Lotus-eater

Wendy's has about 6,000 stores in the U.S., and claims to be opening more stores to offset the closures.

There is plenty of evidence that there has been no overall increase in market concentration, and where there has been an increase in concentration, it is not necessarily "an indication of the augmented market power of top firms" and is instead mostly technological (more productive firms). "The increasing presence of top firms has decreased local concentration in local markets as the new establishments of top firms gain market share from local incumbents." Further, "we find that total employment rises substantially in industries with rising concentration. This is true even when we look at total employment of the smaller firms in these industries." More local competition and higher employment are the opposite of cartel behavior, which restricts output to increase prices. As for government intervention in the market, it requires knowing what the cause of concentration is and exactly what should be done. I am highly skeptical that the common prescriptions of more antitrust enforcement and price controls by bureaucrats will produce more consumer welfare (even assuming that they should override deontological liberty claims).

Yes, it is widely debated (e.g., here and here), so it's not a settled or revealed truth. Even if there is market power, it's not clear that government is capable of improving matters. The pharmaceutical industry is a good example. It's already a highly regulated industry with significant barriers to entry. The likes of EPI may believe that government fine-tuning in the context of various institutional constraints will produce substantially better outcomes even assuming that there's a consensus about what's fair or equitable (which there's not), but I don't.

Whether it's her own opinion or research supplied to her by interns, they're still clueless. Your hypothetical about the market power of Big Egg is something that one of my graduate economics professors wrote a book about (Egg Marketing Board: A Case Study of Monopoly and Its Social Costs, which analyzes a monopoly created by government regulation). But when it comes to the alleged market power of grocery retailers: Where's the beef?

Large size by itself is not proof of price-setting power. There is no clear correlation between market concentration and higher markups. So color me highly skeptical. And as The Economist pointed out, people are confusing cause and effect. The root cause is not to be found in the morality tale of greedy corporations but rather the government rapidly spending trillions of dollars when there were major supply constraints.

Greedflation is a nonsense idea, particularly in the case of grocery retailers because there is no reason to believe that there is market power when there are so many competitors. The greedflation narrative in fact relies on claims of concentrated markets among producers of food, not retailers. Whoopi is clueless.

The issue is whether retail grocers colluded to raise prices or simply passed along price increases from producers. Standard economic theory says that in a competitive market, retail grocers would be price-takers, not price-makers. Aldi is ranked #13 nationally (1/3rd of grocery shoppers admit to shopping there) and growing rapidly.

Retail grocers have been subject to intense competition from Aldi, Walmart, Amazon, Target, Costco, etc., so it's hard to believe that there was collusion among retailers to raise prices.

I am SHOCKED that someone would exploit an animal rescue nonprofit for personal financial gain.

Agreed. Nonprofits because they are nonprofits are able to escape the sort of oversight that for-profit firms typically receive from government and investors seeking to maximize returns. One of the largest "nonprofits" that I'm aware of is IKEA, which is owned by the Stichting INGKA Foundation.

Queer Works CEO charged with stealing $940,000 from city of Palm Springs, others WWW.DESERTSUN.COM A Riverside County criminal grand jury has indicted Queer Works CEO with 53 felony counts, including grand theft and money laundering. GLAAD Paid For CEO’s Lavish Spending, Documents Reveal - The New York Times WWW.NYTIMES.COM GLAAD paid for its chief executive to fly first-class, rent a Cape Cod house and remodel her home office. It may have violated I.R.S. rules. Ruby Corado pleads guilty to wire fraud in plea agreement WWW.WASHINGTONBLADE.COM Reduced charge says she stole at least $150,000 in COVID-relief funds.

More research: "Twenty-five studies involving 1744 volunteers were identified. No significant effects were found when fructose or HFCS was substituted for glucose, except for a slight decrease in diastolic blood pressure when fructose was substituted for glucose. Similarly, no effects were found when fructose or HFCS was substituted for sucrose, except for a small increase, of uncertain clinical significance, of apolipoprotein B when HFCS was substituted for sucrose." HFCS isn't any worse than sugar. Too much of either is bad for your health.

That's a myth. HFCS is no worse than sugar: "Finally, whereas glucose and fructose are metabolized differently, the belief that sucrose is metabolized differently than HFCS is a myth. No study has shown any difference between the two when each is given isocalorically, nor is there any difference in sweetness or caloric value. ...there is no evidence that fructose or HFCS per se causes obesity or even weight gain." Per capita consumption of HFCS and refined sugars peaked in 1999 and is down 17% (though still high). Avoid a lot of empty calories in general.

I agree that the internet may play a role but instead think that younger generations may be more concerned about being captured on video and having it shared or posted on social media and being mocked.

People have mentioned the heat in PS, but there's also the wind to consider. Northern areas get very windy, and when combined with dust, can produce dust storms. There are wind maps showing the windy areas if that's a concern.

It's much easier to do something about a gas tank than lithium batteries, which are inherently inflammable. Toronto is considering banning e-bikes during the winter (surprisingly) : "Fluctuating temperatures can cause condensation and lithium plating, increasing the likelihood of short circuits and fires," the TTC said in its report."

CC has nicer and not so nice areas, which is why it's a relative bargain (though not as cheap as 20 years ago) compared to Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and other upscale areas.

Agreed. As males, I don't see why gay men would be much less aggressive than straight men (but perhaps some think that gay men do little more than throw handkerchiefs on the ground to indicate interest). And homophobia induces some gay men to compensate by behaving in hypermasculine ways like sexual assault.

The common feminist narrative (in a rather Nietzschean move) denigrates sexual desire and reduces rape to a will to power. Rape as reproduction strategy or a sexual kink seems more plausible to me. Why would younger women be preferred to weaker older women? Why are younger woman more likely to be raped by robbers? Sexual desire better explains the pattern does a will to power.

I'm not even opposed to the idea that domination is mixed in with sexual desire. I just disagree with the formulation that denies that sexual desire is a critical part of the explanation.

If RM wants to suppress negative reviews to help their main customers (masseurs), they can give masseurs total control over what reviews are published (which I believe is how masseurfinder works) along with a tiny disclaimer stating that they are "testimonials" rather than reviews.

Even taken at face value, post-hoc rationalizations (some of which highlight sexual desire) don't explain why rapists prefer young, sexually attractive people. The biologically-grounded explanation is much more plausible to me than the common social science explanations. Steven Pinker: "I believe that the rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine will go down in history as an example of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. It is preposterous on the face of it, does not deserve its sanctity, is contradicted by a mass of evidence, and is getting in the way of the only morally relevant goal surrounding rape, the effort to stamp it out."

Attacking their claims because they're two old white men is cheap ad hominem, but apparently that's all you have to refute their core claim about sexual attractiveness being the primary motivator.

I've noticed that v1 has gone offline multiple times since the switch to v2 (perhaps while they're working on the site). v1 probably won't be around for much longer.

Power facilitates sexual assault (e.g., Harvey Weinstein, Sean Combs, etc.) but it is not the primary motivation: "In the 1975 bestselling book: Against Our Will, the feminist writer, Susan Brownmiller, asserted that “rape is about power, not sex.” Ever since, the conventional wisdom has been that rapists are misogynistic men seeking domination and power over women, not violent men seeking sex. However, there is a fundamental problem with Brownmiller’s bold assertion. In the ensuing 45 years, there has been no significant empirical research to support her claim. Yet, almost everyone repeats it. In examining eight years of FBI data on 250,000 rapes and other sexual assaults, one factor stands head-and-shoulders above the others: the age range of the victims. Herein lies the key to unlocking the mystery of the offender’s motivation. Social science has demonstrated a strong relationship between age and sexual attractiveness... Studying the ages of victims, therefore, provides an opportunity to examine sexual motivation. If rapists are primarily motivated by the desire for power and domination, then one would expect them to prefer middle-aged, career women. However, if rapists primarily desire sex, then one would expect them to prefer young women and men. Our research demonstrates that offenders almost always attack the young. The percentage of female victims who are over 50 is close to zero. Similarly, in male prisons, where women are extremely scarce, heterosexual men target the youngest inmates. ...Women rarely engage in sexual assault – they make up 3% of the offenders – but when they do commit sexual assaults, they most often target 15-year-olds. A power motive can’t explain why both male and female offenders prefer young victims. Only a sexual motive can do the job. ...An analysis of whether female robbery victims are sexually assaulted during the incident suggests that the sexual attractiveness of young people is an important factor. Since the robber has already established dominance over a vulnerable victim, the effects of opportunity and vulnerability are removed, and only the effect of the offender’s age preference remains. In such cases, robbers are much more likely to rape victims between the ages of 15 and 29—the years when women (and men) tend to be the most sexually attractive. Only a sexual motive can account for this pattern. ...Also, men who commit sexual assault tend to be considerably older than men who commit other types of violent crimes. The relatively high rate of sexual offending by older men is likely due to the fact that they have become less attractive with age while their sexual attraction to young people is undiminished. The men and women they find most attractive are not attracted to them. Some of them use force to get their way. ...Any explanation of sexual assault must account for why gay men commit the crime at least as often as straight men. It must explain why offenders, regardless of age and gender, overwhelmingly target young people."