11–20 of 324 posts
It's a likely theory. But economics teaches us when a player overcharges, others will step in to undercut and take all the market share. So, we're at a point where we need to admit that mantra isn't true in the modern age, or admit that we've done a terrible job at preventing effective monopolies/duopolies from forming.
[flagged]
Here in Argentina we even have politicians that affirm "Saying that printing money causes inflation it totally false" https://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/economia/2-190369-2012-03...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is what the first two weeks of economics teaches. The rest of the curriculum is about how wrong that is.
Perhaps you went to a better school than I did. I only did 101 and 102, but even then the professor always spoke in terms like we were some old village, probably to make things easier to understand. But obviously those analogies don't apply to the world today, mostly.
So the history of finance and commerce has been a cat-and-mouse game where the cats find new ways to cheat people, and the mice try to recognize and prevent those schemes.
One example: cartels. If an industry is dominated by a small number of large players, they can collude to set prices and stifle competition through regulatory capture, acquisitions, cornering supply chains, etc. It works like a monopoly, but no individual member is large enough to pursue as a monopoly. It falls apart with too many members, because the rewards for defecting are high.
It's a likely theory. But economics teaches us when a player overcharges, others will step in to undercut and take all the market share. So, we're at a point where we need to admit that mantra isn't true in the modern age, or admit that we've done a terrible job at preventing effective monopolies/duopolies from forming.
It's a likely theory. But economics teaches us when a player overcharges, others will step in to undercut and take all the market share. So, we're at a point where we need to admit that mantra isn't true in the modern age, or admit that we've done a terrible job at preventing effective monopolies/duopolies from forming.
It's a likely theory. But economics teaches us when a player overcharges, others will step in to undercut and take all the market share. So, we're at a point where we need to admit that mantra isn't true in the modern age, or admit that we've done a terrible job at preventing effective monopolies/duopolies from forming.
That is what the first two weeks of economics teaches. The rest of the curriculum is about how wrong that is.
Don't expect any help from any one in this regard .
But yeah, I'm sure it's corporate profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you went to a better school than I did. I only did 101 and 102, but even then the professor always spoke in terms like we were some old village, probably to make things easier to understand. But obviously those analogies don't apply to the world today, mostly.
The problem is that people aren't rational, and they don't have perfect information. So the history of finance and commerce has been a cat-and-mouse game where the cats find new ways to cheat people, and the mice try to recognize and prevent those schemes. One example: cartels. If an industry is dominated by a small number of large players, they can collude to set prices and stifle competition through regulatory capt…
> “We do have to think about pricing differently,” said Ms. Weber. “A cost shock, or bottlenecks can create an implicit agreement among firms that raise their prices, so they can expect others to act likewise.” Interesting theory. I've definitely seen some restaurant surcharges from COVID stick around even as they have fully opened.
This only works in an environment that's flush with cash. E.g. a decade long bull market with artificially low interest rates, 2018 tax cuts, and stimulus from covid. Was a perfect storm.
You don't need an environment flush with cash for that to happen, you just need enough people who are well off enough to pay, or (as we saw in the pandemic) desperate enough to go into debit in order to get what they want.
There's likely a rather large segment of the population who can be pushed out of certain goods and services entirely while companies make record amounts of profit exploiting a smaller pool of wealthier folks.
It's not as bad when it's limited to luxury goods, but it's shitty when the goods people have always been able to afford are suddenly out of their reach and it's a real problem when increasing segments of the population are priced out of things like healthy foods, PFAS free cookware, healthcare, or housing.