patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,197,048 comments by 14,092 users - Ceffer, The_Deplorable online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 42 - 45 of 45 Search these comments
indigenous
2014 Nov 12, 12:13am
Let me get this straight both Dan and the Wogster are saying that O does not have any balls?
Dan8267
2014 Nov 12, 2:03am
Let me get this straight both Dan and the Wogster are saying that O does not have any balls?
Honey, I've been saying that since January of 2008 when Obama failed to shut down Gitmo.
I've also gone on the record as stating that Obama is the worst president ever, having surpassed Bush II on that.
The difference between me and idiot conservatives like you, is that I have real reasons for judging Obama a bad president, which I have listed in details in several threads on this site. In contrast, you conservatives don't like him because he's black and he's a Democrat.
There's a concept that partisan hacks like you cannot understand. Conclusions aren't that important. What really matters is the reasons behind the conclusions.
It is not a theory, but a fact: restaurants have been tacking on extra fees due to rising cost of mandatory labor cost.
Here's a tip for you--companies sometimes say things that aren't true!! I know that's hard to believe... It's much easier to tell customers that they are raising prices due to Obamacare or rising labor cost than it is to tell them they are raising prices because the market can bear it and the owners want to maximize revenue.
They did not raise price before Obamacare came along. They tagged on the Obamacare cost because of Obamacare.
You'd have to be a moron to think small businesses try to maximize revenue instead of maximizing profit. Tagging on Obamacare cost is profit-neutral compared to before Obamacare.
Mandatory higher labor cost (whether in hourly wage or mandatory healthcare) works like tax and rent. Businesses pass tax and rent to the consumers because they do not have to compete with their neighbors on those.
So, you disagree that price is unrelated to cost then?
What does the price of tea in China have to do with this? Restaurants can add on Obamacare cost to the bill because the neighbors are adding on the same. That's why raising taxes to punish businesses is a dumbest way of "soaking the rich."
Corporate profits have risen because competition has been restrained by the myriads of government regulations.
Don't you agree that companies will do everything in their power to restrict competition?
Companies in a free market place have very little means of restricting competition; it is the government that they can lobby into helping them restricting competition.
BTW, if you really want to get down to it, both corporations and government are artificial constructs that some individuals use in order to have a leg up on other individuals. Corporations are entirely government created/sanctioned entities.
tatupu70
2014 Nov 12, 3:16am
They did not raise price before Obamacare came along.
They didn't?? So prices haven't been raised in restaurants for 50 years? 100 years?
You'd have to be a moron to think small businesses try to maximize revenue instead of maximizing profit. Tagging on Obamacare cost is profit-neutral compared to before Obamacare.
Correct--profit. Tagging on Obamacare is NOT profit neutral.
Raising prices will cause demand to go down so profits will go down as well. The profit maximizing price is the same before and after Obamacare. That profit maximizing price is INDEPENDENT of cost.
What does the price of tea in China have to do with this? Restaurants can add on Obamacare cost to the bill because the neighbors are adding on the same. That's why raising taxes to punish businesses is a dumbest way of "soaking the rich."
So you're saying there is no competition in the restaurant business? They're all in collusion?? None of them want to maximize profits? Have you ever taken Econ 101?
Companies in a free market place have very little means of restricting competition
Funny--you just said restaurants are all in collusion. Basically restricting competition on price.
« First « Previous Comments 42 - 45 of 45 Search these comments
In America, at least.
http://mashable.com/2014/11/10/wealth-inequality-united-states/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link
The chart shows the wealth of the top 0.1% and the bottom 90% being entirely equal as of now. That means that the top dogs can and do manipulate markets and asset prices with their concentrated buying power. It no longer has much to do with economic forces like supply and demand. The money chooses winners, the money chooses losers, and guess which category you are in? The uber wealthy aren't interested in an equal or egalitarian society. They want serfs, easily controlled peasants to serve gratefully. The myth that every American is just one good idea or a lot of hard work from wealth is losing traction as the wealthy consolidate assets. At some point, if you aren't already wealthy, the game is rigged against you such that you can never achieve that status.
In this situation, trying to understand our economy with traditional models is useless. You need insider information or very good luck to win, as every deal becomes an insider deal.