Kamala Harris for Pres

[fishonjazz]

Donald called America a failed state (again) today. No one hates America more then Trump and MAGA.


View: https://x.com/atrupar/status/1824916958761951466?s=46


WTF? Oh and why is he throwing in that Hussein part? Anyone want to take a guess?


View: https://x.com/atrupar/status/1824913632473317596?s=46


I’m glad he’s focusing on what the forgotten blue collar working class slob wants, unlike college educated elites, like me:


View: https://x.com/acyn/status/1824920189575807270?s=46


He’s too old and incoherent. This is why your side is going to lose this fall. Donald can’t drive a message other than bitch about his personal grievances


View: https://x.com/atrupar/status/1824916615449751876?s=46

What an idiot.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[TheStormofWar]

I do. I also know what a coup looks like, as does the NY Times.

Opinion | The Dems Are Delighted. But a Coup Is Still a Coup.

After the bloodletting, Democrats are parading to their convention.

www.nytimes.com

LOL, The **** you do. A coup is defined, and I quote, "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group." An election in this country is far from violent when compared to how other countries do their thing. So unless you are somehow thinking Democrats are going to force everyone to vote for Kamala at gunpoint, please shut up about this "threat to democracy" ********.

Also, there is not a single person on this planet who takes the NY Times OpEd seriously anymore. They are on par with the National Enquirer, Daily World News, Epoch News ,and your mom's WordPress blog in terms of provocative intellectual thought. There's a reason why there are ExTwitter accounts dedicated to memeing the **** out of them.

 

[fishonjazz]

Pretty normal stuff this MAGA movement. Healthy political party. Definitely not racist, misogynistic, or authoritarian.

View attachment 17085
Opening prayer at Donald’s Klan rally tonight. Normal. Definitely not weird…

Who really wants to vote with this trash? If I looked around and saw these freaks and weirdos cheering on my candidate for president, I’d start second guessing things.


View: https://x.com/ronfilipkowski/status/1824990654239281185?s=46

That was a prayer? Lol. So weird that he couldn't follow the lines very well. I mean they are always the same. Leftist deep state extreme liberals. Put those words in any other and you have done well for trump and maga. No need to even read the lines that he was fumbling and stuttering over.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[str8line]

What an idiot.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

"We are a failed nation. And I think it's a beautiful phrase."

Trumptards love this man.

 

[fishonjazz]

This is such a lazy post, and posts like this is why the general discussion forum is unreadable for me.

1. Don't post authorless quotes filled with stats that don't site sources. Go and find some actual reliable information that is helpful to understanding the topic.

2. I'm trying to have a discussion, not an argument. Posting this feels like a "gotcha" which promotes arguments. I'm open to learning things I didn't know before, I can even change my stance on something, but copying and pasting this just makes me feel like you are not interested in anything more than proving your point with whatever you can quickly find online.

Forget for a second that you don't like how the information was provided and simply look at the information.
What are your opinions about it? Do you think it's good that a really small amount of companies control such a large amount of food? Do you think that makes it harder or easier for there to be competition for consumers to seek out? Do you think anyone should try to do anything about the lack of competition?

But here, I will provide a link and Even copy and paste from the link for ya.

Revealed: the true extent of America’s food monopolies, and who pays the price

Investigation shows scale of big food corporations’ market dominance and political power

www.theguardian.com

Consumer choice is largely an illusion – despite supermarket shelves and fridges brimming with different brands.

In fact, a few powerful transnational companies dominate every link of the food supply chain: from seeds and fertilizers to slaughterhouses and supermarkets to cereals and beers.

The size, power and profits of these mega companies have expanded thanks to political lobbying and weak regulation which enabled a wave of unchecked mergers and acquisitions. This matters because the size and influence of these mega-companies enables them to largely dictate what America’s 2 million farmers grow and how much they are paid, as well as what consumers eat and how much our groceries cost.

“It’s a system designed to funnel money into the hands of corporate shareholders and executives while exploiting farmers and workers and deceiving consumers about choice, abundance and efficiency,” said Amanda Starbuck, policy analyst at Food & Water Watch.

For instance, PepsiCo controls 88% of the dip market, as it owns five of the most popular brands including Tostitos, Lay’s and Fritos. Ninety-three per cent of the sodas we drink are owned by just three companies. The same goes for 73% of the breakfast cereals we eat – despite the shelves stacked with different boxes.


So now that you have been provided the information in a different way is ok for you to post your thoughts?


Tons of great information in article.

I know trump wants to get rid of regulation. Getting rid of regulations is what enabled a wave of unchecked mergers and acquisitions and helped create these monopolies.

I wish someone was trying to do something about this issue.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Do you think it's good that a really small amount of companies control such a large amount of food?

Your image showed clearly that each segment has a minimum of four major competitors and a bunch of minor ones. That *IS* competition. Each of those segments is competitive. There is no monopoly in any of those segments that controls the majority of their market segment.

Taking the example of Beef Processing, which was the top market segment on your image, per the US Department of Agriculture in 2020, this is the market capture of the top four competitors:



That is a very competitive market with a sizable opening for new upstarts, and that was considered the most captured market by your image. There are no monopolies in that market segment, nor even the threat of one developing imminently. Your image was effectively saying that if the top four competitors hypothetically merged into a single company then that would be a monopoly and therefore conveniently undefined "price gouging" is a thing happening now in the real world.

 

[fishonjazz]

I have advice for anyone who doesn't like Kamala or candidates like her.

Talk as much trash about trump as possible. Vote for other candidates in Republican primaries. Get rid of trump. That will greatly help prevent Kamala and candidates like her from winning elections.

Republicans, are you still confused by Harris' momentum? Blame Trump and MAGA.

Are you surprised by how well Vice President Kamala Harris is doing? You're probably trying to ignore how bad former President Donald Trump is.

www.yahoo.com

The election changed, the polls changed and Trump was left with Vance. But the choice of Vance is just a symptom of an issue that has plagued Trump for years: his overconfidence in his own handpicked candidates, and Republican willingness to just play along.

Now, as a result of Trump's cockiness, he has jeopardized both the election and his legacy ‒ and handed Democrats the momentum they're enjoying as the Democratic National Convention begins Monday. Trump continues to be his own worst enemy.

the biggest thing helping Democrats is that Trump is electoral poison.

Outside of his surprise victory in 2016, Trump has actively harmed the GOP electorally ever since he entered public office.

Trump and Vance have such poor electoral appeal that the extremely liberal Walz has done little to help Republicans. While Harris has her own issues as a presidential nominee, they are nothing compared with the baggage Trump brings to the election.

In reality, the best thing for Democrats is GOP incompetence and Trump's own ego. This has been true the whole time.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[LogGrad98]

More price control speak from Kamala. Snatch patents from pharmaceutical companies if they don’t play by her prices.


View: https://x.com/timrunshismouth/status/1824689470681100322?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ

Every developed nation besides us sets the price for pharmaceuticals in their countries. They do it by having single-payer healthcare so the pharmaceutical companies are forced to negotiate with the entire country, but that is IN ADDITION to setting regulations that cap prices for drugs on their countries. Hence, America infamously subsidizes their insane profits since here they don't have to negotiate with the entire block of patients, rather tiny groups by comparison in the multitude of insurance companies. And here bribery of elected officials is completely legal, so they keep regulation to a bare minimum. It's completely ****ed up. Kamala is talking about the right path, but the wrong methods. 1st, they need to establish similar regulations to other developed nations, like Germany, that force the price to stay low for life-savings drugs like the epipen among others. 2nd, we need single-payer healthcare so we can't negotiate the other prices for everyone in America at one time.

But instead the right will bitch about "mah rites" and "communism" and the left will fail to see the right methods and articulate them as such and nothing will change. Americans are such easily-herded sheep it isn't funny. Big business will continue to reap windfalls at the price of American lives and standards of living, and they'll do it by using the standard right wing dog whistles of "socialism" and "communism". All while the majority of Americans suffer. But hey, who cares about the lives of poor people as long as the billionaires are there to mop up the profits, amirite? The shift to plutocracy is in full swing, no doubt.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

here bribery of elected officials is completely legal, so they keep regulation to a bare minimum.

You believe bribery of elected officials is completely legal, not partly legal, not easily concealed, but completely legal, and you believe healthcare in the United States has a bare minimum of regulation. I believe it is sad that your vote counts a much as mine does.

 

[fishonjazz]

Every developed nation besides us sets the price for pharmaceuticals in their countries. They do it by having single-payer healthcare so the pharmaceutical companies are forced to negotiate with the entire country, but that is IN ADDITION to setting regulations that cap prices for drugs on their countries. Hence, America infamously subsidizes their insane profits since here they don't have to negotiate with the entire block of patients, rather tiny groups by comparison in the multitude of insurance companies. And here bribery of elected officials is completely legal, so they keep regulation to a bare minimum. It's completely ****ed up. Kamala is talking about the right path, but the wrong methods. 1st, they need to establish similar regulations to other developed nations, like Germany, that force the price to stay low for life-savings drugs like the epipen among others. 2nd, we need single-payer healthcare so we can't negotiate the other prices for everyone in America at one time.

But instead the right will bitch about "mah rites" and "communism" and the left will fail to see the right methods and articulate them as such and nothing will change. Americans are such easily-herded sheep it isn't funny. Big business will continue to reap windfalls at the price of American lives and standards of living, and they'll do it by using the standard right wing dog whistles of "socialism" and "communism". All while the majority of Americans suffer. But hey, who cares about the lives of poor people as long as the billionaires are there to mop up the profits, amirite? The shift to plutocracy is in full swing, no doubt.

Ya I, like Kamala, see a problem with pharmaceutical companies getting a period of market exclusivity, when competition is legally restricted. I think big pharma is bad.

Good news for those that disagree is that Kamala, like trump, is just saying stuff prior to an election. I'm sure big pharma will pay enough folks in Congress and we won't see any of these scary changes to our current horrible system. Our medical and healthcare industry will remain worse than the rest of the world. So don't be scared about Kamala trying to improve our healthcare. She won't be able to. Yay!

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Forget for a second that you don't like how the information was provided and simply look at the information.
What are your opinions about it? Do you think it's good that a really small amount of companies control such a large amount of food? Do you think that makes it harder or easier for there to be competition for consumers to seek out? Do you think anyone should try to do anything about the lack of competition?

But here, I will provide a link and Even copy and paste from the link for ya.

Revealed: the true extent of America’s food monopolies, and who pays the price

Investigation shows scale of big food corporations’ market dominance and political power

www.theguardian.com

Consumer choice is largely an illusion – despite supermarket shelves and fridges brimming with different brands.

In fact, a few powerful transnational companies dominate every link of the food supply chain: from seeds and fertilizers to slaughterhouses and supermarkets to cereals and beers.

The size, power and profits of these mega companies have expanded thanks to political lobbying and weak regulation which enabled a wave of unchecked mergers and acquisitions. This matters because the size and influence of these mega-companies enables them to largely dictate what America’s 2 million farmers grow and how much they are paid, as well as what consumers eat and how much our groceries cost.

“It’s a system designed to funnel money into the hands of corporate shareholders and executives while exploiting farmers and workers and deceiving consumers about choice, abundance and efficiency,” said Amanda Starbuck, policy analyst at Food & Water Watch.

For instance, PepsiCo controls 88% of the dip market, as it owns five of the most popular brands including Tostitos, Lay’s and Fritos. Ninety-three per cent of the sodas we drink are owned by just three companies. The same goes for 73% of the breakfast cereals we eat – despite the shelves stacked with different boxes.


So now that you have been provided the information in a different way is ok for you to post your thoughts?


Tons of great information in article.

I know trump wants to get rid of regulation. Getting rid of regulations is what enabled a wave of unchecked mergers and acquisitions and helped create these monopolies.

I wish someone was trying to do something about this issue.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Thanks for posting the link. I'll check it out later when I have time, although from just what you've posted I have some BS alarms going on in my head. First of all as Al already pointed out these aren't monopolies.

A lot of the food industry, including some of the examples from your post are commodities, which almost by definition means they are priced based on supply and demand. Some of the other things, like corn and feed, are already managed by the government through subsidies and other programs. Most of the commodities, like meat, are tied in to a global market where it gets more complex. The US is one of the main exporters of meat for example, so as global economies add more meat to their diets and demand increases, our prices will go up. With commodities it's actually probably more beneficial to consumers to have major market share companies so that they can provide economies of scale.

The premise that large food Companies equal price gouging is a huge leap. It would be more convincing if they showed how these large food companies have unreasonable margins. Most of these companies have publicly available financial information, so why didn't they go there? Because they can't. Margins on food are way lower than other industries.

Here's an example of why I don't equate large market share to price gouging. Dean foods is a dairy company that owns the majority of fluid dairy sold in the US. They own something like 70% of the fluid dairy industry. A couple of years ago they declared bankruptcy because the demand for dairy went way down which no longer justified all of their assets. Dean foods should have increased prices with such a large market share to offset losses from asset underutilization, but they couldn't because the milk prices were set based on the market. Then on top of that Walmart builds their own milk processing plants and all of a sudden they go bankrupt.

 

[Safetydan]

Patents for pharmaceutical products, AKA life-saving drugs, are anti-consumer. If you develop a revolutionary new drug, you get the F2M advantage which is incentive enough. The idea that allowing companies to just charge as much as they want as long as their patent is in place is insane to me.

And AI-o-Meter is over here saying it's the same as seizing a whole damn factory. Ok buddy. You can chill with the red-scare BS.

We've talked about price controls for like a couple pages at least. I watched the speech and I couldn't find where she's proposing to set prices for the market, can somebody show it to me? It's a proposed law to make "price gouging" Illegal. I don't think that term has a set definition and we don't have specifics on how it would be able to implemented if it passed through congress at all.

In practice, it could be something like going after companies who are using "market conditions" or other emergencies to arbitrarily raise prices excessively above and beyond their increase in costs.

You don't need a monopoly to create a scenario where prices can do this. You only need an oligopoly which is what we have. Through price leadership, a few big companies can "collude" without directly colluding to set prices as high as they can get away with.

 

[Safetydan]

Thanks for posting the link. I'll check it out later when I have time, although from just what you've posted I have some BS alarms going on in my head. First of all as Al already pointed out these aren't monopolies.

A lot of the food industry, including some of the examples from your post are commodities, which almost by definition means they are priced based on supply and demand. Some of the other things, like corn and feed, are already managed by the government through subsidies and other programs. Most of the commodities, like meat, are tied in to a global market where it gets more complex. The US is one of the main exporters of meat for example, so as global economies add more meat to their diets and demand increases, our prices will go up. With commodities it's actually probably more beneficial to consumers to have major market share companies so that they can provide economies of scale.

Economy of scale is good for efficiency. Why not have one company just do everything then, and it'll be democratically controlled so they can't screw us over. We'll call it the US government.

The premise that large food Companies equal price gouging is a huge leap. It would be more convincing if they showed how these large food companies have unreasonable margins. Most of these companies have publicly available financial information, so why didn't they go there? Because they can't. Margins on food are way lower than other industries.

Once again, an Oligopoly is more than enough to engage in anti-consumer, non-competitive price leadership. You think supply and demand are setting the prices in this scenario? If you wanted somebody to set the price would you rather have the government do it or the profit-motive?

Here's an example of why I don't equate large market share to price gouging. Dean foods is a dairy company that owns the majority of fluid dairy sold in the US. They own something like 70% of the fluid dairy industry. A couple of years ago they declared bankruptcy because the demand for dairy went way down which no longer justified all of their assets. Dean foods should have increased prices with such a large market share to offset losses from asset underutilization, but they couldn't because the milk prices were set based on the market. Then on top of that Walmart builds their own milk processing plants and all of a sudden they go bankrupt.

Damn, that sucks for them bro. I'm not sure what it has to do with price-gouging. Sounds like they made bad business decisions and deserved to fail.

 

[fishonjazz]

You don't need a monopoly to create a scenario where prices can do this. You only need an oligopoly which is what we have. Through price leadership, a few big companies can "collude" without directly colluding to set prices as high as they can get away with.

This.


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

To use a sports related metaphor, it sounds like some people think they would prefer sports leagues to only have 4 teams allowed to win the championship and then they would label that as a league with great parity. It's not just one team allowed to win, there are 4!

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Patents for pharmaceutical products, AKA life-saving drugs, are anti-consumer. If you develop a revolutionary new drug, you get the F2M advantage which is incentive enough. The idea that allowing companies to just charge as much as they want as long as their patent is in place is insane to me.

And AI-o-Meter is over here saying it's the same as seizing a whole damn factory.

Yes. It is exactly the same. Patents are a property. They can be sold. They can be licensed. They can be utilized to bring product to market. A new small-molecule pharmaceutical costs over a billion dollars in R&D, testing, and initial production set-up to bring to market. Your moral blather is no different from saying a billion dollar drug production facility, upon producing life-saving drugs, becomes the property of everyone. The land, the buildings, the equipment, all of it becomes open for anyone's use. If you did that, no one would ever build a life-saving drug production facility.

One of the single most important jobs of government, any government, is to enforce property rights.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

To use a sports related metaphor, it sounds like some people think they would prefer sports leagues to only have 4 teams allowed to win the championship and then they would label that as a league with great parity. It's not just one team allowed to win, there are 4!

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

I don't understand how how this metaphor is relevant? Could you please explain, because it sounds like you aren't really understanding what's going on.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Economy of scale is good for efficiency. Why not have one company just do everything then, and it'll be democratically controlled so they can't screw us over. We'll call it the US government.



Once again, an Oligopoly is more than enough to engage in anti-consumer, non-competitive price leadership. You think supply and demand are setting the prices in this scenario? If you wanted somebody to set the price would you rather have the government do it or the profit-motive?



Damn, that sucks for them bro. I'm not sure what it has to do with price-gouging. Sounds like they made bad business decisions and deserved to fail.

Do you know what a commodity is? It seems like people aren't quite grasping that part of this.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Our medical and healthcare industry will remain worse than the rest of the world.

Just checking, but you do know our "worse than the rest of the world" medical and healthcare industry invents nearly every new drug, medical device, and procedure used throughout the world, right?

 

[Safetydan]

Yes. It is exactly the same. Patents are a property. They can be sold. They can be licensed. They can be utilized to bring product to market. A new small-molecule pharmaceutical costs over a billion dollars in R&D, testing, and initial production set-up to bring to market. Your moral blather is no different from saying a billion dollar drug production facility, upon producing life-saving drugs, becomes the property of everyone. The land, the buildings, the equipment, all of it becomes open for anyone's use. If you did that, no one would ever build a life-saving drug production facility.

One of the single most important jobs of government, any government, is to enforce property rights.

Sure patents are considered to be an asset on the books and are given value. It's fairly obvious to me that a distinction can be made between that and the means to produce. Patents are only valuable inasmuch as they prevent others from producing the same.

Overall, I don't think they're good and we can do without them. This isn't a moral argument, it's an economic one. If companies can't produce and survive without patents to protect them, they don't deserve to exist. We can incentivize R&D investment through other means if necessary.