GG

Pricing finds its own equilibrium and once it's set than they generally move in lockstep. That's not anti-competitive behavior, nor is there lasting consumer harm. If one company jacks up prices to juice its profit, the competitor will gladly keep prices low to grow share, knowing that the price "gouger's" investors will hammer it for losing share. If both companies jack up prices to juice profit, that will introduce an environment for another competitive entry. That's why the Rule of Three is vital, because the 3rd, the weakest, competitor keeps the two leaders' behavior honest.

I like the kid, but he's got the EJ Gaines injury curse.

There's nothing wrong with duopolistic pricing strategies as long as the companies don't collude to fix the prices or have some other side agreements to split the market. The main reason for pricing in a duopoly to be in lock step is that they usually find the right combination of pricing that allows them to earn a decent profit, but keep it at a low enough level to prevent new competitors from coming in.

If your position is that Russian interference helped Trump win, why aren't you up in arms about Russian interference during the Democratic primaries, where there was a concerted effort to aid Bernie's campaign?

Rule of Three is the natural outgrowth of global and highly capitalized industries. Antitrust policy has nothing to do with the basic facts that a company that cannot invest or attract investment in its growth is going to get acquired or will go out of business. Anti-trust regulation should only be focused on companies that actually cause consumer harm as a result of their size, not just because they are big. Funny how the proclamations of companies being too big usually come from two parties that control US politics.

Good news for Logan & family after last year

Stop with the facts, will yah?

I noticed it too in the 3rd period.

Rule of Three is common in highly capital intensive industries. You'd figure economists would have learned over the 150 year old history of this phenomenon. Lesser competitors either wither away or get acquired in the consolidation. Any government intervention results in a worse outcome for the consumer. Leonhardt's example of companies' currently dominating the information economy is not example of monopolistic behavior, but the reluctance of customers to use alternate platforms.

Bills have more pressing needs with that $15 million

I think LY is just a common abbreviation. The general rule is to add a Y or S to the shortened name as it fits.

What????

Sounds like a guy who would like Communism.

Again, it's fully relevant when the discussion is about a narrative that belies the actual facts.

It matters because it perpetuates a false narrative based on a headline and not the underlying facts.

I also don't discount how hiring McD affected Pegulas' realization that Murray was a bum.

This response is proof that you don't know the story and just read the headlines that Stallworth was convicted of manslaughter while DUI.

I wish people would stop bringing up Stallworth's case in these arguments. His situation was a tragedy where the victim was probably more responsible for the incident. There's a good chance he would have struck the guy even if he didn't drink the night before.

New take on the Two Coreys?

He almost won it with a spectacular rush at end of regulation.

Trump's a real estate and marketing guy, not a corporate guy. He's always railed about interest rates. Corporate guys understand why interest rates fluctuate.

Teach this guy the proper signals for a fake FG in the red zone

On the flip side, if he doesn't get hit it's probably an overthrow

We know. Thus, he’s making you his cat toy.

Too lazy to use Google? These are somewhat dated, but you can imagine the progress since the publications Forbes, WaPo, Brookings