Three businessmen are in prison, discussing why they're there. The first says, "I raised my prices, so I was charged with price gouging." Next guy says "They told me my prices were too low, I'm in for predatory pricing." Last guy says "I was charging the same price as everyone else. I'm in for collusion."
So, you're telling me that the SF housing left NIMBY take on housing (ala "no more market rate baby formula, only affordable baby formula allowed") isn't the solution to getting more baby formula?
Jeez, I used to do takes like that as parody. But I shouldn't be surprised.
I'm glad to finally see someone besides me point out that "companies suddenly became greedy in late 2021" makes absolutely no sense from any sort of historical perspective!
What the hell happened to Elizabeth Warren? She’s obviously a smart person, but this bill was just completely ludicrous.
I’m glad people are pushing back so hard against this; the experience of 2021 has taught me that pointless messaging bills have a tendency to get thrown into the Break In Case Of Majority Democratic grab back of unrelated policies if not actively opposed. This idea should spend few more decades getting refined/reimagined.
As someone who voted for Warren in California's 2020 primary, I wince every time I see her or read about her now. What happened? Is she the inverse of people's parents/grandparents that lose touch with reality by marinating in Fox News, only for her it's Twitter or being surrounded by activists?
I gave up on trying to find nuggets of gold in the logorrhea of Moldbug back during the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. His objection to her was just racism in the most boring possible way. And then Kagan was nominated, and he said nothing about her, despite her being more of an Obama crony than Sotomayor. He’s really just a racist who can type quickly.
Perhaps the worst thing Matt has ever done in a Slow Boring post is to provide a link to an article by this Curtis Yarvin fellow and one of the worst things I've ever done is to click on it.
This is . . . thinking? This is argument? I should have stopped reading after a while, but it had a passing by a highway accident fascination. It reminded me mostly of those very satisfied with themselves professors (mostly liberal, actually) that I had in grad school who understood the universe in its entirety and if you couldn't grok their profound profundity, then obviously you weren't a member of the Elect.
But, sheesh Curtis, was it really necessary when making some impenetrable point about the Constitution to throw off that weird "Hier ist kein warum" riff? You know (without explaining it to your readers) the thing that the brutal SS guard said to Primo Levi in his first moments at Auschwitz: "Here there is no why"? Yeah, that's the ticket.
And *this* is one of the best thinkers on the new populist right?
Years ago when I was working at a high end department store, I had a customer who was absolutely outraged that our store did not sell expensive clothes at cost. “I’m really upset you’re making money off of me,” is a direct quote. The isdea that things are more expensive than you want them to be becaue someone is too greedy is a very tempting explanation. It’s even more appealing when you’re talking about essential items.
Wouldn’t it also help to appoint a few credible inflation hawks to prominent positions? Personnel is policy and the administration needs to make its inclinations clear both internally and externally.
Not every product or service that has raised their prices has had choke points or demand increases. Surely at least some of the increases are occurring because in a high inflation environment there’s more room than normal for a company to increase prices without backlash. Greed is at least a partial factor given the record profits companies are making
Isn’t the point of all of this that this is the message that polls the best for dems? It’s weird coming out of the whole popularism debate to suddenly make a stink about democrats popular framing of why prices are going up—especially since Matt alludes to the argument when mentioning baby formula that it’s better if some necessities are rationed by time and nuisance factor than price.
It also seems like more shadow inflation and less real inflation is better long term to avoid inflation spirals.
Is this messaging bill that won’t pass the best policy? No? But it’s Dems best framing, and it’s wrong in ways that I don’t think risk a lot of backlash. As far as Dems messaging the wrong thing for political reasons, this seems fine.
I lack understanding of basic economics. But I should be able to get this point.
Demand for tables goes up - table maker hires more people, buys more materials (at higher prices), tries to meet higher demand. Wouldn’t profits generally remain fairly constant as a percentage of increased revenue, if all you are doing is adjusting your expenses to circumstances? Why do profits go up so much?
Greedflation is fake
Three businessmen are in prison, discussing why they're there. The first says, "I raised my prices, so I was charged with price gouging." Next guy says "They told me my prices were too low, I'm in for predatory pricing." Last guy says "I was charging the same price as everyone else. I'm in for collusion."
So, you're telling me that the SF housing left NIMBY take on housing (ala "no more market rate baby formula, only affordable baby formula allowed") isn't the solution to getting more baby formula?
Jeez, I used to do takes like that as parody. But I shouldn't be surprised.
You gotta start sending that email out earlier than Noah Smith...
I'm glad to finally see someone besides me point out that "companies suddenly became greedy in late 2021" makes absolutely no sense from any sort of historical perspective!
What the hell happened to Elizabeth Warren? She’s obviously a smart person, but this bill was just completely ludicrous.
I’m glad people are pushing back so hard against this; the experience of 2021 has taught me that pointless messaging bills have a tendency to get thrown into the Break In Case Of Majority Democratic grab back of unrelated policies if not actively opposed. This idea should spend few more decades getting refined/reimagined.
As someone who voted for Warren in California's 2020 primary, I wince every time I see her or read about her now. What happened? Is she the inverse of people's parents/grandparents that lose touch with reality by marinating in Fox News, only for her it's Twitter or being surrounded by activists?
I gave up on trying to find nuggets of gold in the logorrhea of Moldbug back during the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. His objection to her was just racism in the most boring possible way. And then Kagan was nominated, and he said nothing about her, despite her being more of an Obama crony than Sotomayor. He’s really just a racist who can type quickly.
Perhaps the worst thing Matt has ever done in a Slow Boring post is to provide a link to an article by this Curtis Yarvin fellow and one of the worst things I've ever done is to click on it.
This is . . . thinking? This is argument? I should have stopped reading after a while, but it had a passing by a highway accident fascination. It reminded me mostly of those very satisfied with themselves professors (mostly liberal, actually) that I had in grad school who understood the universe in its entirety and if you couldn't grok their profound profundity, then obviously you weren't a member of the Elect.
But, sheesh Curtis, was it really necessary when making some impenetrable point about the Constitution to throw off that weird "Hier ist kein warum" riff? You know (without explaining it to your readers) the thing that the brutal SS guard said to Primo Levi in his first moments at Auschwitz: "Here there is no why"? Yeah, that's the ticket.
And *this* is one of the best thinkers on the new populist right?
Lol'ed at the anecdote about your two grandfathers. It somehow had a very Classic Simpsons vibe to it.
Years ago when I was working at a high end department store, I had a customer who was absolutely outraged that our store did not sell expensive clothes at cost. “I’m really upset you’re making money off of me,” is a direct quote. The isdea that things are more expensive than you want them to be becaue someone is too greedy is a very tempting explanation. It’s even more appealing when you’re talking about essential items.
It feels like there's a good case for getting back into the TPP about now. Helps address inflation, helps contain China, etc.
We all need WIN cards from the Ford era.
Punch it if you car pooled.
Punch it if you went to zoning board and said, "Yimby."
Punch it if you put more into savings.
etc.
Wouldn’t it also help to appoint a few credible inflation hawks to prominent positions? Personnel is policy and the administration needs to make its inclinations clear both internally and externally.
Not every product or service that has raised their prices has had choke points or demand increases. Surely at least some of the increases are occurring because in a high inflation environment there’s more room than normal for a company to increase prices without backlash. Greed is at least a partial factor given the record profits companies are making
Isn’t the point of all of this that this is the message that polls the best for dems? It’s weird coming out of the whole popularism debate to suddenly make a stink about democrats popular framing of why prices are going up—especially since Matt alludes to the argument when mentioning baby formula that it’s better if some necessities are rationed by time and nuisance factor than price.
It also seems like more shadow inflation and less real inflation is better long term to avoid inflation spirals.
Is this messaging bill that won’t pass the best policy? No? But it’s Dems best framing, and it’s wrong in ways that I don’t think risk a lot of backlash. As far as Dems messaging the wrong thing for political reasons, this seems fine.
I lack understanding of basic economics. But I should be able to get this point.
Demand for tables goes up - table maker hires more people, buys more materials (at higher prices), tries to meet higher demand. Wouldn’t profits generally remain fairly constant as a percentage of increased revenue, if all you are doing is adjusting your expenses to circumstances? Why do profits go up so much?