Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
I just realized this
I just realized this
By LowIQTrash
1 Jun 2025 11:48 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
1 Jun 2025 11:47 pm
Price of gold in 2005 was $450-550
Price of gold in 2015 was $1000-1200
Price of gold in 2025 is $3000-3500
—————————
If it wasn’t for “cheap Chinese crap” (designed to front run perfect competition, oversaturated markets - where profits approach 0%) flooding US stores, the BLS wouldn’t be able to hide behind its fraudulent inflation #s for long.
Imagine paying 2.5-3x more for everyday goods compared to 2015, basically > (housing and healthcare - 2 items coincidentally divorced from overseas competition in terms of supply)
So of course the BLS will heavily overweight “cheap Chinese crap” in their “basket”
Price of gold in 2015 was $1000-1200
Price of gold in 2025 is $3000-3500
—————————
If it wasn’t for “cheap Chinese crap” (designed to front run perfect competition, oversaturated markets - where profits approach 0%) flooding US stores, the BLS wouldn’t be able to hide behind its fraudulent inflation #s for long.
Imagine paying 2.5-3x more for everyday goods compared to 2015, basically > (housing and healthcare - 2 items coincidentally divorced from overseas competition in terms of supply)
So of course the BLS will heavily overweight “cheap Chinese crap” in their “basket”
1 Jun 2025 11:59 pm
Now, obviously the point isn’t that gold is a perfect barometer of inflation…
But I have noted the prices of everyday items (not even the most expensive categories of consumables / staples, but items Americans consume on a daily or weekly basis) have roughly doubled in the past 10 years.
A sit down restaurant meal at a casual is around $25, whereas back in 2015 it was closer to $13.
My hunch - and this is also a bit counterintuitive - is that many corporations such as Chipotle have ALREADY begun to absorb losses due to inflation.
Why? Because consumers simply cannot afford what Chipotle’s menu would cost were they indexed to “actual inflation.”
IIRC Chipotle’s cheaper menu items were about $7.00 back in 2012; today the cheaper menu items are around $12. A true adjustment for inflation would lead to a price closer to $15. Chipotle already “absorbed” about 40% of the inflationary effect.
(Yes, I know it’s odd seeing ME of all people saying something seemingly positive about “da KORPORAYSHUNZ” - but I assure you it is not out of any sympathy. I am merely being OBJECTIVE in my analysis.)
But I have noted the prices of everyday items (not even the most expensive categories of consumables / staples, but items Americans consume on a daily or weekly basis) have roughly doubled in the past 10 years.
A sit down restaurant meal at a casual is around $25, whereas back in 2015 it was closer to $13.
My hunch - and this is also a bit counterintuitive - is that many corporations such as Chipotle have ALREADY begun to absorb losses due to inflation.
Why? Because consumers simply cannot afford what Chipotle’s menu would cost were they indexed to “actual inflation.”
IIRC Chipotle’s cheaper menu items were about $7.00 back in 2012; today the cheaper menu items are around $12. A true adjustment for inflation would lead to a price closer to $15. Chipotle already “absorbed” about 40% of the inflationary effect.
(Yes, I know it’s odd seeing ME of all people saying something seemingly positive about “da KORPORAYSHUNZ” - but I assure you it is not out of any sympathy. I am merely being OBJECTIVE in my analysis.)
2 Jun 2025 12:10 am
@Cannonpointer how’d you like that last arg?
You can use it vs retarded conjobs in future arguments when they say “corporate taxes bad, will pass onto consumer” BS
You can use it vs retarded conjobs in future arguments when they say “corporate taxes bad, will pass onto consumer” BS
2 Jun 2025 1:02 am
Taxing profits doesn't do a thing to consumer prices. It just taxes profit - which occurs downstream of the consumer's participation.LowIQTrash » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ @Cannonpointer how’d you like that last arg?
You can use it vs retarded conjobs in future arguments when they say “corporate taxes bad, will pass onto consumer” BS
Corporations ALREADY charge what the market will bear - unless retarded conjobs suddenly no longer believe in market forces. So when they claim that corporations can somehow offload their corporate income taxes onto consumers, they are merely ****.
When you complain, your friends roll their eyes and your enemies smile
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
2 Jun 2025 2:31 am
How much is pure Beryllium worth? I have a 1" x 4" rod of the stuff.LowIQTrash » Yesterday, 11:47 pm » wrote: ↑ Price of gold in 2005 was $450-550
Price of gold in 2015 was $1000-1200
Price of gold in 2025 is $3000-3500
—————————
If it wasn’t for “cheap Chinese crap” (designed to front run perfect competition, oversaturated markets - where profits approach 0%) flooding US stores, the BLS wouldn’t be able to hide behind its fraudulent inflation #s for long.
Imagine paying 2.5x more for everyday goods compared to 2015, basically equivalent of (housing and healthcare - 2 items coincidentally divorced from overseas competition in terms of supply)
So of course the BLS will heavily overweight “cheap Chinese crap” in their “basket”
Currency is a metaphor. Only value has value...
2 Jun 2025 2:39 am
Shove it up your goddamned ***!JohnnyYou » 43 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ How much is pure Beryllium worth? I have a 1" x 4" rod of the stuff.
2 Jun 2025 2:40 am
**** you ya stupid **** *** asshole.LowIQTrash » Today, 12:10 am » wrote: ↑
You can use it vs retarded conjobs in future arguments when they say “corporate taxes bad, will pass onto consumer” BS
2 Jun 2025 2:55 am
There is a hell of a lot more room in yours.
Please stop and go away. The stench of the turd on your face is making my computer sick.
2 Jun 2025 5:57 am
As usual, you're wrong including using Chipotle as an example for typical corporate food chains, anyone who eats that **** would have to chain smoke a pack of cigarettes to kill the taste....JohnnyYou comes to mind.LowIQTrash » Yesterday, 11:59 pm » wrote: ↑ Now, obviously the point isn’t that gold is a perfect barometer of inflation…
But I have noted the prices of everyday items (not even the most expensive categories of consumables / staples, but items Americans consume on a daily or weekly basis) have roughly doubled in the past 10 years.
A sit down restaurant meal at a casual is around $25, whereas back in 2015 it was closer to $13.
My hunch - and this is also a bit counterintuitive - is that many corporations such as Chipotle have ALREADY begun to absorb losses due to inflation.
Why? Because consumers simply cannot afford what Chipotle’s menu would cost were they indexed to “actual inflation.”
IIRC Chipotle’s cheaper menu items were about $7.00 back in 2012; today the cheaper menu items are around $12. A true adjustment for inflation would lead to a price closer to $15. Chipotle already “absorbed” about 40% of the inflationary effect.
(Yes, I know it’s odd seeing ME of all people saying something seemingly positive about “da KORPORAYSHUNZ” - but I assure you it is not out of any sympathy. I am merely being OBJECTIVE in my analysis.)
—————-
So next time, when retarded CONJOBZ say that “Corporate taxes aren’t paid by the company, they just pass it down to the consumer,” that’s ****!!
Inflation IS a tax and da KORPORAYSHUNZ have ALREADY absorbed losses due to inability to raise prices above what consumers are willing to pay / able to pay.
Corporations will EAT tax increases to maximize the “profit” curve (i.e. not price themselves out of the market they cater to)
ConjobZ = RETARDED, ECONOMIC ILLITERATES!
2 Jun 2025 7:43 am
Not really.RebelGator » Today, 5:57 am » wrote: ↑ As usual, you're wrong including using Chipotle as an example for typical corporate food chains, anyone who eats that **** would have to chain smoke a pack of cigarettes to kill the taste....JohnnyYou comes to mind.
For example, some big ticket items are what companies call "loss leaders".
A company has to play that game of balancing a customer base (what people are willing to pay) versus a profit (any amount will do as long as the number isn't red). Like car companies...
Why wouldn't Chipotle do basically the same thing?
IOW not kill the customer base as long as the overall numbers work.
Please seat yourself.
I like the very things you hate.
I like the very things you hate.
2 Jun 2025 8:58 am
Maybe your mommy can suck that turd off my face while a horse butt **** her.JohnnyYou » Today, 2:55 am » wrote: ↑ There is a hell of a lot more room in yours.
Please stop and go away. The stench of the turd on your face is making my computer sick.
2 Jun 2025 9:39 am
Do you always sleep with a glass pipe in your mouth?murdock » 46 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Maybe your mommy can suck that turd off my face while a horse butt **** her.
2 Jun 2025 11:01 am
Utterly ridiculous.Cannonpointer » Today, 1:02 am » wrote: ↑ Taxing profits doesn't do a thing to consumer prices. It just taxes profit - which occurs downstream of the consumer's participation.
Corporations ALREADY charge what the market will bear - unless retarded conjobs suddenly no longer believe in market forces. So when they claim that corporations can somehow offload their corporate income taxes onto consumers, they are merely **** ideology programmed into them by think tanks.
So according to you, reversing the Trump tax cuts of 2017 where corporate taxes dropped from 35% to 21% WOULD NOT affect prices if they suddenly went back anywhere from 28% to 35% as Kamala promised?
I guarantee that such an increase of 7% to 14% in corporate taxes WOULD force corporations to all raise their prices to consumers accordingly to offset that loss of profit.
What you don't understand about "market forces" could fill a library!
2 Jun 2025 11:50 am
Lofl. What you DO understand about nominal tax rates could fit in your ***.Zeets2 » 49 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Utterly ridiculous.
So according to you, reversing the Trump tax cuts of 2017 where corporate taxes dropped from 35% to 21% WOULD NOT affect prices if they suddenly went back anywhere from 28% to 35% as Kamala promised?
I guarantee that such an increase of 7% to 14% in corporate taxes WOULD force corporations to all raise their prices to consumers accordingly to offset that loss of profit.
What you don't understand about "market forces" could fill a library!
But I knew Icould count on ya, son.
When you complain, your friends roll their eyes and your enemies smile
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
2 Jun 2025 12:00 pm
Do you speak English as a first language?Zeets2 » 59 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
I guarantee that such an increase of 7% to 14% in corporate taxes WOULD force corporations to all raise their prices to consumers accordingly to offset that loss of profit.
Corporations do not lose one penny of profit from being taxed on their income. They lose INCOME, which is DERIVED from profits.
That is why it is called the INCOME tax and not the PROFIT tax, ya **** brick.
When you complain, your friends roll their eyes and your enemies smile
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
2 Jun 2025 12:34 pm
Oh, and you're dumb enough to believe that an increase in income tax WOULD NOT AFFECT THOSE PROFITS?!??Cannonpointer » 35 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Do you speak English as a first language?
Corporations do not lose one penny of profit from being taxed on their income. They lose INCOME, which is DERIVED from profits.
That is why it is called the INCOME tax and not the PROFIT tax, ya **** brick.
And you further believe that corporate execs would simply accept that huge lose in profits and NOT increase their prices to consumers? You think they'll simply accept paying a higher tax WITHOUT increasing their prices to consumers?
Get it through your thick head that taxes they're charged ARE THE SAME EXPENSE to a corporation as are material costs, labor costs, and the costs of increased regulations which ARE ALL LUMPED TOGETHER AS COSTS before a company figures out how much they can charge a customer to insure a certain amount of profit for themselves and their stockholders. If their INCOME is suddenly taxed at a higher rate, are you so dumb that you don't think it will lower their profit if the price of their products aren't increased accordingly?
If you still can't grasp that reality, let me know and I'll give you all the examples you need to educate yourself.
2 Jun 2025 12:52 pm
OK nitwit, you deserve this humiliation for being such an indolent moron.Cannonpointer » Today, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑ Lofl. What you DO understand about nominal tax rates could fit in your ***.
But I knew I could count on ya, son.
Let's say Mommy (the government) gives you a bag of lemons, cups, and a pound of sugar to (understandably) get your dumb *** out of the house for a few hours, and gives them to you at no charge. You have set up your lemonade stand and earn $1 a cup, and you sell 10 cups and make $10, a 100% profit on that first day. The second day, Mommy tells you you need to pay HER 50% (income tax) of your earnings to cover the cost of those same supplies she gave you for free the day before. Now your profit DROPPED by 50% if you kept the same price of $1 to your customers, so you only made $5 in profit DUE TO THAT NEW TAX. The next day, Mommy tells you that the supplies you're using cost MORE than $5, so she'll need you to pay a new rate of 75% of your profit. And since you wouldn't be happy earning only $2.50 for your day's work, YOU WOULD RAISE THE PRICE OF YOUR PRODUCT to earn a profit that will make it worthwhile for you. And if you learn that people are unwilling to pay for your lemonade at $1.50 or $2 a cup, YOU GIVE UP THE BUSINESS!
That's an experience any 6 year old would have learned quickly and at an early age.
The question is, why did a dunce like YOU fail to learn that lesson, but fail to even understand it?
And the answer is simple! YOU'RE A **** ECONOMIC MORON!
2 Jun 2025 3:34 pm
RebelGator » Today, 5:57 am » wrote: ↑ As usual, you're wrong including using Chipotle as an example for typical corporate food chains, anyone who eats that **** would have to chain smoke a pack of cigarettes to kill the taste....JohnnyYou comes to mind.
JuCo 5 percenter...
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime”
LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened."
brown's unheeded words of wisdom
2 Jun 2025 3:36 pm
Grocery stores are a prime example...they have their lead in items they're willing to take a loss on to get you in the store...DeezerShoove » Today, 7:43 am » wrote: ↑ Not really.
For example, some big ticket items are what companies call "loss leaders".
A company has to play that game of balancing a customer base (what people are willing to pay) versus a profit (any amount will do as long as the number isn't red). Like car companies...
Why wouldn't Chipotle do basically the same thing?
IOW not kill the customer base as long as the overall numbers work.
retail at Christmas time is another great example....
JuCo 5 percenter...
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime”
LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened."
brown's unheeded words of wisdom
2 Jun 2025 5:17 pm
Nope. Not by one penny. \Zeets2 » Today, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑ Oh, and you're dumb enough to believe that an increase in income tax WOULD NOT AFFECT THOSE PROFITS?!??
It would affect their income FROM those profits.
You're a slowlearner, boy.
I'm sure of it.Zeets2 » Today, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑ And you further believe that corporate execs would simply accept that huge lose in profits and NOT increase their prices to consumers? You think they'll simply accept paying a higher tax WITHOUT increasing their prices to consumers?
See, I believe in supply and demand. You clearly don't.
Their profits are not lowered by their taxes being raised. Their income FROM those profits is POTENTIALLY reduced, depending on their accountant's cleverness.Zeets2 » Today, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑ Get it through your thick head that taxes they're charged ARE THE SAME EXPENSE to a corporation as are material costs, labor costs, and the costs of increased regulations which ARE ALL LUMPED TOGETHER AS COSTS before a company figures out how much they can charge a customer to insure a certain amount of profit for themselves and their stockholders. If their INCOME is suddenly taxed at a higher rate, are you so dumb that you don't think it will lower their profit if the price of their products aren't increased accordingly?
The nominal tax rate and what people actually pay are very different animals. You CLEARLY do not understand business.
When you complain, your friends roll their eyes and your enemies smile
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
Who is online
In total there are 2020 users online :: 10 registered, 15 bots, and 1995 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, Jantje_Smit, *Beekeeper, Punch, LowIQTrash, Cannonpointer, Cedar, 31st Arrival, *Huey
Bots: LCC, Not, Scrapy, proximic, semantic-visions.com, Yahoo! Slurp, app.hypefactors.com, YandexBot, linkfluence.com, ADmantX, Mediapartners-Google, bingbot, curl/7, BLEXBot, Googlebot