The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
11-10-2016, 09:03 PM
#7342
Apart from the existence of free-market capitalism, I agree.
Look at what happened to the cost of air travel and long-distance service after the deregulation of the airline and telephone industries. Both rapidly plunged to previously unimaginable lows in the face of price competition. We all like to bitch about travel costs and wireless rates, but forget that air travel and long distance phone service used to be so expensive that they were essentially luxury goods, and are now taken for granted as a part of everyday life.
Look at what happened to the cost of air travel and long-distance service after the deregulation of the airline and telephone industries. Both rapidly plunged to previously unimaginable lows in the face of price competition. We all like to bitch about travel costs and wireless rates, but forget that air travel and long distance phone service used to be so expensive that they were essentially luxury goods, and are now taken for granted as a part of everyday life.
If your business is in a competitive retail environment, and you do not already brand yourself as an exclusive luxury commodity, then yes. You'll do it as soon your competitors do.
From your post above, it seems that you may not be in a competitive market. If this is true, then props to you. When I was freelancing, I was charging $150 an hour to type words and draw lines on a screen. I could do this because a combination of luck and skill (mostly luck) had put me in a position where I was basically the only person in the entire world with my particular combination of skills and experience, which were in demand at the time. But I recognize that most people do not enjoy that luxury, just as my time in that particular limelight has passed and I'm back in the corporate world.
From your post above, it seems that you may not be in a competitive market. If this is true, then props to you. When I was freelancing, I was charging $150 an hour to type words and draw lines on a screen. I could do this because a combination of luck and skill (mostly luck) had put me in a position where I was basically the only person in the entire world with my particular combination of skills and experience, which were in demand at the time. But I recognize that most people do not enjoy that luxury, just as my time in that particular limelight has passed and I'm back in the corporate world.
I contracted as a young engineer out of school for a couple years a long time ago. Tough life... Kudos to you.
Reply
0
0
11-10-2016, 11:06 PM
#7346
I identify as a bear.
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,206
Total Cats: 6,707
I say this in the most shallow, chauvinistic way possible: is totally give her something else to bitch and rant to her snowflake friends about.
Just gotta pretend that those dead caterpillars aren't stuck to her forehead.
Just gotta pretend that those dead caterpillars aren't stuck to her forehead.
Reply
0
0
11-11-2016, 09:12 AM
#7349
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,814
Total Cats: 3,051
I am someone who is a professional in B2B sales of big ticket items and have been for 15 years. It is a highly competitive market with about 7 major competitors. I can say unequivocally that a 10% drop in costs for all competitors immediately shows as a 10% drop in sale prices. Otherwise you lose deals and offer the opportunity for your competitors to build relationships with your customers. Costs and prices track very closely in mature environments with no outside intervention. If you have a novel product or service with no competitors or the competition is artificially limited (EpiPen) then things skew. But the free market usually delivers the best products for the best prices by its very nature. EpiPen would have never been exorbitantly priced if it wasn't artificially protected from competition.
Reply
0
0
11-11-2016, 10:13 AM
#7350
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
^All day, e'ery day.
All I get from this is "I don't want to have a serious debate about the real world and would rather be in a classroom debating hypotheticals"
Joe explained it. Without the taxes, someone will go "****, I can lower my prices and make the same margin and hopefully gain market share."
Joe explained it. Without the taxes, someone will go "****, I can lower my prices and make the same margin and hopefully gain market share."
Reply
0
0
11-11-2016, 10:58 AM
#7356
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,814
Total Cats: 3,051
Regarding the idea that the wealthy support Trump, I offer this Forbes article:
Forbes Welcome
Class Warrior
Class has been a bigger factor in this election than in any election since the New Deal era. Trump’s insurgency rode largely on middle- and working-class fears about globalization, immigration and the cultural arrogance of the “progressive” cultural elite. This is something Bill Clinton understands better than his wife.
Trump owes his election to what one writer has called “the leftover people.” These may be “deplorables” to the pundits but their grievances are real – their incomes and their lifespans have been decreasing. They have noticed, as Thomas Frank has written, that the Democrats have gone “from being the party of Decatur to the party of Martha’s Vineyard.”
Many of these voters were once Democrats, and feel they have been betrayed. And they include a large swath of the middle class, whose fury explains much of what happened tonight. Trump has connected better with these voters than Romney, who won those making between $50,000 and $90,000 by a narrow 52 percent margin. Early analysis of this year’s election shows Trump doing better among these kind of voters.
At the same time, however, affluent voters — those making $100,000 and above — seem to have tilted over to the Democrats this year. This is the first time the “rich” have gone against the GOP since the 1964 Goldwater debacle. Obama did better among the wealthy, winning eight of the 10 richest counties in 2012. In virtually all these counties, Clinton did even better.
Class has been a bigger factor in this election than in any election since the New Deal era. Trump’s insurgency rode largely on middle- and working-class fears about globalization, immigration and the cultural arrogance of the “progressive” cultural elite. This is something Bill Clinton understands better than his wife.
Trump owes his election to what one writer has called “the leftover people.” These may be “deplorables” to the pundits but their grievances are real – their incomes and their lifespans have been decreasing. They have noticed, as Thomas Frank has written, that the Democrats have gone “from being the party of Decatur to the party of Martha’s Vineyard.”
Many of these voters were once Democrats, and feel they have been betrayed. And they include a large swath of the middle class, whose fury explains much of what happened tonight. Trump has connected better with these voters than Romney, who won those making between $50,000 and $90,000 by a narrow 52 percent margin. Early analysis of this year’s election shows Trump doing better among these kind of voters.
At the same time, however, affluent voters — those making $100,000 and above — seem to have tilted over to the Democrats this year. This is the first time the “rich” have gone against the GOP since the 1964 Goldwater debacle. Obama did better among the wealthy, winning eight of the 10 richest counties in 2012. In virtually all these counties, Clinton did even better.
Reply
0
0
11-11-2016, 10:59 AM
#7357
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,814
Total Cats: 3,051
Regarding the idea that the wealthy support Trump, I offer this Forbes article:
Forbes Welcome
Class Warrior
Class has been a bigger factor in this election than in any election since the New Deal era. Trump’s insurgency rode largely on middle- and working-class fears about globalization, immigration and the cultural arrogance of the “progressive” cultural elite. This is something Bill Clinton understands better than his wife.
Trump owes his election to what one writer has called “the leftover people.” These may be “deplorables” to the pundits but their grievances are real – their incomes and their lifespans have been decreasing. They have noticed, as Thomas Frank has written, that the Democrats have gone “from being the party of Decatur to the party of Martha’s Vineyard.”
Many of these voters were once Democrats, and feel they have been betrayed. And they include a large swath of the middle class, whose fury explains much of what happened tonight. Trump has connected better with these voters than Romney, who won those making between $50,000 and $90,000 by a narrow 52 percent margin. Early analysis of this year’s election shows Trump doing better among these kind of voters.
At the same time, however, affluent voters — those making $100,000 and above — seem to have tilted over to the Democrats this year. This is the first time the “rich” have gone against the GOP since the 1964 Goldwater debacle. Obama did better among the wealthy, winning eight of the 10 richest counties in 2012. In virtually all these counties, Clinton did even better.
Although himself a businessman, he was opposed overwhelmingly by his own class. Clinton won more support from big business and the business elite. If you had a billionaire primary, Clinton would have won by as much as 20 to 1. Initially many of those business interests closest to both Obama and Clinton — Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood — will be on the outside looking in. Their advantages from tax avoidance could be lessened. Merger-mania, yet another form of asset inflation, will continue unabated, particularly in the tech and media space.
Class has been a bigger factor in this election than in any election since the New Deal era. Trump’s insurgency rode largely on middle- and working-class fears about globalization, immigration and the cultural arrogance of the “progressive” cultural elite. This is something Bill Clinton understands better than his wife.
Trump owes his election to what one writer has called “the leftover people.” These may be “deplorables” to the pundits but their grievances are real – their incomes and their lifespans have been decreasing. They have noticed, as Thomas Frank has written, that the Democrats have gone “from being the party of Decatur to the party of Martha’s Vineyard.”
Many of these voters were once Democrats, and feel they have been betrayed. And they include a large swath of the middle class, whose fury explains much of what happened tonight. Trump has connected better with these voters than Romney, who won those making between $50,000 and $90,000 by a narrow 52 percent margin. Early analysis of this year’s election shows Trump doing better among these kind of voters.
At the same time, however, affluent voters — those making $100,000 and above — seem to have tilted over to the Democrats this year. This is the first time the “rich” have gone against the GOP since the 1964 Goldwater debacle. Obama did better among the wealthy, winning eight of the 10 richest counties in 2012. In virtually all these counties, Clinton did even better.
Although himself a businessman, he was opposed overwhelmingly by his own class. Clinton won more support from big business and the business elite. If you had a billionaire primary, Clinton would have won by as much as 20 to 1. Initially many of those business interests closest to both Obama and Clinton — Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood — will be on the outside looking in. Their advantages from tax avoidance could be lessened. Merger-mania, yet another form of asset inflation, will continue unabated, particularly in the tech and media space.
Reply
0
0
