Remix.run Logo
▲ bix6 5 hours ago

Yes there is and nobody does anything about it thanks republicans. Bring back Khan.

▲ihumanable 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I like this part of the article.

> On Wednesday, Hickman saw evidence that Urner Barry was taking in data that would lower prices — “pull the market down,” in the words of one executive — and goaded his erstwhile competitors to respond. “As a group,” the executive followed up, “we need to bid like they vote in Chicago, early and often.”

So while they were actively breaking the law, colluding to screw over the free market, they soothed themselves with jokes about non-existent voter fraud.

▲some_random 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Chicago has a long and well documented history of corruption and machine politics.

▲jasonmp85 an hour ago | parent [-]

[dead]

▲IcyWindows 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The article explains that the federal and state governments did do something about it.

▲collinmcnulty 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> “The reason, in this case, not to pursue litigation is that the conduct had already been resolved, right?” [U.S. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr.] went on, referencing the decline in egg prices.

They stopped this particular instance of it after the horse already left the barn and did nothing to dissuade future anticompetitive collusion.

▲njovin 4 hours ago | parent [-]

By this logic we shouldn't prosecute serial killers, just confront them with evidence to ensure they won't murder agin.

▲wussboy 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Why punish the murderer when they've already stopped?

▲miltonlost 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, the "something" the Trump adminstration landed on (with an investigation started by Biden's team) I think for OP wasn't enough. A small monetary settlement without jail time of the executives involved is hardly the "something" that needs to be done in order to curtail this behavior and stop it in the first place. When the people who committed a crime still gets to keep any amount of their stolen money, that, to me, is less than "something".

▲dboreham 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can buy your eggs from Costco which iirc has their own egg operation these days.

▲OptionOfT 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unsure about eggs, but they definitely have their own rotisserie chicken farm and plant.

Story goes that Tyson's chickens were becoming larger and larger and thus Tyson wanted more money.

Costco wants to keep the chicken at $5, so they starter their own plant.

▲SoftTalker 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, Tyson chickens are ridiculously large. Whether you are buying them as whole roasters or cut up, they're almost like a small turkey now.

▲dmoy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did they do something similar with the $1.5 hotdogs?

▲eej71 an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes, I think they replaced Hebrew National with their own house brand.

As you probably know the $1.5 hotdog is made possible in part by raising prices on the other menu items.

▲jimbokun 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

God bless Costco.

▲bix6 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This isn’t really true. Their eggs are purchased from others (same as other Kirkland branding) and the chicken op for rotisserie is only a fraction.

▲mcphage 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> You can buy your eggs from Costco

If you live near a Costco, you can. The one near me is opening in a week, and I can't wait.

▲richwater 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Bring back Khan.

So she can lose more lawsuits related to her anti-silicon valley obsession? I'd rather get someone who is actually objective and takes a holisitic look at every industry.

Her blinders kept her from focusing on truly monopolies and anti-trust behavior like cable and broadbrand providers, regional hospital systems, etc.

▲bix6 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because winning against the wealthiest people in the world is easy right?

I think you have blinders on because she challenged both those groups.

▲bryanlarsen 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you don't occasionally fail, you're not trying hard enough.

▲Zigurd 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The perfect is the enemy of the better. What we have now is sure not the better.

▲g8oz 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

She was quite active, which is more than we can be said about some of her predecessors. Also she was hated by the right people, that's always a good sign.

▲throwaway27448 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲mtswish 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Being a good economic governor is putting the right people in place and the Democrats seem fair more competent at it in the last 10 years.

▲miltonlost 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Based on your profile, your existence as a commenter is to both-sides issues where Republicans are clearly doing wrong things.

You say "lets not pretend" and then your only next sentence is refutation of that first statement. If Democrats are incompetent economic governers (whatever that phrase means), then they would have not put in a competent person like Khan in the first place.

▲simianwords 5 hours ago | parent [-]

democrats are hecking good guys who do regulation and republicans are evil and support capitalism

▲tkel 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Neither are "economic governors" . The whole shtick in the US is that industry is privately owned, not controlled by a democratically elected body.

▲tkel 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This isn't really something that could be addressed by regulation. It's a natural consequence of capitalism. It's in every industry.

http://concentrationcrisis.openmarketsinstitute.org/

▲tt24 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It's a natural consequence of capitalism. It's in every industry.

The link you posted doesn’t support this claim.

▲PaulHoule 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd put it this way.

An economist would say profits go to zero if markets are really free. Like if there were no barriers to entry and consumers chose purely on price firms would keep entering and would always be incentivized to lower prices to get the sale.

There are barriers that are natural, like "I already have a relationship with vendor A", or "I really enjoy brand B", "I'll have to invest a lot of money to start this business and I won't do it if it seems unlikely I'll make a profit", etc. Then there are barriers like "we have a patent on this technology", "we own a copyright on this movie", "we control the distribution channels", "we pass laws to get keep out competitors."

Business is all about finding ways to beat the economic constraints and ensure you get a profit!

The best case you can make for our system, in my mind, is that there is competition so that vendors have an incentive to provide good products and services at fair prices. Sure, there has to be enough profit to attract investment, but our system works better for all of us when regulation encourages competition.

▲bryanlarsen 4 hours ago | parent [-]

There are businesses that are highly profitable even in a commodity market. Profits go to zero on the marginal supplier in a perfect market. Any supplier who has a lower cost base than the marginal supplier is profitable.

The canonical example is oil. It costs about $3 to pull a barrel of oil from the ground and pipe it to port in the best oil fields of Saudi Arabia. OTOH, Canadian tar sands cost $50 to pull out of the ground and another $10+ to get to port. During normal times the natural price of oil is ~$60.

▲conorcleary 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Those numbers have gotta be old-distro prices

▲shlant 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's a natural consequence of capitalism

Adam smith was hostile towards monopolies (which your link refers to - nothing to do with price fixing although the conclusion is the same) and his critiques being very apparent throughout Wealth of Nations. This is a common opinion with proponents of free markets.

So what specifically about capitalism makes this a "natural consequence"?

▲tancop an hour ago | parent [-]

The main feature of capitalism is not free markets, it's capital. And capital accumulates leading to inequality that only ever gets bigger unless we actively take steps against it as a society. Being against monopolies doesn't help if you're not willing to actually punish them.

Free markets are great but to really work they need to come with competition enforcement (including total M&A bans in high risk industries), strong unions, support for worker ownership and a tax structure that rewards productive investment instead of executive payouts. Market socialism instead of capitalism.

▲boxed 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Regulation is literally there to compensate for these types of issues with unregulated capitalism. I don't see how you could draw the conclusion that the thing we've tried many times and that works a lot of the time can't work.

▲shlant 5 hours ago | parent [-]

if it's not perfect, it's useless or destructive is a pretty common perspective in left-wing groupthink. Some examples are how everyone to the right of a left winger is a republican/fascist/etc or that it's Medicare 4 All or nothing.

▲Zigurd 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I get who you're talking about, and I've encountered those tiresome people. The flavor of the week is that No Kings is a Disneyfied faux protest. This of course ignores the fact that large scale protest in the US attracts police beatings and widespread use of pain compliance techniques if it isn't presented as family friendly.

Avoiding those outcomes while attracting is steadily growing number of protesters, with the most recent attracting 8 to 9 million is in itself a huge accomplishment. Way too big to ignore and within reach of overwhelming numbers.

Which is to say you could've picked a better example than M4A. Holding that up as a minimum expectation is hardly radical.

▲shlant 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Which is to say you could've picked a better example than M4A. Holding that up as a minimum expectation is hardly radical.

I'm not commenting on whether it's radical, just that if they had the choice between something like the ACA and nothing, many in these groups would rather have nothing. In fact, many would argue (as they would against other things they consider "incrementalism") that anything less than their demands would actually be detrimental somehow. Very much in opposition to "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". This is exemplified in the whole M4A "force the vote" nonsense.

▲pessimizer 3 hours ago | parent [-]

ACA is garbage. It was created by the Heritage Foundation and started off being called Romneycare. It has worked terribly, and required what is an unconstitutional (in many opinions) fine for people who fail to be able to afford insurance.

The only reason anyone has any pleasant feelings about ACA is because a Medicaid expansion was passed at the same time. Of course I would prefer nothing. ACA stopped the momentum for M4A, as it was designed to do. Forcing the vote was a litmus test that Democrats purporting to understand this failed.

▲dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Didn't Trump get rid of said fine in his first term?

▲shlant 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I appreciate you stepping in to be the perfect example of the kind of thinking I'm talking about. People like you are the real enemy of progress and we are very thankful that you are so politically irrelevant.

▲nekusar 2 hours ago | parent [-]

And your style of thought processes is why the Overton Window is so extreme to conservative to the point of fascism.

I remember WHY the Heritage foundation put together their plan. It was cause Hillary Clinton dared, as first wife, put together a plan for single payer. Republicans howled at it nonstop with complaints of government death panels, and you guessed it, China.

That was also back when republican thinktanks actually put together plans. Terrible ones, sure, but actually had plans, rather than "concepts of a plan" (trumps own words).

Of course, Romney ran with it. It was, as you guessed it, terrible for Massachusetts. And surprise surprise, when the black guy speaks for it it turns into extreme hyper-communism... but it was really just garden variety racism by republicans. But now, we have for-profit insurance death panels.

And no, shlant, when your form of "compromise" entails in a one-way ratchet and your control is whether its slow or fast and not reverse, its not a compromise. Blow this shit up. Plenty of us are done with your idea of compromise oro 'reaching across the aisle' ala obama. It has never worked, since Reconstruction. Just gets worse and worse.

▲pessimizer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The flavor of the week is that No Kings is a Disneyfied faux protest.

It's strange to ignore all of the actual criticisms, such as that they are protests with absolutely no demands, and that they're arranged by Democratic Party insiders using spam farms. The reason they're called "No Kings" is because nobody knows what that's supposed to mean. It was consciously concocted as an alternative to fighting the "oligarchs" as Sanders constantly said, because Democrats support oligarchs.

> with the most recent attracting 8 to 9 million is in itself a huge accomplishment.

It's not. They're just faithful movement Democrats walking together in the street trying to figure out different ways to yell "fuck Trump." They're a mockery of protests, they're just extremely ineffective marketing.

They wouldn't be tiresome if they were easy to answer for you. Accusing people of just complaining about people and things not being "perfect" is a sign of somebody who doesn't even have a dishonest argument to make, so they're resorting to making no argument at all, and instead calling you a snob.

▲shlant 3 hours ago | parent [-]

this is not a serious rebuttal.

> they're arranged by Democratic Party insiders using spam farms

Ah yes, the tried and true "they are paid protestors" shtick. Yawn.

> The reason they're called "No Kings" is because nobody knows what that's supposed to mean.

It's very simple - Trump acts like a king, wielding his power however he wants while ignoring any checks and balances. People are very much against that for obvious reasons.

> because Democrats support oligarchs.

curious what your thoughts are on Elon Musk and DOGE

> trying to figure out different ways to yell "fuck Trump."

Yea there's no reason why anyone would have legitimate issues with Trump as a president.. He certainly doesn't provide new ones on a daily basis

▲nativeit 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Every socialist I’ve ever met has conceded that capitalism is a great mechanism for wealth generation. Just not for much else humans might value in their societies.

▲shlant 3 hours ago | parent [-]

wealth is pretty good at being a vehicle for other things humans value

▲ryoshoe 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yet despite that many residents in the wealthiest nations report increasing levels of unhappiness with the state of things. While there are other factors that play into this, it doesn't seem that wealth generation itself is a direct vehicle to the things people value / make them happy