econ101time

8 ms·

1.
by econ101time 4y ago
I'll spell it out more clearly for you, since you didn't seem to understand the implicit point: I sure hope a fellow like him understands supply and demand. I assume he does. But I think that understanding takes second seat to try
2.
by econ101time 4y ago
This is how a 12 year old internet atheist sees the world. Advanced alien species is just a stand-in for the know-it-all author. Grow up. These things all have good historical reasons. And you don't turn society upside down just to get
3.
by econ101time 4y ago
So much wrong with this line of thinking. 1) They're also facing increased costs. 2) Most companies are by no means "flush with cash". 3) Cash is fleeting but the need for capital is always hanging over your head. Even if y
4.
by econ101time 4y ago
Robert Reich is a politico with a political agenda, and that article is in a US politics opinion section. Inflation is a major US electoral issue, and the Biden admin has tried to shift blame to greedy companies (not that it's necessar
5.
by econ101time 4y ago
The alternative to shrinkflation is just raising the price (or raising it more). Yes, it's toying with sticky demand psychology, such that a plain price increase would produce a less favorable equilibrium for the seller, but I'd b
6.
by econ101time 4y ago
You're forgetting that there's a market at the other end too. Every business has a cost of capital, and if its returns are not in line with other similarly placed businesses, they will have to spend a lot more money to acquire cap
7.
by econ101time 4y ago
> That seems like a pretty whacky theory to me because it assumes that companies only increase prices when forced to do so, and not just because they can. I see people post things like this, and I'm forced to conclude that you don&