evince
Truthmatters
post 45
countries that make the most from taxes
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
post 45
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
When did I ever say profit is evil? I never have.
Why can't you tell us if your rental properties are profitable or not? I won't ask you how much you make
Maybe you are afraid of your own hypocrisy?
cawacko
Well-known member
So nothing for us here Desh?
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
post 47
evince
Truthmatters
cawacko
Well-known member
Are you not answering this because you can't provide an example of when this has occurred Desh?
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
Sherman Antitrust Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sen. John Sherman (R–OH), the principal author of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Scale of justice 2.svg
Competition law
Basic concepts
History of competition law
Monopoly Coercive monopoly
Natural monopoly
Barriers to entry
Herfindahl–Hirschman Index
Market concentration
Market power
SSNIP test
Relevant market
Merger control
Anti-competitive practices
Monopolization
Collusion Formation of cartels
Price fixing
Bid rigging
Product bundling and tying
Refusal to deal Group boycott
Essential facilities
Exclusive dealing
Dividing territories
Conscious parallelism
Predatory pricing
Misuse of patents and copyrights
Enforcement authorities and organizations
International Competition Network
List of competition regulators
This box: view ·
talk ·
edit
The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a landmark federal statute in the history of United States antitrust law (or "competition law") passed by Congress in 1890. Passed under the presidency of Benjamin Harrison, it prohibits certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be anti-competitive, and requires the federal government to investigate and pursue trusts.
In the general sense, a trust is a centuries-old form of a contract whereby one party entrusts its property to a second party. These are commonly used to hold inheritances for the benefit of children, for example. The specific sense from 19th Century America used in the law refers to a type of trust which combines several large businesses for monopolistic purposes - to exert complete control over a market - though the law addresses monopolistic practices even if they have nothing to do with this specific legal arrangement.[2] In most countries outside the United States, antitrust law is known as "competition law."
The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.[3] "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. (European competition law extends beyond this, to the protection of competitors, at the expense of consumers and overall efficiency.[4])
Over time, the Act has also been used more broadly, to oppose the combination of entities that could potentially harm competition, such as monopolies or cartels
Sherman Antitrust Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sen. John Sherman (R–OH), the principal author of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Scale of justice 2.svg
Competition law
Basic concepts
History of competition law
Monopoly Coercive monopoly
Natural monopoly
Barriers to entry
Herfindahl–Hirschman Index
Market concentration
Market power
SSNIP test
Relevant market
Merger control
Anti-competitive practices
Monopolization
Collusion Formation of cartels
Price fixing
Bid rigging
Product bundling and tying
Refusal to deal Group boycott
Essential facilities
Exclusive dealing
Dividing territories
Conscious parallelism
Predatory pricing
Misuse of patents and copyrights
Enforcement authorities and organizations
International Competition Network
List of competition regulators
This box: view ·
talk ·
edit
The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a landmark federal statute in the history of United States antitrust law (or "competition law") passed by Congress in 1890. Passed under the presidency of Benjamin Harrison, it prohibits certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be anti-competitive, and requires the federal government to investigate and pursue trusts.
In the general sense, a trust is a centuries-old form of a contract whereby one party entrusts its property to a second party. These are commonly used to hold inheritances for the benefit of children, for example. The specific sense from 19th Century America used in the law refers to a type of trust which combines several large businesses for monopolistic purposes - to exert complete control over a market - though the law addresses monopolistic practices even if they have nothing to do with this specific legal arrangement.[2] In most countries outside the United States, antitrust law is known as "competition law."
The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.[3] "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. (European competition law extends beyond this, to the protection of competitors, at the expense of consumers and overall efficiency.[4])
Over time, the Act has also been used more broadly, to oppose the combination of entities that could potentially harm competition, such as monopolies or cartels
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging#Laws_against_price_gouging
Laws against price gouging[edit]
In the United States, laws against price gouging have been held constitutional[4] at the state level as a valid exercise of the police power to preserve order during an emergency, and may be combined with anti-hoarding measures. Exceptions are prescribed for price increases that can be justified in terms of increased cost of supply, transportation or storage. Statutes generally give wide discretion not to prosecute: in 2004, Florida determined that one-third of complaints were unfounded, and a large fraction of the remainder were handled by consent decrees, rather than prosecution. Proponents of laws against price gouging assert that it can create an unrealistic psychological demand that can drive a non-replenishable item into extinction.[5] As of 2008, laws against price-gouging have been enacted in 34 states. Price-gouging is often defined in terms of three criteria listed below:[6]
1.Period of emergency: The majority of laws apply only to price shifts during a time of disaster.
2.Necessary items: Most laws apply exclusively to items which are essential to survival.
3.Price ceilings: Laws limit the maximum price that can be charged for given goods.
A prevalent concern surrounding price gouging is that it exploits consumers. Supporters of anti-price gouging laws argue that it is morally wrong for sellers to take advantage of buyer’s vulnerability and increased demand. Opponents argue that buyers are not coerced to take part in this exchange, and they voluntarily agree to pay the seller’s asking price.
Laws against price gouging[edit]
In the United States, laws against price gouging have been held constitutional[4] at the state level as a valid exercise of the police power to preserve order during an emergency, and may be combined with anti-hoarding measures. Exceptions are prescribed for price increases that can be justified in terms of increased cost of supply, transportation or storage. Statutes generally give wide discretion not to prosecute: in 2004, Florida determined that one-third of complaints were unfounded, and a large fraction of the remainder were handled by consent decrees, rather than prosecution. Proponents of laws against price gouging assert that it can create an unrealistic psychological demand that can drive a non-replenishable item into extinction.[5] As of 2008, laws against price-gouging have been enacted in 34 states. Price-gouging is often defined in terms of three criteria listed below:[6]
1.Period of emergency: The majority of laws apply only to price shifts during a time of disaster.
2.Necessary items: Most laws apply exclusively to items which are essential to survival.
3.Price ceilings: Laws limit the maximum price that can be charged for given goods.
A prevalent concern surrounding price gouging is that it exploits consumers. Supporters of anti-price gouging laws argue that it is morally wrong for sellers to take advantage of buyer’s vulnerability and increased demand. Opponents argue that buyers are not coerced to take part in this exchange, and they voluntarily agree to pay the seller’s asking price.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
not one example?
Just one. Come on. Can't find it on WIKI?
You can't tell us if your apartments are profitable or not? Why are you afraid?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
So Deshtard claims to rent out apartments
Deshtard claims to rent them at below market rents - she can't prove it though I guess she wants us to take her word for it. How do we know it is a fact?
Yet she won't tell us if it is profitable.
Very odd dontcha think?
Deshtard claims to rent them at below market rents - she can't prove it though I guess she wants us to take her word for it. How do we know it is a fact?
Yet she won't tell us if it is profitable.
Very odd dontcha think?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Prove it. How do we know it is a FACT? It doesn't meet your criteria for a FACT. You have to PROVE IT
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Not sure how that constitutes stalking. You made the claims. It seems like a very odd thing to want to withhold. I am not asking you HOW much profit. It is a yes or no question.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
She claims to charge below market rents, but she has yet to prove it. And we know how fastidious she is with facts. So surely she doesn't expect us to just take her word for it. I mean FACTS are EVERYTHING to Deshtard.