posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Your point being?They are index funds, they just track an index and sell that as an ETF.
Your point being?They are index funds, they just track an index and sell that as an ETF.
Right, there's absolutely no chance those companies exert any influence whatsoever, that'd be crazy, just like there's no such thing as a car cartel at all and they certainly don't form an oligopoly, which I'll note the usual suspects have claimed upthread as facts in support of nonsensical beliefs. Do you also think the WEF isn't influencing anything in any way or applying undue power either?They are index funds, they just track an index and sell that as an ETF.
It's the standard fallback position of people who are driven by ideology instead of facts:Your point being?
... I never said they wouldn't (they obviously have). I did say that there's an incentive to cheat on cartels (there is, and there's a long history of people doing so. The customer is still screwed, just less so). I'm also fine with laws against this, as I have said repeatedly. I did point out a problem in the example you gave me, but then you gave me more evidence, of the sort that isn't vulnerable to the objection I made. But overall, yeah, good point.True Communism has never been tried and companies would never engage in anti-competitive behavior and give consumers perfect information to judge with if it weren't for those dastardly government regulations.
That is not how it works.Heck, a US street legal automoble designed for premium unleaded (93+ octane) can be fed regular (87 octane) in a pinch.
It'll bitch because it's running very lean and just lost a lot of power. It'll also get you to your destinanton, environmental regulations be damned.
I can live with car companies having two brands. Usually one is the luxury brand. GM and Volkswagen however need to be broken up. Probably FCA as wellWow. You never cease finding some way to nitpick exact words or quibble about minor details instead of addressing the argument.
Nine Automobile Parts Manufacturers and Two Executives Agree to Plead Guilty to Fixing Prices on Automobile Parts Sold to U.S. Car Manufacturers and Installed in U.S. Cars
Nine Japan-based companies and two executives have agreed to plead guilty and to pay a total of more than $740 million in criminal fines for their roles in separate conspiracies to fix the prices of more than 30 different products sold to U.S. car manufacturers and installed in cars sold in the...www.justice.gov
Cartel Fined For Price-Fixing Volkswagen Cars
The seven cartel members had fixed the prices of new Volkswagen cars for years Keystone / Filip Singer </span> A group of Volkswagen dealers in smenafn.com
Car buyers could get compensation after claims of price fixing by shipping companies | Auto Express
Class-action lawsuit claims dealers and buyers were overcharged due to price-fixing cartel of five car-shipping companieswww.autoexpress.co.uk
VW's truckmaker Scania fined 880 mln euros for price fixing
Swedish truckmaker Scania was hit with an 880 million euro ($1 billion) fine by the EU on Wednesday for taking part in a 14-year price fixing cartel, boosting the total fine for the firms involved to a record 3.8 billion euros.www.reuters.com
Yes, they cooperated to cheat customers by price fixing as well. That should really go without saying, the notion that a cartel is going to cooperate to defraud the government and lie to customers for decades while scrupulously protecting prices and the free market is wishful thinking on an unbelievable scale. I cannot imagine the kind of logical leap and ideological blinders required to think that would be the case.
Cartels never behave the way you're suggesting. They have no incentive to cheat and every incentive to cooperate. And they came up with a logical counter to the antiquated idea that they will cheat each other a long time ago. They own each other.
But that infographic is only the tip of the iceberg. Ford and GM aren't shown as connected, f'rex. And on paper, they aren't.
Who owns Ford?
Ford Motor Co Stock Ownership - Who Owns Ford Motor Co in 2024? | WallStreetZen
www.wallstreetzen.com
Who owns General Motors?
General Motors Co Stock Ownership - Who Owns General Motors Co in 2024? | WallStreetZen
www.wallstreetzen.com
Holy smokes, the lists are nearly identical. There's some variation to be sure but the number of names on both lists is huge and they thus have a powerful incentive to cooperate because even beyond that infographic, the big companies at the top of the pyramid are mostly owned by the same people.
If they want to have multiple brands they should disclose who owns both.I can live with car companies having two brands. Usually one is the luxury brand. GM and Volkswagen however need to be broken up. Probably FCA as well
Yes, but this was specifically an example he brought up. That its ok to sell lead paint so long as it is honestly labeled so that it is entirely on the head of the buyer how he uses it.The use of asbestos in the US was completely banned 33yrs and 2days ago. Lead paint was banned the year I was born: 1978
If you come across either you're having a bad day.
A higher octane rating means that the gasoline is harder to ignite and allows for higher compression ratios. If it ignites before its supposed to you've got detonations instead of smooth combustion. That's what you're describing and those will quickly rip a piston engine to shreds from the inside.That is not how it works.
Higher octaine means it has additives that prevents it from spontanously igniting due to pressure (incidentally pressure ignition is how diesel engines work by design, which is cool).
This higher pressure tolerance allows for an engine that operates at higher pressure, thus getting higher horsepower. It is for muscle cars mostly. Although supposedly it can also be done to reduce emissions in a price inefficient manner (pay a lot more to save a small amount of emissions)
If you fuel your car with an octane below what it needs, then instead of fully compressing the cylinder and then igniting via a spark plug, the partially compressed cylinder will pressure ignite the air-fuel mixture. Each time this happen you introduce significant wear and tear unto your engine. Drastically shortening its lifespan
My point being that they are investment vehicles that charge a very small percentage to enable average people to buy the whole index without having to go out and buy it themselves.Your point being?
You do own it. You own an effectively slightly damaged car that you knew was going to be slightly damaged. There's also an optional way to fix it. I'm not seeing the problem here.
Yeah, and when this happens, I'll be very against it. Because that will be the bad thing, not this (although I don't like it, it doesn't outrage me).
The whole point of this was just an example of complicated property rights. I mean, there's also that in some states, when you buy property, you don't own the mineral rights to it, which are sold separately. So even if you buy a house, another person might have the right to build an oil rig on your land, and a road to get there. Or even open a mine on your property. They can't mess with your house, but if you have enough land, they can build a lot on it.
Other times, people own a right to travel over specific land that isn't theirs (there's a name for this I'm forgetting). But this is especially useful if you own land surrounded by private property you don't own.
Crossing state lines is probably why those of us in the peanut gallery even know about this case. Indiana ain't abortion friendly.Except she could get the abortion in Ohio due to it being rape and the victim being a minor, AFAIK.
Going across states lines for this abortion was more about trying to hide the ID of the rapist, as said rapist was likely the mother's BF, while acting like it was about Ohio's laws.
In other words, you're arguing that instead of treating the symptoms, we should focus entirely on curing the disease. Now, you won't see me argue that we shouldn't try to cure it, but that's easier said than done; and in the meantime, those symptoms aren't going to go away on their own. We should be doing both; but right now we're doing neither, and it's only a matter of time until our immune systems (i.e. people rejecting their scams; which, despite your insistence to the contrary, selling a subscription to a physical good you've already paid for is) fail to keep the disease at bay.Still, I don't see the problem with the $18/month. If they are colluding, that's the problem. Stopping the $18/month won't actually address the core issue, but instead be a permanent bandaid on a temporary injury. Or, if they miraculously aren't colluding, then the $18/month is also fine. Investigate to look for price fixing.
It would absolutely be a scam, if they didn't tell you about it straight up. But they did. It was bought with full knowledge of what was wrong with it, so it's not a scam. A scam implies lying. The buyer consented to this with full knowledge. Who are you and I to nanny state over the consumer, and tell him he's being scammed, and he's not allowed to spend his money on this car?Of course, you don't. It is only wrong when the government does it, and not daddy big business. They are selling you a damaged product that requires you to pay them constantly to keep it maintained...that sounds like a scam to me.
Just because a bad person wants X doesn't necessarily make X bad. Kneejerk reactions like this are a problem, as they lead to bad places. Remember, every law enacted will have a bad consequence. Guaranteed. There's simply no such thing as a free lunch.But, it is a bad thing. It is another step towards what the WEF want, us owning nothing and being "happy".
No. those aren't 'limited rights'. Those are property rights that one party signed over to the other party. No ones rights have been limited by some third party such as the 'greater good', 'civilization' or 'precedent'. One party sold/leased some of their rights to another party for money. That's straight up property rights.Yes, and that is because there are hundreds if not thousands of years of law and tradition- precedent if you will that limit your rights.
It's not a limitation on a right though, it's actually a property right in and of itself. It's a right to use land that you do not own.Easement. And that is a different kettle of fish. It is one of those rights/limitations of rights that evolved over the course of civilization, because it was needed/socially conducive. Forcing people to pay to use their own property is neither needed nor it is socially conducive. It is just plain greed, and greed according to most moral teachers is not a good.
This isn't even a symptom though. Or, more accurately, there's no evidence of collusion on this point, so there's no evidence it's a symptom of something. I'm all for punishing the guilty, but I need to know they are guilty first, and have hard evidence for it.In other words, you're arguing that instead of treating the symptoms, we should focus entirely on curing the disease. Now, you won't see me argue that we shouldn't try to cure it, but that's easier said than done; and in the meantime, those symptoms aren't going to go away on their own. We should be doing both; but right now we're doing neither, and it's only a matter of time until our immune systems (i.e. people rejecting their scams; which, despite your insistence to the contrary, selling a subscription to a physical good you've already paid for is) fail to keep the disease at bay.
It simply isn't. Again, a scam implies lying. There were no lies. It's just a shit product, and people are allowed to sell shit products, and the free (ish) US market dealt with the shit problem and forced the company to give up here. I don't see the issue, I don't see a scam.i.e. people rejecting their scams; which, despite your insistence to the contrary, selling a subscription to a physical good you've already paid for is
I'm iffy on patents even existing, but I can see the argument for them, as there is something to be said for ownership of an original idea. But patent trolls usually don't have original ideas, and there's almost always prior art to handle them. I think there should have to be a stronger showing in order to be awarded a patent.
Wierd thing about patents: when applying for one you have to explain exactly what you did so that the patent office can confirm that it's an original idea.I'm iffy on patents even existing, but I can see the argument for them, as there is something to be said for ownership of an original idea.
So I want to parse what you just said. Are you admitting you made an objection you knew was false at the time just because you could? Or did you genuinely believe that a cartel that was shown to be lying to customers in the first set of citations was not colluding against and scamming customers in the process of lying to them?... I never said they wouldn't (they obviously have).
snip
I did point out a problem in the example you gave me, but then you gave me more evidence, of the sort that isn't vulnerable to the objection I made. But overall, yeah, good point.
What you consider standards of evidence are bats, especially since you never post citations or proof for any of your claims and make everybody else do all the work. In this very thread, you've gone from "They're not an oligopoly" to "They're not a colluding Cartel" to "They're only colluding about government and lying to customers, but aren't proven to collude against consumers about prices" to "You can't prove they're specifically colluding on this exact issue." Presumably, you'll eventually move to "You can't prove 100% of all car companies are colluding on this exact issue right at this specific second" or some such. Your standards demand 100% omniscient knowledge including foreknowledge before you'll accept anything.This isn't even a symptom though. Or, more accurately, there's no evidence of collusion on this point, so there's no evidence it's a symptom of something. I'm all for punishing the guilty, but I need to know they are guilty first, and have hard evidence for it.
Patents and copyright IMHO should be a thing, but they should be short duration, like at most 15 - 20 years.Do you believe patent trolling should be legal?
The whole idea of passive index investing is that it is a simple way to buy up the whole market, index funds interfering with the operations of the companies they own is IMHO even worse than institutionalized stock picking dome on the basis of technical analysis.... I never said they wouldn't (they obviously have). I did say that there's an incentive to cheat on cartels (there is, and there's a long history of people doing so. The customer is still screwed, just less so). I'm also fine with laws against this, as I have said repeatedly. I did point out a problem in the example you gave me, but then you gave me more evidence, of the sort that isn't vulnerable to the objection I made. But overall, yeah, good point.
Still, I don't see the problem with the $18/month. If they are colluding, that's the problem. Stopping the $18/month won't actually address the core issue, but instead be a permanent bandaid on a temporary injury. Or, if they miraculously aren't colluding, then the $18/month is also fine. Investigate to look for price fixing.
As for the index fund objection, Honestly, I'm with you here @Bear Ribs . That isn't good. If index funds could only hold non-voting shares, then I wouldn't have an issue. But there's a clear incentive for ETF's to encourage both to act in collaborative ways without even technically having inter company collaboration. Simply vote to have one company focus on overseas, and another at home, for example. It would also neatly solve the ESG scoring problem.
First, I absolutely believe every company would join a cartel if they could get away with it. I also think they are prone to cheating, which is somewhat self defeating.So I want to parse what you just said. Are you admitting you made an objection you knew was false at the time just because you could? Or did you genuinely believe that a cartel that was shown to be lying to customers in the first set of citations was not colluding against and scamming customers in the process of lying to them?
That is how it used to be.Wierd thing about patents: when applying for one you have to explain exactly what you did so that the patent office can confirm that it's an original idea.