2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Elon definitely misjudged a great many things in the name of looking like a super cool guy to his super weird fans
1. Don’t impress a bunch of incels with a bluff offer to buy Twitter that gets snapcalled and leaves you scrambling to prove it wasn’t a serious offer before you get legally bound to it
2. Don’t think that your fans represent the majority since your stream of consciousness has all but killed every dollar of your $80 billion purch
Elon is just a guy who can afford to lose what's at stake to lose.
A life-whale, if you must
His need to show everyone that he has "**** you" money might end up costing him all his "**** you" money.
"ok, so you can't be communicated with, got it."
spot on
Musk didn’t come into this with a plan cuz, spoiler alert, he’s not nearly as smart as he would have you believe he is. He tries to paint himself as a combo of Steve Jobs and Tony Stark when in reality he’s a combo of a rich guy and a columbine shooter. He’s doing the best he can to make something out of nothing which used to be something before he singlehandedly turned it into nothing and all he’s succeeding i
This.
Except that, he may very well be quite intelligent in some areas. Unfortunately, that seems to have made him subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect, in that he thinks this intelligence he has in some domains carries over to others where it clearly does not.
Regardless, it's made for a spectacularly sad shitshow.
This.
Except that, he may very well be quite intelligent in some areas. Unfortunately, that seems to have made him subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect, in that he thinks this intelligence he has in some domains carries over to others where it clearly does not.
Regardless, it's made for a spectacularly sad shitshow.
Having a rich dad doesn't make one an expert on anything, bringing it back to the election
Roc probably didn't bother to respond to this because it's peak ignorance and similar to asking why it matters if someone was up at the poker table unless they cash out.
Kind of like with this...
You proposed something idiotic and when given a basic rebuttal you say this. Generally, you'd want to have these little peccadillos sorted out before ****ing up the world.
Trump vs Taylor
Independent: JD Vance is now the least popular VP candidate in modern history – even below Sarah Palin
Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...
Only the best people. Or in this case, the only person who would return Trump's calls.
Hillbilly Eulogy really not having a fun time these days
Technology has shifted the landscape on this, since you can use automated monitoring of pricing and adjust prices accordingly. This with a scope, reaction time and speed that was simply not possible before.
When several chains do this, it can ultimately end up doing exactly the same as a cartel would through collusion, adjust prices to where there isn't competition, which is a big loss for the consumer. It might not be undisclosed phone-calls and handshakes of the cartels of past, but the net result could end up the same.
Transparency and oversight into such practices is therefore important.
Oh the implicit collusion sidedoor to marxist hell has been opened.
With very quick pricing available competition *still exists* and you can price slightly lower than your competitors and keep track of that even better and do the same things you would do in competition, strike a balance between margin per unit and market share depending on competition pricing and so on and on.
No reason to think that if it is fast you get more (or any) implicit collusion, especially in ultra-fragmented markets like food.
"oversight into such practices" means immense bureaucracy and a legal handgun pointed to the head of the people in charge of pricing, who at any moment could be held accountable to having to justify any single choice to people who have no clue about them, and to justify which you have to explain in extreme detail how your company works, just giving another group of unelected deadweight "civil servants" even more power over the actual people who provide prosperity to society (the private sector).
And those civil servants will always vote left, their jobs depend on it.
No thanks.
It works in both directions and while in a lot of cases it might result in competitors trying to undercut each other, the behaviour t_d is talking about absolutely does happen and has been studied in academic papers (e.g. this paper about gas prices in Perth, WA where there was found to be tacit collusion between many companies that resulted in increased margins and profits for all of them) . It's especially prevelant in e-commerce markets, where algorithmic pricing is a well known phenomenon, with the famous example of two automatic pricing algorithms looking at each other's prices and resulting in a book being priced in the millions of dollars. Obviously that's not an example of it working in any meaningful way but it does show that algorithmic pricing that results in higher prices is a thing that companies do.
Technology has shifted the landscape on this, since you can use automated monitoring of pricing and adjust prices accordingly. This with a scope, reaction time and speed that was simply not possible before.
When several chains do this, it can ultimately end up doing exactly the same as a cartel would through collusion, adjust prices to where there isn't competition, which is a big loss for the consumer. It might not be undisclosed phone-cal
What you are referring to isn't what most people mean when they use the term price gouging.
It also is not obvious to me that the ability to change prices rapidly is inherently anticompetitive or bad for consumers.
What you are referring to isn't what most people mean when they use the term price gouging.
It also is not obvious to me that the ability to change prices rapidly is inherently anticompetitive or bad for consumers.
Well, I don't think anyone has said it is inherently anti-competitive.
But it is important to remember that the purpose of these largely automated systems isn't just meant to determine how low you can price goods, they are also meant to determine how high you can price goods. And that is where things start to get funky, especially if we're talking about a type of business with high barrier to entry so that those already present in the market have little fears of new competition.
Like Willd said in this post, this phenomena has both been observed and studied. Markets where it occurs are called oligopolies. The main point is that to see if it is occurring and prevent it you need oversight and transparency into pricing practices.
If people want to call it price gouging or not is pretty much irrelevant.
Man, tough crowd. That recursion joke is a killer at parties.
