Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternative theory: the metrics don’t describe our full economic experience.
That's literally the point of the article.
Yes.
Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us
261–270 of 457 posts
Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
You shouldn't confuse your stereotypes of people for actual people. > The Republican party is the party of generational wealth transfer. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The Republican party is half the country. "Demographic data compiled in the 2016 and 2020 elections showed that the top 40 percent of income earners preferred the Democratic candidate for president (Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden) over the R…
>> The Republican party is the party of generational wealth transfer. >I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. They oppose estate or "death" taxes in general. That is what they mean. >The Republican party is half the country. They're half of voters. They haven't won the popular vote in how many years? 40? They're an obnoxiously loud minority. >All of them? Probably not all, but nearly all. The maga tariffs and th…
The estate tax doesn’t mean too much.
“Generational wealth” is generally a myth. The second and third generations burn through any inheritance and sprint back to middle class rather quickly.
Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not saying it's wrong but that seems a strange. Around here there are still small mills - some with strange strategies where they will drive lumber large distances. Although they do specialize in this or that product. And seem profitable even though they are small. Meaning that the market can perhaps be entered with a small mill. But in many economic fields there are unstable states where all producers can be worried…
It's not about the size of the mill, but the capital cost to build a new one. No one is willing to invest the capital in building new mills because the old ones can always undercut their prices and kill them long before they turn a profit. It's the economic equivalent of a prisoner's dilemma.
That works against a large new entrant. No industry is going to lower their massive collective profit just to shoo away a small new entrant.
Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us
#264They forgot Adobe. Oh, and Protools. And I’m sure many others.
Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those aren’t invalid things to drive a markets costs. I would say modern building codes that are used to ensure safety standards and accessibility are true drivers of cost. Achieving new standards without a cost increase is unrealistic. Older higher quality doors need to be replaced with inferior quality doors that have UL stickers.
I don't believe these changes can drive such an absurd increase in housing costs.
They did for my project. Code compliance number driver of cost by a longshot in change of use renovation project. The sprinkler system and the 4’ vertical lift cost as much as the 12,000 sq foot building on 1 acre.
Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us
#266Four. That's the magic number. There have to be four competitors of significant size before prices go down. There are both EU and US studies substantiating this. It's been seen in cellular phone networks, ISPs, drugstores, and banks. Drop below the threshold of four, and the magic happens. Prices go up, margins go up, and consumers lose. Four should be the basis of antitrust policy. Less than four, and there are two…
Can you please share some sources on this?
I was thinking about this when I saw that UAE only has du and e& which both don't provide the best customer service to formulate it nicely and prices which they could not ask for if they had to compete with their EU counterparts.
Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us
#267You forgot vets and dentists!
And attorneys!
Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
Way to completely miss the anecdotal point about rural cultural decay. You can point to a chart showing rising wage growth all day, but if it's happening at the expense of long-lived communities being hollowed out, you're effectively celebrating peoples' destitution. It is incredible how Internet armchair technocrats will attempt to reduce human existence to a few equations and wonder why broader populations despise…
Rural existence is already subsidized by urban dwellers, I dunno what more they expect
Wow, I’ve never heard this sort of urban elitism before! Is it common?
Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The Republican party is the party of generational wealth transfer. >I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. They oppose estate or "death" taxes in general. That is what they mean. >The Republican party is half the country. They're half of voters. They haven't won the popular vote in how many years? 40? They're an obnoxiously loud minority. >All of them? Probably not all, but nearly all. The maga tariffs and th…
The estate tax doesn’t mean too much. “Generational wealth” is generally a myth. The second and third generations burn through any inheritance and sprint back to middle class rather quickly.
> “Generational wealth” is generally a myth. The second and third generations burn through any inheritance and sprint back to middle class rather quickly.
Ref? That was definitely not my impression from listening to "Capital in the 21st Century".
Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do they get a reward for being "right" in the eyes of the survey company or something? They are being asked how the economy is doing and they are saying fuck this. I'm guessing people have a basic sense that when they answer a media survey they're contributing to the narrative that the media will use, and they want the narrative to be this sucks. It's really not that deep. They don't, but like I said earlier it's fa…
> Again, you're conflating "how people feel about the economy" and "how the economy is actually doing". Indeed. And you're suffering from the delusion that there's some kind of distinction here that matters. There isn't. The economy fucking sucks. It sucks because normal people feel trapped and helpless in the face of corporate power and constant, rampant unethical conduct and cheating that seems to permeate literall…
>Indeed. And you're suffering from the delusion that there's some kind of distinction here that matters.
>There isn't.
the distinction does matter because policy discussion should be around facts rather than vibes. Voters are the ultimate arbiters for what policy should be, but that doesn't mean we should shrug when their beliefs are objectively wrong.
> The economy fucking sucks. It sucks because [...]
All the points you've made about bad the economy talks past the points raised by mainstream economists. Sure, "trapped and helpless in the face of corporate power" isn't great, but how does that compare to 10% unemployment, or an actual recession? What makes for a economy that doesn't "fucking sucks"? More to the point, vibecession might have started post pandemic, but everything you said existed to some extent pre-pandemic. Has "corporate power and constant, rampant unethical conduct and cheating" actually gotten worse? Or did the perception get worse? That's the problem with going off vibes. Because there's no attempt to quantify it, it's possible to know whether something actually got worse, or people merely thought it got worse. You argue that people "should be able to look around and realize what's happening without resorting to regression analysis", but this comment section is full of examples where people were misinformed about various things (eg. objective economic measures or crime stats). You end up having to come up with contrived explanations to explain their behavior (ie. them being wrong on factual questions shouldn't impact their credibility because they're being wrong to express rage against the system).