3 ms·

> It doesn’t have to be collision It does have to be collusion, otherwise competition to keep prices low > don’t deny it is a possibility while witnessing it

> It doesn’t have to be collision It does have to be collusion, otherwise competition to keep prices low > don’t deny it is a possibility while witnessing it as a reality I’m not denying that profit margins (of some companies) are higher. I’m claiming that it is not to the detriment of the consumer at large. Also for every company that is seeing increased profits, there’s another one that is seeing a decrease > Why does it have to go to wages? It has to go somewhere, right? Even if it goes to “shareholders” or “executives”, or “private equity”, either they are hoarding it (increasing everyone elses purchasing power) or they are investing it (spending it on someone elses wages). The act of buying Twitter just transfers money from one person to a group of other people (shareholders) who are then free to do what they want with their newfound liquidity. Again, if they hoard that money, then it increases purchasing power for everyone else, and if they invest/save it, then it goes to paying peoples wages

vineyardmike 4y ago
> It does have to be collusion, otherwise competition to keep prices low Competition works half as well as people think it does. It’s long shown that companies will see collective price rises for products even in the absence of direct collusion. Most products don’t trend to being sold at-cost, which is what you’d expect in this case. Why do any products have any product margin? Isn’t every product margin an opportunity for competition? > I’m claiming that it is not to the detriment of the consumer at large. I don’t know. I personally haven’t noticed inflation much but we’re talking about it an awful lot for nobody to be affected. The people affected the most are the people who can least afford it. > Even if it goes to “shareholders” or “executives”, or “private equity”, either they are hoarding it (increasing everyone elses purchasing power) or they are investing it (spending it on someone elses wages). Trickle down isn’t real. Lots of money gets spent in ways that doesn’t effectively help wages. Money does get hoarded, but it’s not enough to be meaningfully helpful at purchasing power.
- finspeech 4y ago
  > Isn’t every product margin an opportunity for competition? Yes. Which is why marginal revenue does trend towards marginal cost, contrary to what you’re claiming. High margins are a signal to the market that more supply is needed > Trickle down isn’t real. Trickle down is a misnomer. It’s actually more like trickle up as all it means is that people who make the money get to decide how to spend it vs. having a centralized, top-down organization (the government) decide how to spend it > Money does get hoarded, but it’s not enough to be meaningfully helpful at purchasing power. If hoarded money is not enough to meaningfully help purchasing power then the other side of that coin is that the increased profits of these companies is necessarily not enough to meaningfully effect purchasing power in a negative way. In both cases, it’s the same amount of money, just on different sides of the ledger

vineyardmike 4y ago

> It does have to be collusion, otherwise competition to keep prices low Competition works half as well as people think it does. It’s long shown that companies will see collective price rises for products even in the absence of direct collusion. Most products don’t trend to being sold at-cost, which is what you’d expect in this case. Why do any products have any product margin? Isn’t every product margin an opportunity for competition? > I’m claiming that it is not to the detriment of the consumer at large. I don’t know. I personally haven’t noticed inflation much but we’re talking about it an awful lot for nobody to be affected. The people affected the most are the people who can least afford it. > Even if it goes to “shareholders” or “executives”, or “private equity”, either they are hoarding it (increasing everyone elses purchasing power) or they are investing it (spending it on someone elses wages). Trickle down isn’t real. Lots of money gets spent in ways that doesn’t effectively help wages. Money does get hoarded, but it’s not enough to be meaningfully helpful at purchasing power.

finspeech 4y ago
> Isn’t every product margin an opportunity for competition? Yes. Which is why marginal revenue does trend towards marginal cost, contrary to what you’re claiming. High margins are a signal to the market that more supply is needed > Trickle down isn’t real. Trickle down is a misnomer. It’s actually more like trickle up as all it means is that people who make the money get to decide how to spend it vs. having a centralized, top-down organization (the government) decide how to spend it > Money does get hoarded, but it’s not enough to be meaningfully helpful at purchasing power. If hoarded money is not enough to meaningfully help purchasing power then the other side of that coin is that the increased profits of these companies is necessarily not enough to meaningfully effect purchasing power in a negative way. In both cases, it’s the same amount of money, just on different sides of the ledger