[danShumway]

> Look, its clear that you have a perspective and you’re not interested in other perspectives.

I'm not going to force anyone to debate with me, but if your economic theory says that Amazon's prices should have dropped this year, and they didn't, then your economic theory is wrong and/or incomplete. That seems like a pretty straightforward test.

Sometimes companies make more money and they don't lower prices, pass those increases onto workers, or expand. This is something that is observable just by looking at price/wage trends in different industries/companies and comparing them with the associated profit increases.

We know that "profits go up, prices go down" is too simplistic and/or flawed of a model to talk about the real world because it's not accurately predicting what companies do in the real world.

[chordalkeyboard]

> I'm not going to force anyone to debate with me, but if your economic theory says that Amazon's prices should have dropped this year, and they didn't, then your economic theory is wrong and/or incomplete. That seems like a pretty straightforward test.

Right, except that’s not what I said. So when you insist on a gross misreading of my theory, that happens to also not coincide with some fact you refer to, I question your sincerity in discourse.

> Sometimes companies make more money and they don't lower prices, pass those increases onto workers, or expand. This is something that is observable just by looking at price/wage trends in different industries/companies and comparing them with the associated profit increases.

It is for this reason that theoretical predictions in economics are considered ceteris paribus

> We know that "profits go up, prices go down" is too simplistic and/or flawed of a model to talk about the real world because it's not accurately predicting what companies do in the real world.

Yeah we do.

[danShumway]

> > We know that "profits go up, prices go down" is too simplistic and/or flawed of a model to talk about the real world because it's not accurately predicting what companies do in the real world.

> Yeah we do. [...] So when you insist on a gross misreading of my theory

Literally two comments earlier:

> This is true and still misses the point that an increase in the cost of inputs results in an increase in costs, resulting in an increase in price.

I'm not the person here arguing that changes in input costs and prices are universally linearly coupled to each other.

[chordalkeyboard]

> ceteris paribus

> universally linearly coupled to each other.

Yeah, neither am I.