Well Tony seems to be retired for real.

[spy]

spy has dirt floors and therefore too ignorant to act/vote in his own best interest.

Lol. Go hide in your skew arb threads Beck, no room for the morally bankrupt here

 

[Tuxan]

Economies like ours should not really be "managed" when ours is based on a consumer/consumption economy. the fed govt can barely manage their own budget and operations and they are going to intelligently run the U.S. economy?

Govt role in an economy is to create and oversee a system that is reliable and secure and functions and then get the fuck out of the way. It can manipulate its areas by passing spending bills or adjusting regulations but for the most part every from Apple down to me operate our businesses via state and federal laws and free from government interference and we dont give a fuck who sits in that chair.

The extreme right and left wing dont get this and muck everything up...trump didnt create cheap gasoline and Biden didnt produce record gains in the stock market.

Well I intended the word "managed," to connote some level of oversight or coordination. Government policies and regulations are part of the economic landscape. It does carry a bit of ambiguity.

I don't believe the government manages the economy, that is mostly autonomous and it matters quite little who the president is.

There is a role for both government and businesses, though the extent and nature of that role will always be subject to debate. Mostly to me, government needs to to watch out for monopolies, strategic trade balance leanings/international and other unavoidable physical and social infrastructure matters.

Must sleep.

 

[smallfil]

No, that isn't what I said. Perhaps we can add reading comprehension to your list of needed improvements. I said some industries. Like in the retail gas market, during hurricanes. You will always have small attempts at gouging. But to go after an entire industry is like burning down the house when you find ants in the kitchen.



No, my argument is that because industries have such thin margins (grocery stores, as an example), they have no choice but to pass on price hikes. They can't absorb them like you might think. I remember having this argument with Piezoe when he claimed restaurants could absorb wage hikes. I went through a detailed analysis of their financials and all he did was go "I'll have to get back to you" with his response. Of course, he never did. If you care to read that exchange, here it is.

If you try to put legislation to prevent them from doing so, they'll just go out of business, or not buy food, which in turn means the public won't have access to groceries. Are you so blind as to not have witnessed this in places like Venezuela? When similar socialist policies have tried to control prices in the same way?



I've read these words several times, and I'm not sure I know what the heck you're trying to say here (as usual). But I'll take a stab. Actually, no, I don't think I can. Restate what your point is here, and try to be a bit more clear?



You may find some examples, but instead of going after the bad guys, you folks want to regulate an entire industry. Stupid and ineffective, as usual.



I'm not about to waste 99 minutes of my time listening to some video to try to figure out what your specific examples are. So provide the examples, or provide the exact timestamps I can fast forward to. You don't get to post links of hour-and-a-half videos and say "see, this is what I mean".

$20 minimum wage hike pushed by the Democrats resulted in a lot of job losses in the fast food industry where those supposed to benefit from the $20 minimum wage, either got their hours cut, or got totally laid off and the business closed. Kamala Harris proposal to impose price controls on grocery stores is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Sky high inflation is the result but, Democrats and extreme liberals still cannot think how it will happen? Nobody is going to sell their goods at a loss if they can avoid it. So, avoid it they will. Result would be food shortages. Grocery stores refusing to pay more than what they can sell the food item for. So, a number of grocery items will be out of stock. Then, what is the Democrats and Kamala Harris next act? Americans will end up buying their grocery items from the blackmarket and it is going to cost much higher because there would be no price controls and sellers will set the price for any food item. Let us hope more Americans have the good sense not to vote for Kamala Harris.

 

[Tuxan]

@Tsing Tao "No, that isn't what I said. Perhaps we can add reading comprehension to your list of needed improvements. I said some industries. Like in the retail gas market, during hurricanes. You will always have small attempts at gouging. But to go after an entire industry is like burning down the house when you find ants in the kitchen.''

When you show me that they are broadly, not selectively as I have seen, discussing the industry I'll pay more attention.


''No, my argument is that because industries have such thin margins (grocery stores, as an example), they have no choice but to pass on price hikes. They can't absorb them like you might think. I remember having this argument with Piezoe when he claimed restaurants could absorb wage hikes. I went through a detailed analysis of their financials and all he did was go "I'll have to get back to you" with his response. Of course, he never did. If you care to read that exchange, here it is.''

Back to the first point, everything I have seen by actually watching hearings indicates a rapier and not a broadsword approach. Its about major corps and such that are using market dominance against the interests of consumers.

Also, my daughter bought a small restaurant chain recently (to flip) and if the law changed, it changes for everyone so any mandated wage change, just gets passed to the consumer by all restaurants simultaneously. If restaurants went to a living wage model instead of tips, then gratuities become maybe 8% or so like most countries.

''If you try to put legislation to prevent them from doing so, they'll just go out of business, or not buy food, which in turn means the public won't have access to groceries. Are you so blind as to not have witnessed this in places like Venezuela? When similar socialist policies have tried to control prices in the same way?''

Again, a Venezuela syndrome is not in the ballpark or zip code. Its more like specific squeezes by ag suppliers or this, where time and again we see volume drop and profits increase. Sure, every state has laws however on examination it may turn out that there is a role for federal laws to tackle any interstate hijinks the conglomerate and Big Ag etc. players are involved in.



''I've read these words several times, and I'm not sure I know what the heck you're trying to say here (as usual). But I'll take a stab. Actually, no, I don't think I can. Restate what your point is here, and try to be a bit more clear?''

Do you mean consolidation?
Why did the FTC challenge the $25 billion merger between Kroger and Albertsons?
The Federal Trade Commission sued to block the merger between Kroger and Albertsons, alleging it would lead to a monopoly in the supermarket industry.
https://www.usatoday.com/videos/new...er-albertsons-supermarket-merger/73333690007/

''You may find some examples, but instead of going after the bad guys, you folks want to regulate an entire industry. Stupid and ineffective, as usual.

I'm not about to waste 99 minutes of my time listening to some video to try to figure out what your specific examples are. So provide the examples, or provide the exact timestamps I can fast forward to. You don't get to post links of hour-and-a-half videos and say "see, this is what I mean".''

Now, instead of NewsMax and ZeroHedge tells me so I've got a feeling, do you have evidence I have not seen of actual policy that will pancake down to local minor operations?