahaha

1) You're retarded. Like short bus status
2) You haven't the slightest clue what an actual monopoly is.
3) Take your L and keep it moving. If you haven't grasped the concepts given to you by every single poster in your failed thread, then you just will never get it.

 

[JasonSJackson]

that isnt a monopoly, A NEWSSTORY is not a trade or supply, so owning a particular news story isnt a monopoly using your own definition

for the WSJ to have a monopoly they would have to have exclusive possession of the entire supply of newstories and/or the entire trade of selling newspapers, they dont, therefore they do not have monopoly

you basically dont understand what the word "supply" or "trade" means, your assertion is equivalent to saying that cash money records has a monopoly in the music industry because they have a song that you can only get it by buying it from them

How is a newstory not a supply?

The WSJ doesnt have to have exclusive possesion of the entire supply of newstories and/or the entire trade of selling newspapers. If they have ONE news stories that no other news source has, they have a monopoly on that one story.

its funny you say i dont understand the word supply or trade while at the same time showing that you dont understand it.

Your analogy is stupid. What im saying is equivalent to saying that cash money (or whoever they are in contract with) has a monopoly on the songs they produce...............which they do.

 

[Serious]

get off my dikk

Make an irrational post calling someone ignorant / uneducated, then proceed to turn around and incorrectly misspell a fundamental word which should have been mastered in elementary school. Brehs

simply resort to the simple rebuttals

Oh the irony

 

[Kritic]

actually after hoover's online i tried yahoo finance for a while but i just didn't like the layout and i was deep into hoover's that i just couldn't adapt to yahoo finance. but yahoo finance was better in some parts... but...


=============================================================================================
since this thread is nothing serious but troll thread. let's get it on...


a quick look at the wall street journal we see their editor paul gigot is a jew. as stingy as jews are you think they're gonna do sh1t for free?

the wall street journal just like most financial institutions is an organization run by jews who only promote themselves into top positions so i don't really give a sh1t what they gotta say. my life isn't based on what jews think is best for me. fuq em and fuq the wall street journal.

and fuq you too if you don't like this post.