Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Suppressed Poet]

Good luck getting Seran to understand any of that.

Seran thinks that communism = all the cool things stay the same as they are now, except everything is free.

Seran,

If everything is mandated by government to be free or dirt cheap, everyone is still going to want that free or dirt cheap stuff but nobody wants to produce that free or cheap stuff to sell. Therefore, you won’t have free / cheap stuff because it won’t be made.

That’s the cliff notes version.

[Shaps]

If everyone has 1 million dollars, no one has 1 million dollars.

Try telling that to the "Left" though... they just want to be millionaires.

The nuance of such concepts are lost on them... but hey, what's new.

[Seran]

Supply and demand myth…you’re a funny guy.

If demand exceeds supply and production / operation costs decrease, of course corporations are going to keep those cost reductions as profits instead of lowering their prices. They are in business to make money. That’s what they do. That’s all they do! And you know what? We understand that self interested behavior & free market capitalism works.

The only time a business lowers prices is when they must do so to gain market share. If company X sells a high demand product at a high price, eventually competition company Y will come along and sell a similar or identical product at a lower price. Competition and self-interested behavior is how consumers win.

Before you entertain price fixing as Kamala proposes, take a look at the history of communism. It doesn’t work. You know why it doesn’t work? Corporations want to make money. They don’t want to be forced to make a product at low margins and they won’t. If you get the federal government to regulate the price of consumer goods, you will have shortages. Nobody wants to wait in line for hours for the opportunity to buy their weekly groceries or be on a government waitlist to purchase an automobile.

Welcome to why it is a myth that supply is purely producers side and artificial, and demand is entirely exploitative. Corporations are out to make money, consumers are out to get the best price that is possible for a given product or service, and the government exists to product the consumer from anti-competitive actions. Supply and demand can more accurately be portrayed in a predator and prey relationship; when there is ample demand (prey available), businesses (predators) grow fat and prosperous until they've destroyed a market, whereupon they are consumed by a surviving business which makes for further exploitation by lack of competition.

Actually, the government regulating against anti-competitive practices, investigating price collusion, and dissolving monopolies fits into our analogy as the hunter bagging themselves a trophy predator.

In a healthy market where there is competition, prices and the quality of goods are forced to be advantageous to consumers. In the present day market where select industries are controlled by entities controlling 20% or more of an industry which in turn uses 'trade associations' to regulate competition, business artificially create scarcity as an excuse to drive up prices and therefore there profits. An anti-competitive practice.

In the article I quoted, the economist correctly points out that businesses don't pass along savings to consumers in direct contradiction to the macro-economic impact in favor of their own success. This is the textbook of artificial inflation.

Look at the present day merger of Kroger and Albertsons. They are arguing that they must be allowed to merge (and thus decrease market competition saturation) in order to compete with companies like Walmart and Costco. What they're fighting against is the reality that their already too-high prices have caused a sharp decrease in their sales and allowed Walmart and Costco, who are perfectly content to exist on smaller profit margins mind you, to grow massively successful as a result.

[Gelston]

Welcome to why it is a myth that supply is purely producers side and artificial, and demand is entirely exploitative. Corporations are out to make money, consumers are out to get the best price that is possible for a given product or service, and the government exists to product the consumer from anti-competitive actions. Supply and demand can more accurately be portrayed in a predator and prey relationship; when there is ample demand (prey available), businesses (predators) grow fat and prosperous until they've destroyed a market, whereupon they are consumed by a surviving business which makes for further exploitation by lack of competition.

Actually, the government regulating against anti-competitive practices, investigating price collusion, and dissolving monopolies fits into our analogy as the hunter bagging themselves a trophy predator.

In a healthy market where there is competition, prices and the quality of goods are forced to be advantageous to consumers. In the present day market where select industries are controlled by entities controlling 20% or more of an industry which in turn uses 'trade associations' to regulate competition, business artificially create scarcity as an excuse to drive up prices and therefore there profits. An anti-competitive practice.

In the article I quoted, the economist correctly points out that businesses don't pass along savings to consumers in direct contradiction to the macro-economic impact in favor of their own success. This is the textbook of artificial inflation.

Look at the present day merger of Kroger and Albertsons. They are arguing that they must be allowed to merge (and thus decrease market competition saturation) in order to compete with companies like Walmart and Costco. What they're fighting against is the reality that their already too-high prices have caused a sharp decrease in their sales and allowed Walmart and Costco, who are perfectly content to exist on smaller profit margins mind you, to grow massively successful as a result.

Nothing of what you said describes supply and demand.

[Neveragain]

Welcome to why it is a myth that supply is purely producers side and artificial, and demand is entirely exploitative. Corporations are out to make money, consumers are out to get the best price that is possible for a given product or service, and the government exists to product the consumer from anti-competitive actions. Supply and demand can more accurately be portrayed in a predator and prey relationship; when there is ample demand (prey available), businesses (predators) grow fat and prosperous until they've destroyed a market, whereupon they are consumed by a surviving business which makes for further exploitation by lack of competition.

Actually, the government regulating against anti-competitive practices, investigating price collusion, and dissolving monopolies fits into our analogy as the hunter bagging themselves a trophy predator.

In a healthy market where there is competition, prices and the quality of goods are forced to be advantageous to consumers. In the present day market where select industries are controlled by entities controlling 20% or more of an industry which in turn uses 'trade associations' to regulate competition, business artificially create scarcity as an excuse to drive up prices and therefore there profits. An anti-competitive practice.

In the article I quoted, the economist correctly points out that businesses don't pass along savings to consumers in direct contradiction to the macro-economic impact in favor of their own success. This is the textbook of artificial inflation.

Look at the present day merger of Kroger and Albertsons. They are arguing that they must be allowed to merge (and thus decrease market competition saturation) in order to compete with companies like Walmart and Costco. What they're fighting against is the reality that their already too-high prices have caused a sharp decrease in their sales and allowed Walmart and Costco, who are perfectly content to exist on smaller profit margins mind you, to grow massively successful as a result.

Supply and demand is a fundamental law of reality, just like there's only 2 genders.

Quit smoking bath salts.

[~Rocktar~]

Welcome to why it is a myth that supply is purely producers side and artificial, and demand is entirely exploitative. Corporations are out to make money, consumers are out to get the best price that is possible for a given product or service, and the government exists to product the consumer from anti-competitive actions. Supply and demand can more accurately be portrayed in a predator and prey relationship; when there is ample demand (prey available), businesses (predators) grow fat and prosperous until they've destroyed a market, whereupon they are consumed by a surviving business which makes for further exploitation by lack of competition.

Actually, the government regulating against anti-competitive practices, investigating price collusion, and dissolving monopolies fits into our analogy as the hunter bagging themselves a trophy predator.

In a healthy market where there is competition, prices and the quality of goods are forced to be advantageous to consumers. In the present day market where select industries are controlled by entities controlling 20% or more of an industry which in turn uses 'trade associations' to regulate competition, business artificially create scarcity as an excuse to drive up prices and therefore there profits. An anti-competitive practice.

In the article I quoted, the economist correctly points out that businesses don't pass along savings to consumers in direct contradiction to the macro-economic impact in favor of their own success. This is the textbook of artificial inflation.

Look at the present day merger of Kroger and Albertsons. They are arguing that they must be allowed to merge (and thus decrease market competition saturation) in order to compete with companies like Walmart and Costco. What they're fighting against is the reality that their already too-high prices have caused a sharp decrease in their sales and allowed Walmart and Costco, who are perfectly content to exist on smaller profit margins mind you, to grow massively successful as a result.

OH, and STFU you racist, sexist, anti-semite.

[Tgo01]

Supply and demand can more accurately be portrayed in a predator and prey relationship; when there is ample demand (prey available), businesses (predators) grow fat and prosperous until they've destroyed a market, whereupon they are consumed by a surviving business which makes for further exploitation by lack of competition.

So you don't understand how supply and demand works nor do you understand how predator and prey relationship works.

I'll give you this much: you aren't entirely wrong that less competition is bad for consumers and you aren't entirely wrong that various markets (almost all of them by now) have slowly become dominated by a few large corporations, I don't know why you just didn't make that point instead of going on some inane rant about supply and demand being a myth.

But here's the funniest part: YOUR party is the one who within the past decade or two has become the "We love large corporations!" party whereas Republicans have become the party of "We love small mom and pop shops!"

YOUR party just absolutely fell in love with the likes of Disney simply because they pushed your woke agenda. YOUR party loved large corporations such as Amazon and Walmart so much that for almost 2 years you shut down mom and pop shops while you allowed giants such as Amazon and Walmart to grow bigger and bigger.

And now you fuckers are like "What the hell?! Large corporations with little to no competition are bad!"

[Suppressed Poet]

So you don't understand how supply and demand works nor do you understand how predator and prey relationship works.

I'll give you this much: you aren't entirely wrong that less competition is bad for consumers and you aren't entirely wrong that various markets (almost all of them by now) have slowly become dominated by a few large corporations, I don't know why you just didn't make that point instead of going on some inane rant about supply and demand being a myth.

But here's the funniest part: YOUR party is the one who within the past decade or two has become the "We love large corporations!" party whereas Republicans have become the party of "We love small mom and pop shops!"

YOUR party just absolutely fell in love with the likes of Disney simply because they pushed your woke agenda. YOUR party loved large corporations such as Amazon and Walmart so much that for almost 2 years you shut down mom and pop shops while you allowed giants such as Amazon and Walmart to grow bigger and bigger.

And now you fuckers are like "What the hell?! Large corporations with little to no competition are bad!"

This.

Seran I can agree with you that oligopolies, which is what we seem to love in America especially after the Great Recession, are bad for the consumer. Government definitely has a regulatory role to enforce anti-trust laws. Just say that. Supply and demand is not a myth.

[Neveragain]

Looking forward to the Seranites try and defend Kamala's Fox interview.


Oh, boy.

[Methais]

Looking forward to the Seranites try and defend Kamala's Fox interview.


Oh, boy.

They'll blame it on Bret Baier. And Trump.