Half of it is built out of unicorn dust and human imagination.
Economics is applied psychology at scale hiding behind the idea of math and using "businesses" and "markets" to depersonalize their findings and play pretend at describing natural laws. All it's really describing is the behavior of people, and a wildly nonrepresentative subset of people at that.
I use Wh40k: Mechanicus & Ixion
Malaco Pastellfiskar is the parallel product. They're made by different companies now, the recipes have diverged over the past 70ish years, and the US version does not meet EU food safety standards. I can find Pastellfiskar in almost any grocery store.
It's not an oppress or be oppressed issue.
Nonviolence only works when your opponent has humanity.
The point of this is that both sides need to be engaged in making a nonviolent solution happen. If only one side is on board with the process, then the result is either a lack of change or one sided violence.
Look at how much progress we have made in Europe since the second world war. We’ve done so much through diplomacy alone.
In Europe, both sides are engaged in nonviolence. Both sides are interested in diplomacy over violence, so progress can be made.
The situation between American's and corporations (and increasingly corporate controlled government) is one where nonviolence has been met with inaction. That is a single sided engagement. The lack of both parties being engaged means the approach isn't working anymore.
One of the most surreal experiences in my life was riding in an ambulance in Norway and having the EMT sheepishly explain that while the ambulance ride was free, the ER visit was going to come with a bill. He was equal parts embarrassed and indignant about it. The bill was the equivalent of $25.
And the more you dig into it, the worse it gets. That price discrepancy exists at the provider level too.
And it gets worse.
This video is a nice little primer about how the insurer might not even pay that $300 they agreed to, how that let's them profit further on the treatment while creating financial pressure on healthcare providers, and how your Dr may end up being owned by the insurer, further reducing the ability of a new co-op to compete.
If you have an employer that does the right thing, you should have a union that doesn't need to do much. But you should still unionise, because it's niave to think the company will always continue to behave that way. If anything, they naturally drift away from that state and it's only a matter of time until it changes. The union is about having a level playing field with the company when you need it.
Glasses usually have obscene markups. Imo, the most cost effective way is often lasik (or similar), but it's an up front cost.
I think I paid 4k usd for both eyes, but that was something like 10 years ago and with no assistance from insurance.
I still get an eye exam every few years just to make sure everything is okay, but I am expecting another 10 years before I need too start thinking about vision correction again. Also, I'm fairly certain the provider that performed my lasik offered a warranty and would perform additional corrections as I age, but I don't live anywhere near the location anymore.
When I compare that to the combined cost of insurance, exams, glasses, contacts, and prescription sunglasses that my wife pays... lasik was a significant cost savings for me (and that's not counting any quality of life benefits).
Oatly oat cream is a staple in my fridge at this point. It's basically better than cream (or milk if diluted) in many recipes because it's more heat resistant and flavour neutral.
Others have pointed out siblings, but it's also worth noting that, in the context of your comment, sisters and brothers is more correct. Sibling is more clinical and might be used in a description like "I have 3 siblings, 2 brothers and 1 sister". When you are addressing a group, the more familiar brothers and sisters is appropriate. "May the force be with you, siblings" would be very weird.
As I understand it, debate on an issue can be terminated by a 3/5 majority vote (cloture). By positioning the speech away from any specific bill, it also side stepped the possibility of it being terminated by cloture.