Supreme Court makes an economically sound decision!
 

Justices End 96-Year-Old Ban on Price Floors

Hopefully this paves the way for more pro-AC legislation [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Supreme Court makes an economically sound decision!
 

[ QUOTE ]
pro-AC legislation [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that's a contradictio in terminis.

Re: Supreme Court makes an economically sound decision!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pro-AC legislation [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that's a contradictio in terminis.

[/ QUOTE ]

We agree again Nielsio! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

In fact going on from there, any current land ownership which rests on such unlawful legislation would become void. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I see great things coming for the disadvantaged in society, should AC'ers win their battle!

Re: Supreme Court makes an economically sound decision!
 

[ QUOTE ]
current land ownership which rests on such unlawful legislation

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong (at least in the US).

Re: Supreme Court makes an economically sound decision!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
current land ownership which rests on such unlawful legislation

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong (at least in the US).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah! OK, I get it; we will disregard every unilateral breach of the treaties with the native Americans, which, by the way, had no concept of land ownership, by the US government.

Do you know how many such breaches have occurred? Do you know how many treaties, or what proportions of treaties, were so invalidated by breaches?

Re: Supreme Court makes an economically sound decision!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how many such breaches have occurred? Do you know how many treaties, or what proportions of treaties, were so invalidated by breaches?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you??? Or is this just a rhetorical device.

Re: Supreme Court makes an economically sound decision!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how many such breaches have occurred? Do you know how many treaties, or what proportions of treaties, were so invalidated by breaches?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you??? Or is this just a rhetorical device.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your reply a rhetorical device, or don't you know any instances?

Re: Supreme Court makes an economically sound decision!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how many such breaches have occurred? Do you know how many treaties, or what proportions of treaties, were so invalidated by breaches?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you??? Or is this just a rhetorical device.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your reply a rhetorical device, or don't you know any instances?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. I actually practiced Indian law for a few years where our firm argued before the US Supreme Court. It's an area where I have quite a bit of expertise actually. Now it's your turn to answer.

Inside Information
 

I know one of the parties in the case very well, I'm in the same business and we have been friends for thirty years. I spoke to him yesterday. He says that the people at Polo Ralph Lauren told him the agreements between Polo and their retailers about retail prices are not signed agreements, not even handshake agreements, but winks of the eye. But it's easy for Polo Ralph Lauren to maintain their manufacturer's suggested retail prices because it's a very famous name and they're selling giant retailers.

My friend, on the other hand, is a smaller, less famous company (although it's not a small business: he does approx. $250 million a year and has 117 retails stores of his own) and he is selling to specialty store retailers, over 5,000 of them. The ruling basically says that it's not per se a violation of the antitrust act to set up suggested retail prices, that each case may be considered on its merits.

Interesting headlines about the case in two papers, one of a liberal bent, the other conservative. The L.A. Times headline was "Antitrust ruling may mean higher prices, fewer discounts." The Wall Street Journal's was, "Price-Floor Ruling May Have Small Effect."

My friend had a great lawyer (the lawyer who argued for President Bush in Bush vs. Gore), but he says it was a brief field by Ping Golf that he feels won him the case, as it was brillinatly argued and read like it was written by a layman. Apparently Thomas and Kennedy were impressed with it and Thomas used some of its arguments in his concurring opinion.

Re: Supreme Court makes an economically sound decision!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Neither. I actually practiced Indian law for a few years where our firm argued before the US Supreme Court. It's an area where I have quite a bit of expertise actually. Now it's your turn to answer.


[/ QUOTE ]


PWND