It’s “how little can I tip before they tamper with my food”

Normal people never, ever think this.

As is this. I have no idea why people here are convinced tipping is somehow bad for employees and good for employers

It’s literally the same thing you just are more aware of it.

You literally always pay the wages of the people that work for companies.

Their employer is treating them like a tipped employee, which is so embedded into society’s fabric that we have a separate tax code for it.

You not liking that is not any different from you liking a given law. You’re free to not participate, but expect there to be consequences, and one of those is for people to assume you’re intentionally being an asshole, not protesting a perceived injustice.

the Encounter Tracker has been unchanged in beta for those years

Wait til you hear about the BG3 beta.

I think DnD beyond looks is great. I wish Games Workshop would move more quickly into the 21st century

“I hate when companies make money. Like when they licensed out this balls-out awesome video game”

Sometimes good things are just good things my man.

I don’t understand why you refuse to engage in good faith with a person who is just trying to teach you things, but now this conversation is over.

Would you like a citation on what Pigouvian taxes are, how the cigarette industry is flooded with competition, or that putting further regulations on products makes them more expensive to produce?

I assumed you could Google any of these but I can do it for you. Fair warning, you’ll be getting a “let me Google that for you” link.

Not one of these facts is even remotely controversial so my mind is a bit boggled that you’d even try to contest any of them

Maybe read to the end of that sentence and it will make more sense. I know it was a long sentence, and that’s scary, but I believe in you.

This is not an expression of an opinion. These are statements of fact. As in our other discussion, I am simply explaining things to you.

You not liking these facts does not make them less true.

The important part of that link was not during prohibition, which is irrelevant, because regardless of demand the number of people with access to alcohol was lower, but rather that after prohibition, usage rates did not surpass pre-prohibition levels.

When supply does not meet demand, prices rise

This is not an inverse relationship between supply and demand. The supply is not affecting the demand, which is what “inverse relationship” requires.

Supply and demand do not have an inverse relationship. Demand exists, and when supply exceeds demand, prices fall. When supply does not meet demand, prices rise. You understand they are related but forgot the actual curve on the graph. Supply and demand can both be low, for instance, as is the case with mega yachts. Supply and demand have no direct effect on one another, though low supply does tend to encourage firms to increase supply to try to compete and meet the demand.

Data during prohibition is irrelevant to this specific discussion, because your claim is that demand goes up when goods are prohibited, which is false, as I showed with my link

I don’t believe you have actually taken Econ 101, given the things Ive seen you say here.

Prohibition has no net effect on demand, it simply enables black markets. Alcohol use after Prohibition was not higher than pre-prohibition, but did rise to the same levels fairly quickly.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjF-8C_juCBAxXxnWoFHdTEDkgQFnoECA4QBg&usg=AOvVaw0rwVjvtYD6D0XQlMyHfW8D

This is effectively a Pigouvian tax, and will absolutely keep some people from smoking.

Also higher prices do not necessarily mean the industry is making more money. Far more likely, given the saturation of competition, that they simply cost more to make.

You should run! If Boebert can win, hell anyone can

So first off, I live in a rural suburb not unlike her district, and my wife is from a town of 300 people. I used to live in Eastern Kentucky. I am not belittling rural people or rural living. However, ask people from there and they’ll say, “small town in the middle of nowhere.”

I’m sorry, but I do not believe rural people getting “steamrolled” because there are fewer of them is a bad thing. Quite the opposite. Your town has infrastructure challenges, so who do they elect? Someone who fights against improving their own area

A tyranny of the majority is infinitely preferable to a tyranny of the minority.

The people of this region still vote and the way our government is set up means large cities don’t get to dictate everything

Quite the opposite. Pockets of people from nowhere have outsized control over our federal government. This isn’t a constitutional issue either, but an agreement Congress made to stop apportionment.

We broke our government and we should fix it.

So because this district isn’t Denver they don’t count as the people of Colorado?

Correct. 1,000 people from a very specific region of a state are not representative of “the people” of that state.