Jump to content

HonkeyVape

crowd sourced
  • Posts

    266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HonkeyVape

  1. Change it from O&G to, say, airlines then. Who lost $$ and now prices are high to recoup for that. The bottom line, to me and my way of thinking, is that if you are going to strategically cap profits and the high upside that is the payoff on taking a huge risk that goes right, then you should also strategically cap the loss-side and the risk. Only focusing on one comes off to me as overtly political, unfair, and unequal.
  2. Is there a general RTW thread or maybe this can be that. I'm reading a lot about the huge pushback of Farmers Insurance with the new CEO who is angering their folks who did an about-face on their WFH promise. Also, read Google will put using their time in the office as a metric on performance reviews.
  3. Okay sure. But what about more directly versus the indirect routes you have described? Because the argument could cut the other way as well (we are already capping their pricing because of XYZ, which is being played out when you have actually fewer annual sales (like in new cars) but profits are still actually up). Anyways, I think your answer skirted my question so I'll ask it more directly: -- Do you feel like this should cut both ways, in the interest of fairness and equality, with direct dollars subsidy? For example, should their be pricing limits on the bottom end as well (and have government money directly subsidize it and provide organizations with cash flow, if necessary as the article above talks about is what happened in Germany)? A good example is O&G. If you think they are or were price gouging to make up for lost revenue in billions of dollars lost during COVID-19, and want to put a cap on the price because they have record billions in profit today, would you also be in favor of putting a cap on their losses when times are bad and they are losing record billions? Or are you only in favor or capping the profit and high side while still maintaining the same risk?
  4. What is @Onboard 2.0new name? He was posting daily 10-12x a day until end of April and abruptly stopped. I didn't see an Onboard3.0. Who's path did he get crossways with to go into the Victim Hideout and change name program?
  5. Do you feel like this should cut both ways, in the interest of fairness and equality? For example, should their be pricing limits on the bottom end as well (and have government money subsidize it, if necessary as the article above talks about is what happened in Germany)? A good example is O&G. If you think they are or were price gouging to make up for lost revenue during COVID-19, and want to put a cap on the price because they have record billions in profit, would you also be in favor of putting a cap on their losses when times are bad and they are losing record billions?
  6. Exactly! In my experience, make $300k/year consistently and after a few years, you can have 80% of the single, available women in whatever metro you live in. I think passport bros realize this and, because they don't have a lot of money, they go to countries where the American dollar is strong and they can cosplay as someone with a lot of money to throw around and wine and dine and live better. That part makes sense, actually. My theory is that incels wouldn't be incels if they weren't poor, but maybe therein lies the problem. The personality defects and psychological issues that make them incels also prohibit them from being able to exist as value-adds in the free market. Unless they are React or Next.js developers or whatever, because developer types seem to be the rare incel that can climb out of the incel crab bucket because they don't need to be sociable to make money and can be valuable from their dark gooner basement (I just learned that word from surly).
  7. @Captainant, you would like this article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/what-if-were-thinking-about-inflation-all-wrong To Weber, people like Summers were looking at the situation from the wrong side. The focus ought to be on sellers, not buyers. The pandemic had upended global supply chains, making it harder for corporations to acquire the stuff they needed to make their products. This should have squeezed their profit margins. Instead, as the economy began opening up, corporate profits were wildly outpacing growth in consumer spending power. Here’s an example. Semiconductor chips are the basic building blocks for electronic equipment. When covid lockdowns and a string of temporary factory closures led to global shortages, the price of each chip began to rise, as did the price of everything else that used them. This proved especially troubling for the automobile market—a new vehicle can require as many as three thousand chips. As you’d expect, new cars got more expensive. So did the consumer alternative, used cars, which, in the first six months of 2021, jumped in price by nearly thirty per cent. But Weber argued that carmakers were raising prices far beyond what was necessary to cover the more costly chips. By 2022, the ongoing chip shortage had resulted in the fewest annual sales of new cars in more than a decade. Still, profits were up—car companies posted their best earnings in six years. In a recent paper, Weber writes that the chip shortage established a “temporary monopoly” that allowed automakers to “raise prices without having to fear a loss in market share.” And it wasn’t just chips. Analyzing transcripts of company earnings calls, Weber concludes that firms in a variety of industries knew they could get away with gouging customers, who were already primed by the chaos of the pandemic to expect price hikes. Crucially, firms weren’t worried about losing customers to competitors; because of the supply bottlenecks, competitors would also be raising prices. Weber calls this dynamic “sellers’ inflation,” in contrast with the traditional model of inflation, in which an excess of consumer purchasing power is to blame. The higher upstream the supply disruption, Weber has noted, the greater the ultimate impact on consumers. Raise the price of electricity or oil, for instance, and suddenly everything becomes harder to make or move. The same is true for chemicals, metals, lumber, or any of the basic commodities required to produce more complex products. If a government could somehow prevent the price of these magnifiers from getting out of hand, it could stave off inflation.
  8. Me this morning thinking about Rangers vs Rays:
  9. This is very impressive, for how short you have said you are in past posts. Unless you were kidding, you mentioned you were a manlet. Which means you must have the opposite of a manlet wallet.
  10. Probably my favorite player on the squad. Hope he gets big "Who ees your beneeficeerry?" money.
×
×
  • Create New...