Again: I understand what you mean. I get it, mate.
It doesn’t matter. Nobody will mention that, because it’s just a daily thing, it’s a constant, it’s always there.
Not to mention that you don’t just go “and, by the way dear listeners, company XYZ is involve in criminal activities, due to which we have inflation”. You take them to court, not talk about it.
Am I not allowed to be annoyed?
Did I say you’re not supposed to do something here? Feel annoyed, rightly so. Just don’t expect anyone to start talking about “greed/illegal activities being [one of the causes of] inflation”, because it’s either obvious, or illegal to do so.
saying you’re implying they “always act in good faith” is a fair criticism if you’re disagreeing that nobody ever does the thing I’m saying annoys me.
WTF? I never said anything remotely similar to this, mate…
I’m saying it’s annoying when economists and government officials act like greed can’t play a part in inflation when shit that should be illegal (like price colluding) happens that is purely an effect of greed.
Again: I understand what you mean. I get it, mate.
It doesn’t matter. Nobody will mention that, because it’s just a daily thing, it’s a constant, it’s always there.
Not to mention that you don’t just go “and, by the way dear listeners, company XYZ is involve in criminal activities, due to which we have inflation”. You take them to court, not talk about it.
Did I say you’re not supposed to do something here? Feel annoyed, rightly so. Just don’t expect anyone to start talking about “greed/illegal activities being [one of the causes of] inflation”, because it’s either obvious, or illegal to do so.
WTF? I never said anything remotely similar to this, mate…
Is this where you stopped reading and started writing your responses? If so: please read the second sentence. And then the rest.
Do you know how sentences work? That you can string some together into a paragraph and then they all provide important context?