SilasX t1_jcyrrta wrote

What changed in terms of cartelization. "The pandemic is what changed" is consistent with the (more probable) supply shock explanation. Again, why not do it in e.g. 2009 when they could have "obfuscated" it with swine flu?

Again, they're always greedy. Why isn't competition restraining it this time?


SilasX t1_jcy6i66 wrote

I don't like appealing to "want to increase profits" as an explanation for price increases. They are always wanting to increase their profits, so it doesn't help explain any particular price surge.

Generally what stops arbitrary price increases is the fact that it draws competitors into the market. So if you see them succeeding in increasing profits, it's because said competitors can't or won't, and if they can't, then that's rightly called a legit supply shock.

Now, if there were actual cartel schemes to hold supply down (the "won't" branch), that would be a valid explanation for malevolent price increases, but even then, that mechanism should be what you're appealing to, not "lol greed".

Edit: Economically ignorant people in this thread, don't bother.


SilasX t1_jb5hjfz wrote

Agreed, law enforcement in the US likes to light up patrol cars like a goddamn Christmas tree [1]"for officer safety", but really they just create a massive distraction that increases the risk of collision or unnecessary slowdown.

[1] Even that's understating it, their lights are brighter than most xmas trees I've seen, even the lavish public ones.


SilasX t1_jaihcaw wrote

“Don’t you sheep realize that Big Ag has been on a century-long campaign to convince Americans there’s nothing wrong with heavy consumption of sugars?!?”

‘Cookie Monster, you’re not you when you’re hungry. Have a snickers.’

“C is for cookie and that’s good enough for me!”


SilasX t1_jadt21i wrote

>Wiktionary probably isn’t the most useful source of information here.

Okay but neither was the original parent.

From their link:

>Bailiffs are allowed to force their way into your home to collect unpaid criminal fines, Income Tax or Stamp Duty, but only as a last resort.

> If you do not let a bailiff in or agree to pay them:

> - they could take things from outside your home, for example your car > - you could end up owing even more money

That sounds like law enforcement powers.

It sounds like the difference is:

> If they are presenting themselves as police officers then it is very much to their advantage to do so, as people are much more likely to let them into their home, and generally to do what they’re told.

Which would have been nice to be told in the original comment so I couldn't figure out what subtlety distinguishes bailiffs from police officers.


SilasX t1_jadplzi wrote

Okay, sorry, I'm still lost here (USA), even after reading those links and the articles. From wiktionary, the UK meanings of bailiffs still show that they have law enforcement powers.

I don't understand what would make them more scary if perceived as "police officers" and what rights they could falsely dupe someone into believing, as police officers, that they would not be able to if correctly perceived as bailiffs.

Can you explain that part?

Edit: Like, from me, this reads as, "Drug Enforcement Agency agents impersonating FBI agents to confiscate drugs." Like, what? The agents have the same powers, and they'd be able to seize drugs as DEA already.