>>1604
>No, they did happen, they were just much easier to topple because of a lack of regulation. That's why they had to default to the media to do their dirty work, because the government was too slow.
They were easier to topple, except the power they had enabled them to control the media and further cement their power? Doesn't sound like they were so easy to topple.
>No, for their survival. Companies who waste their time trying to screw over, not only their customers but, their rivals are heading toward a path of destruction. Because then they have no one to compete with, they stagnate, and are eventually replaced when someone with an original idea comes along with a better business model.
Not if they use their power to crush any up and coming competition. That's the basics of laissez-faire business. Once you reach the top, you gotta learn how to keep it. And yes, they still do that now through bad regulations, because the government is corrupt and in their pocket. But that's the roundabout way of doing it. Doing it directly without any of the few good regulations left to impede them is more efficient if they're allowed to.
>Even Micky D's and their evil Golden Arches doesn't pull that shit because it's a tactic that guarentees that they'll lose money
Why would they lose money? Companies love trying to buy out their suppliers so they don't have to negotiate a deal with them, and can set the rules for their competition. Often it's illegal because of regulations, but not always.
>So can you name a company who is offering better quality products at lower costs for the expressed purpose of driving out the competition?
Walmart has started pushing Better Goods branded products alongside their Great Value branded products. Both are cheaper than local fare, but one is slightly more expensive than other and higher quality.
>So they're providing people with shit they don't need, and haven't needed
Or things they used to have to order with a high shipping price, or things they used to have to go out of town or out of state for. Also, if people only bought things they needed, videogames would not exist. Oh look, Walmart sells games and GameStop is perpetually dying.
>Even then, where are they going to get the products to fill the rest of their store with when the cheapest option is to source locally, and the local farmers don't like big companies trying to destroy their customers (The local stores).
That's the rub. Big chain stores can ship from elsewhere and avoid the cheapest option if they get stonewalled, because as I've said repeatedly, with their large pool of resources, they can run new stores at a loss for years to beat out the competition. Further, many farmers these days tend to be perpetually in debt due to the oligopoly and price fixing on large farm equipment, and will generally sell to whoever they possible can in order to not go bankrupt.
>You're saying it's a "good thing" that I can afford gasoline, in the modern world where having a car is a requirement?
You can afford to pick and choose pricier gas. You're being intentionally obtuse here. In fact, you may have been doing that the whole time and I'm just being trolled.
>I'm living on less than $25k for the past five years
Damn, you suck at life for someone who thinks he's got it all figured out. I've gone up over $10 an hour working at a "small" business in the last four years. I don't think your philosophy is really panning out for you.
>That you constantly bitch and moan about how "everyone" is trying to take advantage of you throughs some "get rich quick" scheme, and then whine when people reveal that there is no "get rich quick" scheme when it comes to getting ahead.
People used to be able to buy houses in their late 20s. Now they're waiting until their 40s just to get a loan they can't pay off until they retire. And that number is rising. I didn't say you should be rich in five years, but clearly you're not moving forward if after 5 years of supposed good financial behavior you're still "poor as fuck." Maybe try pulling your bootstraps a little harder?
>In a lot of ways, it has. How many people could afford a cellphone 30 years ago?
Like I said, many luxuries have gotten much cheaper, while many necesseties have gotten more expensive, like housing, food, electricity, large appliances. Though phones have in recent decades fallen in the middle between luxury and necessity.
>You seem to forget that shit still costs a lot of money. And if they can afford that, then what else are they capable of affording but refuse to do so?
You conveniently ignored all the ways they can get one for less than full price I outlined, and furthermore, the full price of a brand new iphone that will last you a minimum of three years is 800-1100 bucks, before tax. It's about, or less than, a month's rent. And the poorer people I know with "new" iphones got theirs for around 300 bucks and are generation or two behind. I'm really beginning to doubt your claims that every bum on the street has a new $1000 phone. It's not just that it would require poor spending habits, it's a good way to get mugged, which actual homeless people will be doing everything to avoid. Hell, in Bongistan, mud muggers have started exclusively mugging people with brand new iphones.
>You're attempting to argue that you have $600 to spend on luxuries, but absolutely cannot spend that $600 on your rent instead?
Those luxuries will last for years, and are half the price of rent. Rent must be paid over and over again every month. Saving an extra half a month's rent to spend on a TV or a phone, once every 3 to 5 years, sometimes even 10 years if they don't break, is less than a drop in the bucket. Not buying those cheap luxuries, which are only bought very infrequently, will not have any tangible effect on a person's overall finances. It's day-to-day spending where most saving and scimping is to be done with any moderate effect. Which is why people shop at Walmart.
>$100 a year
Oh boy, in a decade that might snowball with incremental re-investments enough to still not afford the rising price of a single month's rent.
>You do know that every single local lbirary has an entire row of computers free for public use, right?
Or instead of only being able to play the job gacha for a limited time of day in a single location, you can do it anywhere at any time, vastly improve how much you can spin the numbers. If you don't get a brand new phone, you can get a used one for under $200 bucks and vastly improve your ability to find a job. Libraries don't solve the issue of needing a phone number people can contact you at, and you can check emails immediately when they show up if you have a phone. Homeless people have actually been kicked out of libraries more and more often lately, and public libraries in general are on the decline.
>A once-in-a-lifetime event
Oh yeah, I forgot that no other cases of stock manipulation have happened in the last 80 years.