Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-29-2007, 09:32 AM
captZEEbo captZEEbo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: blog: Oct 23- Diary MD-pt 4
Posts: 6,927
Default 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]
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-29-2007, 09:34 AM
Nielsio Nielsio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,570
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-29-2007, 09:44 AM
MidGe MidGe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Shame on you, Blackwater!
Posts: 3,908
Default 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!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-29-2007, 09:56 AM
pvn pvn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: back despite popular demand
Posts: 10,955
Default 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).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-29-2007, 10:30 AM
MidGe MidGe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Shame on you, Blackwater!
Posts: 3,908
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-29-2007, 10:35 AM
elwoodblues elwoodblues is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sweet Home, Chicago
Posts: 4,485
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-29-2007, 10:37 AM
MidGe MidGe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Shame on you, Blackwater!
Posts: 3,908
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-29-2007, 10:50 AM
elwoodblues elwoodblues is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sweet Home, Chicago
Posts: 4,485
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-29-2007, 11:42 AM
andyfox andyfox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La-la land, where else?
Posts: 17,636
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-29-2007, 12:59 PM
NeBlis NeBlis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 649
Default 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
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.