I’m referring to customers not local to the area that want lower prices and would be willing to travel to get it. In economic terms this is called Price elasticity of supply.

If the goal is universal grocery availability at the lowest prices, then I agree: this plan alone won’t achieve that. However, I see a couple of factors here with the plan that could achieve some measures of success.

The first is that the plan is to place these stores in, essentially, food deserts in the city. That would have an immediate positive impact on grocery availability for the localities around the 5 stores. Further, the fact that the city stores will be selling at wholesale will mean that food prices at these could be noticeably cheaper. This would steel customers from other grocery stores, forcing them to lower prices to attract their customers back. While grocery stores usually run on small profit margins, that usually is still while having to pay property taxes (which city grocery won’t), but land (which city grocery won’t), and pay for expensive business operations (marketing, executives, etc) (which city grocery won’t).

I’ll be the first to say its not a slam dunk win for everyone in the whole city immediately, but the locals around the store benefit immediately, and the success of an alternative without a profit motive puts pricing pressure on existing stores possibly fleecing customers with higher prices.

It’s a bold move, and I want it to work, but I can’t see how it does at this point.

Could you expand on your thoughts here? Which part do you see as failing or what your definition of failing for this project?

Is this logic that someone specifically investing vs having a retirement fund or similar is the same thing?

You’d have to ask @ CubitOom@infosec.pub. My guess is they would consider both “complicit in genocide in Gaza” with their broad definition.

The key word here is “paying”. Nothing you provided in reply qualifies for that term.

I’m not following you here, please clarify. The only time I used the term “pay” was in the context of the zero sum example. I don’t think that’s what you’re referring to. The next time “paying” is used is you saying it. So I guess I need to ask what you mean when you said “paying their way up the ‘ladder’”. Can you explain what you’re meaning there?

That cartoon is just a variation on zero-sum, isn’t it? The wealthy man in the middle is trying to convince the man in the helmet on the right that he must lose if the immigrant on the left is to gain.

That conversation didn’t go that way, but I think the answer to why the poor voting would vote for the GOP is addressed by the (possibly misattribution) Ronald Write quote:

“John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” ― Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress

The “logic” that anyone on SNAP is capable of paying their way up the “ladder” is complete horseshit.

By his own admission, the mother of JD Vance (VP) was on that era’s equivalent of SNAP (Food Stamps). Her son became a US Senator and now sitting VP.

“He explained, “I was raised in a working-class family. My mother required food assistance for periods of her life. My grandmother required Social Security help to raise me. And she raised me in part because my own mother struggled with addiction for a big chunk of my early life. I went to college on the GI Bill after I enlisted in the Marine Corps and served in Iraq.””

source

I have to credit a random Redditor from 10 years back or so that had some excellent analysis I haven’t seen elsewhere or since. This Redditor’s thesis was that the GOP have two core concepts:

1. Society is zero-sum. For someone to gain something, someone else must lose something.
2. Each person has a certain class level in society and that each person should stay in their class. If you are poor, you should stay poor. If you are rich you should stay rich. Attempting to move up into a higher level class should be restricted by any means of government possible.

Looking at these two together explain nearly every GOP initiative or position. So lets apply it to your question:

Why is he so against feeding the poor?

Applying the first concept: For the poor to be fed (gain), those that are not poor have to pay (loss). The GOP in power are largely rich, so they see the poor being able to eat through SNAP as a personal loss to the GOP.

Applying the second concept: SNAP may allow someone to spend what little other non-SNAP money they have on things that would advance them into a higher social class such as:

• more education to be able to earn more for higher skilled work
• more efficient transportation allowing them to access higher paying jobs either farther away or at more available hours
• specialized tools that could be used to earn higher income

So the GOP don’t want the poor to be fed because they believe the poor should be poor and stuck there forever.

Honestly, outside of people traveling for emergencies, we as Americans need to stop giving airlines or money.

This is an odd take. Are you advocating for people to travel by car/train/boat or for people to stop traveling at all (except for emergencies?)

For the record, Bill Gates is complicit in the genocide in Gaza

https://timschwab.substack.com/p/is-philanthropy-profiting-from-genocide
https://www.mintpressnews.com/microsoft-israel-surveillance-azure-idf-gaza-genocide/290534/

For both of these to support your argument, you must be saying that owning stock in a company that benefits from business or weapons that benefit Israel makes the stockholder “complicit in the genocide in Gaza”. If you’re saying that than probably about 60% of Americans would be “complicit in the genocide in Gaza” as they have stock including index total market funds or S&P 500 funds which have fractions of shares in many of those same companies.

That seems like an overly broad definition to me, but if that is your definition, then your claim is true.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/11/11/bill-gates-should-know-better-how-israeli-occupation-ravages-environment-palestine

This one just talks about Gates being involved with Israel on climate change actions without any Gates involvement in Gaza. So have to assume your position is that being involved with Israel on issues affecting all of us globally is also an endorsement of genocide. That too, seems like an extreme position.

Yep, thanks for the fact check. Peter Theil is certainly a trump advisor helping shape policy but he doesn’t hold an government office. I’ve corrected my post.

here in Canada.

yeeted

En Français SVP

Isn’t there an entire government office in Quebec that comes up with new words en Français for Québécois French? Do they have a contribution for “yeet” yet?

He also claimed he felt it through his Kevlar vest. Didn’t know sandwiches are more powerful than bullets.

Clearly this was a Subway sandwich with an armor piercing tungsten penetrator ingredient. Evidence submitted by the prosecution cited Subway corporation’s recent advertising campaign featuring the slogan “I can’t get enough of that tungsten!”. This branding campaign was, of course, a backpedal from Subway’s previous offering of a Depleted Uranium penetrator which was largely shunned by sandwich consumers as being ‘unhealthy’. /s

Edit: Redacted a mistaken identity

I’m not sure you understand what this article is or how our markets work.

The simple fact that somebody was able even to bet a billion is insanity that should never be possible to begin with. Nobody should have a billion dollars, let alone have so much that you can just safely bet a billion dollars

He doesn’t have a billion dollars. He’s a hedge fund manager that manages (at least) a billion dollars collectively of other people’s investment money. Its that money he’s betting.

Them he’s betting.yhst the economy will crash, basically, and we’re okay with that shit.

No, he’s not. He’s betting against only two companies: Nvidia and Palantir. He has a relatively small bet against Nvidia ($187.6 million), and HUGE bet against Palantir ($912 million). I’m not sure I’d bet against Nvidia yet, but Palantir is co-founded by Peter Theil, trump’s deputy chief of staff which job has a large influence on White House policy. If you ever watched the TV show The West Wing, this would be the Josh Lyman character’s job.

We already know trump’s favor swings widely and if politics are going against trump (as recent news show) then its not unbelievable that Theil might get the boot or at least trump would punish Theil by killing lucrative government contracts to buy Palantir services.

All of this should be illegal as fuck, and this guy belongs in a jail cell

The point of shorting a stock exists so that the market can express a view that they believe a stock will fail. This is an important “canary in the coal mine” for the rest of the market. The other option is a policy that you can’t criticize a company with any meaning and investors continue to put money into failing/risky companies without this important indication of the risk.

Frankly I don’t like your idea of jailing someone that says “The emperor has no clothes”.

The fact that he was even able to make that bet is incredible. How deluded do you have to be to think the AI bubble won’t burst?

Nobody believes the AI investment/growth trajectory we have right now will continue for infinity. What nobody knows is: when the correction will occur.

• Do you pull your investments out now and sit on the sidelines waiting for the fallout while your principal loses value daily from inflation?
• What does the correction look like when it happens? Does all the value evaporate on day 1, the first week, a month? This is important to figure out for this strategy to know when to go back in.

This is the info/decisions you’d need as an average investor. What Burry is doing is the riskiest type of investments with shorting the market. If growth continue to occur he and his fund will have to pay for the growth to those whose shares he borrowed to short.

In summary, its not enough to know that a bubble exists, but to profit from it you have to figure out when it will burst and when the full burst is done.

“I made a mistake and I let you down and I let down this institution. Period. Full Stop,” the conservative think tank’s president told employees at an all-staff meeting, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

“…I let the mask slip off a little too quickly. We have a clear plan and I just got so excited about the suffering of the poor I thought we were already on phase 6. This is a premature failure on my part, not the organization and its mission. I’d also like to take a moment to address our Jewish members and donors…‘It was just a prank, bro’. I hope this has addressed any fears that may have been raised that we are secretly white supremacists. Please continue on with the good work of phase 4.” - Roberts probably

“has surrendered to radical socialist Zohran Mamdani and the far-left mob who are now running the show.”

GOP doesn’t get to use the term “radical” as a derisive term anymore. The radical GOP representative in the highest office is literally tearing down the White house to build a gilded ballroom against the law with dark money contributors while simultaneously denying our basic nutrition safety net to the most needy 41.7 million Americans.

For the purposes of framing your question, are you meaning:

• commit to a single person in a monogamous relationship long term?

or

• commit to a legal construct of a relationship such as marriage?

There are different answers for each.

MAGA would see the Ferengi aversion to war, xenophobia, and genocide as “too woke”.