4 ms·

"naked conspiracy to manipulate the price of eggs from 2022-2025. " Who was in charge during this time period?

by readthenotes1 3mo ago

jstanley 3mo ago
2 consecutive pro-corruption governments
- nekusar 3mo ago
  2? 2?! I can easily think of lots of corruption of the following: Trump, Biden, Trump, Obama, W Bush, Clinton, H Bush, Reagan. Everybody follows neoliberal economics, and enables loads of corruption for their friends, families, and allies. All of them did that. They ALL have been corrupt. The target of who the corruption is for changes.
  - jachee 3mo ago
    Not within the given time period. Only two there.
- pstuart 3mo ago
  I give Dems a partial pass -- in that their leadership engages in what I consider to be genteel corruption like being soft on monopolies and other less palatable but "business as usual" type of bullshit. This is versus and administration that is aggressively doing no-bid contract to family and friends, complete disregard for the emoluments clause of the constitution, etc. Note: the nature of a 2-party system, along with laissez-faire campaign finance laws, is practically designed for legislative corruption. Unfortunately the only people who can change it are the ones who profit from it.
  - jackb4040 3mo ago
    That aggression is a powerful political force. If democrats had used the same aggression to go after this type of corruption that Trump uses to go after latin americans, they would have ironclad popular support. The problem is that all their donors would withdraw. That contradiction is destroying them, they don't have an answer for it. It lost them the 2024 election, and will continue to do so until they invent another Obama. Then the problem with _that_ is, all the Obama types are now calling themselves socialists.
    - pstuart 3mo ago
      The news recently said that numerous Democratic Socialist candidates have been successful -- I think that's the necessary future of the party as a whole. The DNC is corrupt as fuck and gives substance to the "both sides are the same" complaint (in regards to craven subjugation to their corporate overlords). The real enemy of change is campaign financing, which the current SCOTUS has continued to erode any possible protections. FFS, "money is speech and therefore protected" -- that it was accepted without being subjected to pitchforks and torches is mind-blowing.
wat10000 3mo ago
Surely the relevant question is who was in charge when the punishment was decided, not who was in charge when the misbehavior occurred.
- readthenotes1 3mo ago
  So you give a pass to those who have a job to stop naked conspiracies on price control but don't?
  - wat10000 3mo ago
    That's fair. I assumed the investigation began earlier, but it looks like it didn't start until 2025. In that case I'd say they both screwed it up. Investigating and then imposing a tiny fine seems slightly worse, since it precludes future action and gives the impression something was done when it really wasn't, but it's not that big of a difference.
mghackerlady 3mo ago
not the one in charge of punishing this behaviour
mrguyorama 3mo ago
People always overlook how crappy our courts are. They have been absurdly pro corporate for decades. They will bend over backwards to accept an absurd legal arguments from corporate attorneys, yet they never seem to have that level of credulity for people like you and me. That famous McDonalds hot coffee case, McDonalds had caused serious injuries to hundreds of people previously and demonstrated serious negligence and a willing disregard for the safety of their customers and the courts, and yet when the jury came back with a couple million dollars in punitive damages, the judge still massively reduced that penalty! We have to push for courts that don't treat corporations with white gloves.
- saghm 3mo ago
  > That famous McDonalds hot coffee case, McDonalds had caused serious injuries to hundreds of people previously and demonstrated serious negligence and a willing disregard for the safety of their customers and the courts, and yet when the jury came back with a couple million dollars in punitive damages, the judge still massively reduced that penalty! And then in the aftermath of that, the media turned the most well-known victim into a punchline and an oft-cited example of absurd litigation by people who don't know any better.

"naked conspiracy to manipulate the price of eggs from 2022-2025. " Who was in charge during this time period?

jstanley 3mo ago

2 consecutive pro-corruption governments

nekusar 3mo ago
2? 2?! I can easily think of lots of corruption of the following: Trump, Biden, Trump, Obama, W Bush, Clinton, H Bush, Reagan. Everybody follows neoliberal economics, and enables loads of corruption for their friends, families, and allies. All of them did that. They ALL have been corrupt. The target of who the corruption is for changes.
- jachee 3mo ago
  Not within the given time period. Only two there.
pstuart 3mo ago
I give Dems a partial pass -- in that their leadership engages in what I consider to be genteel corruption like being soft on monopolies and other less palatable but "business as usual" type of bullshit. This is versus and administration that is aggressively doing no-bid contract to family and friends, complete disregard for the emoluments clause of the constitution, etc. Note: the nature of a 2-party system, along with laissez-faire campaign finance laws, is practically designed for legislative corruption. Unfortunately the only people who can change it are the ones who profit from it.
- jackb4040 3mo ago
  That aggression is a powerful political force. If democrats had used the same aggression to go after this type of corruption that Trump uses to go after latin americans, they would have ironclad popular support. The problem is that all their donors would withdraw. That contradiction is destroying them, they don't have an answer for it. It lost them the 2024 election, and will continue to do so until they invent another Obama. Then the problem with _that_ is, all the Obama types are now calling themselves socialists.
  - pstuart 3mo ago
    The news recently said that numerous Democratic Socialist candidates have been successful -- I think that's the necessary future of the party as a whole. The DNC is corrupt as fuck and gives substance to the "both sides are the same" complaint (in regards to craven subjugation to their corporate overlords). The real enemy of change is campaign financing, which the current SCOTUS has continued to erode any possible protections. FFS, "money is speech and therefore protected" -- that it was accepted without being subjected to pitchforks and torches is mind-blowing.

wat10000 3mo ago

Surely the relevant question is who was in charge when the punishment was decided, not who was in charge when the misbehavior occurred.

readthenotes1 3mo ago
So you give a pass to those who have a job to stop naked conspiracies on price control but don't?
- wat10000 3mo ago
  That's fair. I assumed the investigation began earlier, but it looks like it didn't start until 2025. In that case I'd say they both screwed it up. Investigating and then imposing a tiny fine seems slightly worse, since it precludes future action and gives the impression something was done when it really wasn't, but it's not that big of a difference.

mghackerlady 3mo ago

not the one in charge of punishing this behaviour

mrguyorama 3mo ago

People always overlook how crappy our courts are. They have been absurdly pro corporate for decades. They will bend over backwards to accept an absurd legal arguments from corporate attorneys, yet they never seem to have that level of credulity for people like you and me. That famous McDonalds hot coffee case, McDonalds had caused serious injuries to hundreds of people previously and demonstrated serious negligence and a willing disregard for the safety of their customers and the courts, and yet when the jury came back with a couple million dollars in punitive damages, the judge still massively reduced that penalty! We have to push for courts that don't treat corporations with white gloves.

saghm 3mo ago
> That famous McDonalds hot coffee case, McDonalds had caused serious injuries to hundreds of people previously and demonstrated serious negligence and a willing disregard for the safety of their customers and the courts, and yet when the jury came back with a couple million dollars in punitive damages, the judge still massively reduced that penalty! And then in the aftermath of that, the media turned the most well-known victim into a punchline and an oft-cited example of absurd litigation by people who don't know any better.