Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Delora said: 

Maninist said: 

But wouldn't selling to the US at higher prices be illegal ? You might ask.

It should be but then the DNC will implement tariffs, and imported good will have to be more expensive because it is imported, or it can't be sold to the US at all, then.....

It's a Right Wing solution to up the tariff price for selling their own goods to foreign countries, but in response other countries will do the same back towards us. 

With that the price of imports will grow, and in turn our food prices will increase again. For  a business to run there needs to be profit, so if prices go up in the middle then every price following will reflect sharp increases as well. 

Tariffs are placed on imported goods and it corrects the unfair treatment the US gets from the rest of the world. 

It also incentivises American corporations to close their oversea operations and bring the jobs home. For example Apple will build the iPhone in China, while people don't like the working conditions in China and how people are getting paid a dollar a day making things for American businesses. It's a complete horror show.

Tariffs make it cheaper to build at home and it's much better that way. 

China also owns 10% of US debt ( Probably more now ) and the US is in debt to the world. Even Canada, because your leadership is very dumb.

big then, get this........the US will no longer be the center of world trade. Because it can't be.

It already isn't, wtf are you going on about? 

Hm.

The United States is the 2nd largest goods exporter in the world, behind only China. U.S. goods exports to the world totaled $2.1 trillion in 2022, up 17.5 percent ($307.3 billion) from 2021.

^ The same thing happened under Obama, Trump took it back, and now under Biden the US fell on it's ass again. I'm not too surprised. Biden is weak as fuck.

Regardless, the world will still buy as much as the can from the US, and it will across the board. It benefits the US government and not it's people. 

Problem is the US has too many dumb people in power. What's important to them is they get your vote, then they'll sell out the nation even more. 

And your solution is the guy who doesn't even know how to answer most questions thrown at him. Typically when asked a question he'll either talk about the people involved or he'll accuse the one asking of having no idea what it means as a projection over his own confusion with the subject. 

He didn't even know what a DEI Hire was until recently, and that people can belong to more than one camp when it comes to racial politics. 

 Ok that makes sense

It doesn't, but okay. 

 Fact remains, the US was better under Trump.

Plus the world respects Trump.

DEI higher in the political sense is still a new thing on planet Earth.

.

.

.

The problem with DEI hiring is it shits on the majority of US citizens. 70% of the US is white, and while the US lost it's fucking mind and is racist toward white people, the left thinks it makes sense to hire anyone except the white people so only 30% of the nation can be blessed with work.

This makes people like surgeons, the black ones lets say, seem untrustworthy. People should be hired for their skills, and not to fill a race or gender quota while shitting on the majority of the nation, and letting illegal immigrants move in making US citizens of all races, 2nd class citizens in their own home. 

.

.

Finally. It's funny how the DNC is all about DEI, but then we see them get defensive when Kamala is called a DEI hire. 

Here's Biden calling her such. 

Maninist said:

Tariffs are placed on imported goods and it corrects the unfair treatment the US gets from the rest of the world. 

So your solution is to raise the price so that they'll raise it right back? 

Discounts are how to make and preserve alliances. If there's a group that needs our shit and we need their shit, then granting eachother prices that are easier to swallow is how to ensure their trading isn't done with other non-alliance goods. 

You won't make any friends by raising import prices, you'll instead see people trade with other nations who produce similar goods for cheaper. Without a leverage over others based on reasonable price ranges, we won't see any discounts at all and in turn will have to pay more.

All we'll see is our own prices go up, especially when it comes to food, since hitting commerce at it's production stages has the increases reflected in it's later iterations. As an example, if the price of salt goes up, so too will all sources of salty food. At the very least raising prices as quote unquote "the center of the world" as you'd put it earlier sets a model, an example, for others to follow. 

It also incentivises American corporations to close their oversea operations and bring the jobs home.

The only thing that will do that is other nations raising the price against us, which is something they will do if we raise the price against them first. 

Even there, the price of sweatshop labor is pennies on the dollar. That isn't going to end under a two class right wing focus on economics, but it will stand to be questioned by a left wing model's idea of the Middle Class. 

For example Apple will build the iPhone in China, while people don't like the working conditions in China and how people are getting paid a dollar a day making things for American businesses. It's a complete horror show.

Tariffs make it cheaper to build at home and it's much better that way. 

I fail to see how raising the cost of American goods for other nations is supposed to help there, this seems unrelated. 

Tariffs are just a quick source of cash while other nations are forced to adapt to it. The ones who will be drinking in said newfound wealth will not be the lower and middle classes, so once they respond and our prices go up it will be them who suffer. 

China also owns 10% of US debt ( Probably more now ) and the US is in debt to the world. Even Canada, because your leadership is very dumb.

Well yeah they earned the position of number one exporter, what do you expect? 

Hm.

The United States is the 2nd largest goods exporter in the world, behind only China. U.S. goods exports to the world totaled $2.1 trillion in 2022, up 17.5 percent ($307.3 billion) from 2021.

Like I said, it isn't. 

The problem here is that you're only looking at it as if the US underwent changes, ignoring how much China's been throwing their backs into production via shortcuts. 

^ The same thing happened under Obama, Trump took it back, and now under Biden the US fell on it's ass again. I'm not too surprised. Biden is weak as fuck.

How fast do you figure this happens though? Come on now, it's not like you sign a signature and you see results overnight. 😏

It was runoff from the prior elected, this always happens. The left goes in to clean up the damages the right does, then the right gets voted in over the tax costs it cost to fix their mistakes. Naturally it takes years to see true developments, for good or for bad, when it comes to economics. 

As a result, you will see the successes of the president before them during the next one, and the question becomes moreover if they can maintain that success or not. 

Fact remains, the US was better under Trump.

Not a fact but sure, you go with that. 

I mean ffs the majority of the people who worked under him don't want anything to do with him anymore, there's right wingers leaning towards Kamala now only because Trump is the competition. 

Plus the world respects Trump.

Have you not seen the letters from other nations? They're laughing at his ego issues and saying he needs to play ball with them if he doesn't want to be remembered as an embarrassment. 

The irony is that playing ball with them was the embarrassment. Foreign leaders who enjoy the taste of Power like Trump over how he can be used, even against his own government, as we saw when our own government became concerned over Trump keeping Putin's secrets. 

As we've seen from two of his interviews with 60 Minutes, he both fears and looks up to foreign dictators. He wants to model the US after it because he sees them as the model of strength, and to do anything else is 'weak' in his eyes after others in power made him feel small for having to tow the line with his own disagreeable government body. 

From my time traveling to other countries, Trump was seen by the common person like a mascot-leader. He wasn't respected any further than being 'The President' when you go to countries that still worship a Monarchy for example, as they were raised to ask less questions over feeling less control over who leads them. 

DEI higher in the political sense is still a new thing on planet Earth.

It began in the mid-60s, the concept is older than we are. 

There's no excuse for people in positions of political power to not know what things like that are. 

The problem with DEI hiring is it shits on the majority of US citizens. 70% of the US is white, and while the US lost it's fucking mind and is racist toward white people, the left thinks it makes sense to hire anyone except the white people so only 30% of the nation can be blessed with work.

So let me get this straight. 

Rather than build a system that supports 100% of people, you'd rather shit on 30% of them? 

This makes people like surgeons, the black ones lets say, seem untrustworthy.

Wow dude, you wouldn't trust a surgeon just because s/he's black? Shame dude, shame.

Have you not questioned if they, through needing to work harder than your average white person, could end up more qualified and dedicated to their craft when compared to those who had it easier? 

People should be hired for their skills, and not to fill a race or gender quota while shitting on the majority of the nation, and letting illegal immigrants move in making US citizens of all races, 2nd class citizens in their own home. 

People need experience to become those of the skilled workforce. If they are never given that chance in lieu of only hiring older white people with pre-existing resumes that are couched on racial privilege, we'll never see that change. 

It's also worth mentioning that there's more than enough times where someone non-white found it easier to get a job by making their name on the resume appear more white.

It isn't about qualifications, as they still, without DEI quotas, will take in young inexperienced white people more often than those of color from having those running these businesses reflecting old and outdated racial models to the point of racism. 

If anything, what white people are having to face now is what they've been facing for decades, for generations. It's hard to sympathize with privilege lost once it starts to resemble what other people have always been put up against, and I see it as a necessary step towards equality in the long run via giving them a chance to gain those experiences and become models for their future children to continue to carry those expectations as the torch. 

Finally. It's funny how the DNC is all about DEI, but then we see them get defensive when Kamala is called a DEI hire. 

Walz is arguably the DEI hire, and in turn the White Right is calling Racism over shit like "White Guy Taco". 

Come on, like we haven't been making fun of MSG and Pork Fat for years via Racism, it's about time white people are called on their Mayo Fetish and aversion to spices. 

Oh, just noticed this one: 

Maninist said: 

Makes sense if your head is in the clouds and the world is compliant and perfect. The real world isn't like that. 

Competitive pricing incentivises business to lower prices.

No, it incentivizes a disconnected collective monopoly, especially if it's backed by Insurance. 

Lets say there's six competing companies (obviously there's more but just go with it for the sake of the model). Now imagine that there's one of them that claims to be better than the competition through psychological strategies that convince the average consumer that it makes sense to pay more, while another one cuts every corner possible to undercut the price far enough to be made into a commercial comparison via 'a better deal'. The other four companies in this scenario are making an average quality product with a mid-range price. Given time, those in the middle are liable to raise their prices. 

This sort of model builds a cognitive bias towards a phenomenon called Price Quality Attribution, and even without it being the reality people will still fall for it via presumption. With the model of success demonstrating a higher price, that plays into the psychological presumption that cheaper products are 'worse' over how it's true for enough products on the market, which in turn will raise the price across the entire market over realizing what their competition is able to get away with, and that price increase is liable to not reflect an equal increase in quality. 

By comparison, if you standardize the prices you will still see the Quality vs Quantity argument happening, except their success will be based on results rather than the perceived price being a model of success within itself. The streamliners will continue to cut corners to try to make a profit within the expected price range, but because of there being no variable for prices between companies it will become purely about the quality and results (and marketing strategies) instead. 

As an example, the costs of medicine and healthcare in this country is borderline criminal compared to other nations, and that is over how they've set this extreme as if the cultural norm.

In short: If we expect high prices, they'll charge them. When prices are standardized however the question becomes purely over quality. 

It's no secret that Honda Civic makes more money than Lamborghini. The best seller is the cheaper one and more profitable, and that is competitive pricing. 

Honda Civic has the highest rate of fatal crashes, they're a dirty streamliner rather than a model of success people should strive to immitate: 



You may be okay with accepting low quality products for higher prices, but I'd rather have something of quality that's built to last. If those goods of quality happen to be the same price as the shitty ones, then guess which one will be setting the new industry standard? 

If the US puts a cap on prices, the world will eat them alive and they cannot be the center of world trade anymore. 

If the US keeps on as it is the world will ignore them as they trade with China and Australia instead. 🤷

This is why they offer food stamps instead, it's much more efficient than how you've imagined things. 

The rest of the world doesn't even know what food stamps are. But I imagine they are some kind of prepaid token accepted as payment by grocery stores in the US. 

...you don't know what Food Stamps are? 

No wonder you think it's some kind of race to the Soup Kitchen then, you don't know what's already being done to stop poor people from converting it all into vices like gambling and alcohol. 

Also you're responding to a model and not a matter of fact.

So again, nothing to do with a socialized program that feeds the poor. A price cap would be like tossing a few sandwiches in a cafeteria filled with hungry people. This is true while US the is oil dependent on other nations.

Nice backpeddle dude, it was a response to your example, and much like Trump you aim to make your own lack of knowledge, your own ignorance, out to be my problem. 

A price cap has nothing to do with your comparison, and I would recommend borrowing a different one. The oil situation is a question between land preservation versus wealth: If other nations are willing to part with their expendable non-replenishable resource to the point of destroying their homes while the US remains pretty and healthy, then that's really more their problem. 

If we finish moving onto Electric Cars, now that a rich enough Right Winger is behind the wheel to the point of opposing car companies making them seem "Gay" to drive, a lot of problems will go away with it. The dependency we have on Oil is largely over converting it into Fuel. 

If the US continues to compete in matters of production, as we've seen increase since Biden's been in office, then they will be able to get discounts for imported goods by offering discounts on their own. 

It's when you're captive to other countries as the sole producers that you see price raises. 

You have no idea what inflation is and how it works and why it happens, and why it's happening now. 

I'd go as far as saying you don't understand what I'm talking about, and moreso say it's wrong because it doesn't resemble your pre-conceived model. 

Your idea of fixing the problem is to raise our own prices, but there's nothing to stop them from doing the same thing, especially if they can be like "Well the US did it" via Globalism. Our prices going up are a reflection of Trump's time in office given enough time to grow into a bigger issue after his brief time in office, and it costs the American Taxpayer to fix the problems they laid the groundwork for. 

The reason it's more expensive under the left wing is because they are cleaning up the right's mess, while the right looks at the fertile foundations established by the left and see profit in it that the lower and middle class are forced to pay back years later. 

It's not that prices raised, it's because the dollar lost it's purchasing power. 

The farmer HAS to charge more, as does the transport trucks that delivers the food, because their energy costs are much higher. It causes a cascade effect and the retailer has to sell for more, and they need to make more, and then people want more money cause they need more money, and the market favors the seller. 

You said I have no idea what it is, then you literally repeat my message like it's the first time I'm hearing it. 🤦

The area we are split on is over if raising prices offers some advantage.

My answer: It only does in the short term while other nations are mid-adapting to the change, while us dealing with a shitty time is how to build the infrastructure for a more advantageous longevity (and clean up former messes). The lower and middle classes suffer from this model while the upper class has strategies to avoid liability. 

If in this case Kamala fixes prices, the farmer and the delivery truck won't be able to afford the energy required to operate and they will cease their operations. ( The world won't lower prices because Kamala said so )

Not in the first few years, but it's how to set the standard for negotiations.

Someone has to do it or nobody will, and if enough do it it will appear as a successful enough outcome for others to model off of via Globalism. 

Demand will go up, while demands continue to not be met, and then the US will turn into a 3rd world country, much more than it is now. The USD will also turn to shit while the other rich nations prosper in a free and open market. 

Your sights are so short term.

There's naturally going to be periods of struggle to resume being in an ideal place as a country, but once we hit those points of stability that's when the average Taxpayer has become tired of paying the price of repairs before being offered ways to Frack our economy in the name of short term gains. 

Some terms you might want to freshen up on: 

Wikipedia: Psychological Pricing

Wikipedia: Attribution (Marketing)

Wikipedia: Pricing Strategies

There's a lot more going on here than you think. If a company can make a product that is successful and costs more, people will imitate that price while not matching up to the product itself. It's about conditioning people towards accepting bullshit, then redirecting the blame through the performance of a system too complicated for the layman to figure out on their own to such a degree as to have their ignorance perpetuate it. 

If prices are forced to be the same, or no higher than a set amount, then the sales margins become more realistic versus their perceived market rather than stringing them along on models where they don't have a choice such as the US Insurance model. Take for example when Lean became popular with various musicians; We saw the price of Cough Medicine go through the roof until people with legitimate problems couldn't afford it anymore. If the prices for Cough Medicine were to be standardized, kept to a realistic cap, then the prices can't gouge to the point of suffering, and in it's place will be a model of Upkeep. 

As I mentioned to Delora, you might want to look into a setting known as Cyberpunk. The cartoon on Netflix (only 10 episodes btw) does a great job demonstrating the money struggles in-setting, and they do a great job demonstrating the likely direction things would go if there were no caps on costs and no oversight over businesses. It captures how Capitalist Extremes would likely operate, and how the little guy suffers as a result of debt-based structures and unaddressed lower economic crimes over how those who suffer can't afford to ascend it. 


The struggle for corporate is the following: Discovering the maximum someone is willing to pay for a product, and building a brand loyalty once they've begun it's use. While we've seen forced reduction in prices be reflected in basically any and every answer possible to have those with the most wealth never have to change the stability of their absurd lifestyle, if given enough time the world will adapt beyond the short term costs. 

Bitcoin does not need Trump's oil despot fascism. If anything it needs the opposite.

Turncoat said: 

Maninist said:

Tariffs are placed on imported goods and it corrects the unfair treatment the US gets from the rest of the world. 

So your solution is to raise the price so that they'll raise it right back? 

A tariff is a form of government tax. That, and everyone else already had high tariffs on the US. Including Canada. Also, the world DID NOT raise taxes against the US under Trump. As a matter of fact the world was very compliant and everyone started paying their fair share. 

The US has been treated unfairly for a long time. You pay the most into NATO and you need it the least.  US farmers also had a difficult time selling to Canada, while Canada had no problem selling to the US. 

Things like that happen when you have ultra rich lawmakers rigging the system in their favor who also participate in insider trading and accepting kickbacks from other nations. The US debt simply cannot be paid off while debt and interest continues to destroy you.  

Discounts are how to make and preserve alliances. If there's a group that needs our shit and we need their shit, then granting eachother prices that are easier to swallow is how to ensure their trading isn't done with other non-alliance goods. 

Competitive pricing is it ?

It's not good for a nation to give discounts to other nations, cause it's the people who have to pay for it. For example no one wants to fund the Russia Ukraine war which Ukraine cannot win, but the US is paying for it anyway, sending Ukrainian men to their death.

The above example is a giveaway, but even in terms of lowering prices on the fiat, it's long term effects aren't good at all.

That, and the world wasn't giving discounts to the US. to begin with. Fair is fair. 

You won't make any friends by raising import prices, you'll instead see people trade with other nations who produce similar goods for cheaper. Without a leverage over others based on reasonable price ranges, we won't see any discounts at all and in turn will have to pay more.

This is why I won't respond to a lot of your text wall. It's already been killed by my first paragraph here.

All we'll see is our own prices go up, especially when it comes to food, since hitting commerce at it's production stages has the increases reflected in it's later iterations. As an example, if the price of salt goes up, so too will all sources of salty food. At the very least raising prices as quote unquote "the center of the world" as you'd put it earlier sets a model, an example, for others to follow.

Gas prices are always going up, but they really jumped with Biden in office. Seriously, the world isn't raising prices, but rather the fiat dollar is losing purchasing power. It's what happens when they print trillions and dump it into the economy. The dollar becomes less valuable and that's the real issues these days. 

It also incentivises American corporations to close their oversea operations and bring the jobs home.

The only thing that will do that is other nations raising the price against us, which is something they will do if we raise the price against them first. 

That never happens though. Your head is still in the clouds. Plus the economy is worse under Biden. ( Truth )

For example Apple will build the iPhone in China, while people don't like the working conditions in China and how people are getting paid a dollar a day making things for American businesses. It's a complete horror show.

Tariffs make it cheaper to build at home and it's much better that way. 

I fail to see how raising the cost of American goods for other nations is supposed to help there, this seems unrelated. 

Tariffs are just a quick source of cash while other nations are forced to adapt to it. The ones who will be drinking in said newfound wealth will not be the lower and middle classes, so once they respond and our prices go up it will be them who suffer. 

Foxconn ( Chinese company who builds iPhone and other electronics ) planned to build "their largest facility" in Wisconsin. Of course the plans for that has now been reduced in 2021 but they're are still plans to build something.  

Tariffs bring jobs home and restores the phrase "Made in America". No one jacked up prices against the US under Trump. The world has been eating the US alive. It's why the US is in debt to other nations. 

China also owns 10% of US debt ( Probably more now ) and the US is in debt to the world. Even Canada, because your leadership is very dumb.

Well yeah they earned the position of number one exporter, what do you expect?

That is not the cause or reason for China owning 10% of America... I mean 10% of US debt ( with interest )  I'm sorry, but you're getting dunked on. 

 

Hm.

The United States is the 2nd largest goods exporter in the world, behind only China. U.S. goods exports to the world totaled $2.1 trillion in 2022, up 17.5 percent ($307.3 billion) from 2021.

Like I said, it isn't. 

The problem here is that you're only looking at it as if the US underwent changes, ignoring how much China's been throwing their backs into production via shortcuts. 

Heh. For 2 years out of many decades while the US is now in serious decline. Sure Nathan. Sign of the times. 

^ The same thing happened under Obama, Trump took it back, and now under Biden the US fell on it's ass again. I'm not too surprised. Biden is weak as fuck.

How fast do you figure this happens though? Come on now, it's not like you sign a signature and you see results overnight. 😏

A signature or permission is not required for one nation to overtake another in economic prosperity. It can happen very quick just as the value of currency exchange is constantly changing with every passing second. 

DEI higher in the political sense is still a new thing on planet Earth.

It began in the mid-60s, the concept is older than we are. 

There's no excuse for people in positions of political power to not know what things like that are. 

Just because someone hires a person of another race, doesn't mean it's a DEI hire. It's when someone has a race quota. Kamala is both a race and gender quota. A woman, a coloured person. She's also being served to you as no one voted for her, but now people will because she's being sold to you. The DNC's virtue signaling is way of pandering to the simple.

The problem with DEI hiring is it shits on the majority of US citizens. 70% of the US is white, and while the US lost it's fucking mind and is racist toward white people, the left thinks it makes sense to hire anyone except the white people so only 30% of the nation can be blessed with work.

So let me get this straight. 

Rather than build a system that supports 100% of people, you'd rather shit on 30% of them? 

Such black and white thinking. Removing race from the equation doesn't mean the opposite of DEI, nor does it mean while people have more rights or privileges. To think otherwise is supremacism, where one thinks his race is so superior, laws need to be put in place to give some other race a leg up. You're all for it aren't you, while most coloured people in the US are doing better than you personally. 

Turncoat said: 

The problem with DEI hiring is it shits on the majority of US citizens. 70% of the US is white, and while the US lost it's fucking mind and is racist toward white people, the left thinks it makes sense to hire anyone except the white people so only 30% of the nation can be blessed with work.

So let me get this straight. 

Rather than build a system that supports 100% of people, you'd rather shit on 30% of them?

That is not  how things have been playing out. Not in ivy league college admissions. And not in major companies. In fact, it's been anti-white.

And let's just be real for a moment, a lot of this stuff actually comes from hatred for white people. And that has been built into the dialogue for a while now. All of this critical race theory shit we went through, this colonizer rhetoric, these endless articles about how whites are the problem, whites should stop having babies, whites are not fair and we are systematically oppressing everyone. Whites have no culture and they don't season they food. Nah, enough of that.

Turncoat said: 

Oh, just noticed this one: 

Maninist said: 

Makes sense if your head is in the clouds and the world is compliant and perfect. The real world isn't like that. 

Competitive pricing incentivises business to lower prices.

No, it incentivizes a disconnected collective monopoly, especially if it's backed by Insurance. 

You don't seem to know what a monopoly is. While there is competition in an open market, corporations have to compete with one another to make a sale. It's why Walmart is so popular, and especially Costco. Small businesses still exist and they too can match prices on the same commercial goods, or hold a sale at a loss just increase their customer base and popularity among the consumer.

Lets say there's six competing companies (obviously there's more but just go with it for the sake of the model). Now imagine that there's one of them that claims to be better than the competition through psychological strategies that convince the average consumer that it makes sense to pay more, while another one cuts every corner possible to undercut the price far enough to be made into a commercial comparison via 'a better deal'. The other four companies in this scenario are making an average quality product with a mid-range price. Given time, those in the middle are liable to raise their prices. 

This sort of model builds a cognitive bias towards a phenomenon called Price Quality Attribution, and even without it being the reality people will still fall for it via presumption. With the model of success demonstrating a higher price, that plays into the psychological presumption that cheaper products are 'worse' over how it's true for enough products on the market, which in turn will raise the price across the entire market over realizing what their competition is able to get away with, and that price increase is liable to not reflect an equal increase in quality. 

By comparison, if you standardize the prices you will still see the Quality vs Quantity argument happening, except their success will be based on results rather than the perceived price being a model of success within itself. The streamliners will continue to cut corners to try to make a profit within the expected price range, but because of there being no variable for prices between companies it will become purely about the quality and results (and marketing strategies) instead. 

As an example, the costs of medicine and healthcare in this country is borderline criminal compared to other nations, and that is over how they've set this extreme as if the cultural norm.

In short: If we expect high prices, they'll charge them. When prices are standardized however the question becomes purely over quality. 

Okay. But this doesn't mean everyone is driving a Bentley.  People settle for what they can have, while some people like Christian Bale, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg, will drive a cheap piece of shit simply because they like it. I also know the Yukon is the same vehicle as the Escalade but people will pay more for the Escalade because it has a Cadillac logo on it. Toyota does the same with some Lexus models, while in China Buick is a luxury car.  Fact remains quality and higher prices doesn't mean more profit. Expensive cars are a side hustle while all companies that make expensive cars also make more from their lower end vehicles. For example Volvo owns Bugatti and Lamborghini, but they don't make the bulk of their income from selling those brands. 

It's no secret that Honda Civic makes more money than Lamborghini. The best seller is the cheaper one and more profitable, and that is competitive pricing. 

Honda Civic has the highest rate of fatal crashes, they're a dirty streamliner rather than a model of success people should strive to immitate: 



You may be okay with accepting low quality products for higher prices, but I'd rather have something of quality that's built to last. If those goods of quality happen to be the same price as the shitty ones, then guess which one will be setting the new industry standard? 

^ My response is the same as that sentence under the truth. 

So yes. The most fatal crashes can't be the more expensive cars for many reasons. 

Since we're on an irrelevant detour, I'll say the Tesla's are the safests cars on the Road today.

Back on topic, the Model Y and Model 3 are Tesla's 2 biggest sources of income, while those 2 models happen to be the cheapest of their lineup. 

You might even notice what cars most people are driving if you go outside, and it isn't the price quality attributed vehicles that dominate in numbers. 

 

If the US puts a cap on prices, the world will eat them alive and they cannot be the center of world trade anymore. 

If the US keeps on as it is the world will ignore them as they trade with China and Australia instead. 🤷

This is why they offer food stamps instead, it's much more efficient than how you've imagined things. 

The rest of the world doesn't even know what food stamps are. But I imagine they are some kind of prepaid token accepted as payment by grocery stores in the US. 

...you don't know what Food Stamps are? 

No wonder you think it's some kind of race to the Soup Kitchen then, you don't know what's already being done to stop poor people from converting it all into vices like gambling and alcohol. 

The rest of the world doesn't have food stamps. 

Are you suggesting the US has solved drug abuse and gambling addiction ?

Some might argue food stamps increase crime rates since the poor can't choose what to do with some of their welfare. Did it really make the poor people behave in their struggles ? 

Also you're responding to a model and not a matter of fact.

So again, nothing to do with a socialized program that feeds the poor. A price cap would be like tossing a few sandwiches in a cafeteria filled with hungry people. This is true while US the is oil dependent on other nations.

Nice backpeddle dude, it was a response to your example, and much like Trump you aim to make your own lack of knowledge, your own ignorance, out to be my problem.

I repeated myself, how is that backpedalling ?

A price cap has nothing to do with your comparison, and I would recommend borrowing a different one. The oil situation is a question between land preservation versus wealth: If other nations are willing to part with their expendable non-replenishable resource to the point of destroying their homes while the US remains pretty and healthy, then that's really more their problem. 

If the US doesn't meet 25% of it's oil demand, it all stops. Oil runs the world. Oil is behind everything we do and everything we eat pretty much. It can also only be more expensive when the oil is constantly shipped from great distances. 

But again. If the US caps prices on all things, that will not include other nations.  The US is NOT the majority of the world population, it would then become a cesspool with people trying to leave, and they get very little. You want to pay less for oil so you'll end up getting less oil while the same retailers are selling it elsewhere for higher prices. That's how the world works. 

If we finish moving onto Electric Cars, now that a rich enough Right Winger is behind the wheel to the point of opposing car companies making them seem "Gay" to drive, a lot of problems will go away with it. The dependency we have on Oil is largely over converting it into Fuel. 

Not everyone can drive electric cars, not enough energy generation for that. California has too many electric cars on the road now, which is why they imposed a 30 cent tax for every mile someone travels. The reason for that is the government was making less money from gas stations and there was no money to support things like road repair. The combustion engine remains an unsolved problem, and it won't kill us.  

If the US continues to compete in matters of production, as we've seen increase since Biden's been in office, then they will be able to get discounts for imported goods by offering discounts on their own. 

It's when you're captive to other countries as the sole producers that you see price raises. 

You have no idea what inflation is and how it works and why it happens, and why it's happening now. 

I'd go as far as saying you don't understand what I'm talking about, and moreso say it's wrong because it doesn't resemble your pre-conceived model. 

Your idea of fixing the problem is to raise our own prices, but there's nothing to stop them from doing the same thing, especially if they can be like "Well the US did it" via Globalism. Our prices going up are a reflection of Trump's time in office given enough time to grow into a bigger issue after his brief time in office, and it costs the American Taxpayer to fix the problems they laid the groundwork for. 

I forgot how obtuse you are.

Prices were already raised against the US. The US was paying MORE for imported good. When we got imported good from the US, we were getting it for LESS.

Trump DID implement tariffs and the world DID NOT, defy the Trump organization or start some tariff war. Things were made fair for the US. It's true. The US keeps handling the bill for everyone and they have the most debt. All this time we had no problem selling to you, but you have a harder time selling to us. That's how it's been for decades. 

which is better for a monopoly? having all of your stuff built here, or having it all manufactured cheap in china? and do we want cheap migration labor, or do we want to raise the wages? when you poke at “Bidenomics”, it only takes a little bit of teasing to fall apart. if you have a Walmart account from 4 years ago, redo the cart with the same items and notice how the checkout price is doubled. TC you are arguing theory, but Spatial is coming with receipts here