Look out sammiches! The Native American Senator is coming for you!
- Thread starter alaskanseminole
- Start date
I'm OK with not having one company control all of the roast beef sandwiches. Upton Sinclair showed us a while back that it doesn't really work out for anyone other than the distributers of said beef when that happens. I also think this is what Warren's sole political purpose is. She should stick to being this person and get out of the identity politics game. It cost her greatly in 2016.
I thought based in the title that word was offensive somehow not native Americans. And that it was going to be cancelled, and I would have a new favorite Senator. Instead its not, and the Senator is Elizabeth Warren, who we're also likely not cancelling. Double fail...
Btw Subway isn't a monopoly. No one wants to compete with them in most areas because they run shitty little 1-2 person stores in cheap ass strip malls largely in markets underserved due to their small population and lack of competition thereof. That's why their store count is so high.
I'm convinced their stores perform the same in a town of 1000 of 1,000,000. when I sold insurance to farmers for a little bit when I was younger that's when I realized Subway was found in the sole 3 unit strip mall in every town in Iowa that was just big enough to have one. But you have stock that you never throw away and never staffed by more than 2 minimum wagers at a time, and almost zero real commercial kitchen appliances to buy and maintain. No chain that is actually good can make money in half the markets Subway occupies. And if you live in an area where there IS competition, the only people going there are older people that still think its the golden standard, or just out of touch. Like Liz Warren.
You and Pocahonis are both crazy, you can't have a monopoly on sandwich shops. There are a thousand sandwich shops in every city in America, large chains to small mom and pop shops. Anyone can make a sandwich and anyone can open a sandwich shop. Maybe she needs to look up the definition of monopoly before she opens her mouth.
Claiming to be a minority during her entire professional career. I’m sure claiming to be “America Indian” never gave her a professional edge
Yeah but what are the benefits she's reaping from that claim? Her entire professional career is a long time, there's got to be tons of benefits.
Don't be soft.
No, I don't know, that's why I asked you. Is it simply that you know she's reaping benefits but don't know what the benefits are? That's pretty soft.
Warren listed herself as a minority in the association of American law schools and even Harvard Law gave her a shoutout. But I’m sure this quote is what you’re looking for:
Warren maintains she never furthered her career by using her heritage to gain advantage, and an in-depth investigation by the Boston Globe, published on September 1, found the same.
Ok, Jan.
Warren maintains she never furthered her career by using her heritage to gain advantage, and an in-depth investigation by the Boston Globe, published on September 1, found the same.
Ok, Jan.
I'm vaguely aware of what Warren has claimed but I don't really care what she says. I was interested in learning what benefits she's been reaping for her entire professional career. Since you claimed that she was reaping benefits, I thought you would know what the benefits are. But it appears you don't know either, you're too soft I guess.
I'll do so, but only after someone explains how a market with literally hundreds if not thousands of competitors, some big and some small, and reflecting an incredibly wide array of consumer food choices, could be monopolized by a handful of bad sandwich shop chains.
Liz is clearly in over her head, again.
A monopoly (from Greek μόνος, mónos, 'single, alone' and πωλεῖν, pōleîn, 'to sell'), as described by Irving Fisher, is a market with the "absence of competition", creating a situation where a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular thing.
Liz doesn't really understand how the market will sort this out. Of course, there's a lot that Liz doesn't really understand. She does understand one thing, and that's how to pander to the uninformed and stupid people.
A monopoly (from Greek μόνος, mónos, 'single, alone' and πωλεῖν, pōleîn, 'to sell'), as described by Irving Fisher, is a market with the "absence of competition", creating a situation where a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular thing.
Liz doesn't really understand how the market will sort this out. Of course, there's a lot that Liz doesn't really understand. She does understand one thing, and that's how to pander to the uninformed and stupid people.
Last edited:
Hmm…Interesting thread. I’ll submit Lu’s Deli for your viewing pleasure. Amazing place to eat in NewBo, Cedar Rapids. There’s nothing like a real deli.
A "side show of diversity". Seriously, these people he has put in office with him are ****ing clowns. And that is probably being harsh to respectable clowns.
Submarine sandwich restaurants
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
Amato's
Arby’s
Big Bite Submarines
Big John Steak & Onion
Blimpie
Campo's
Capriotti's
Charleys Philly Steaks
Cousins Subs
Dalessandro's Steaks
D'Angelo Sandwich Shops
DiBella's
Donkey's Place
Eegee's
Erbert and Gerbert's
Earl of Sandwich (restaurant)
Firehouse Subs
Jerry's Subs & Pizza
Jimmy John's
Jersey Mike's
Larry's Giant Subs
Lenny's Sub Shop
Max's Steaks
Milio's Sandwiches
Moe's Italian Sandwiches
Mr. Sub
Penn Station
Planet Sub
Port of Subs
Potbelly Sandwich Works
Primo Hoagies
Publix Supermarket
Quiznos
Schlotzsky's
Submarina
Subway
Togo's
Tubby's
Wawa (company)
Which Wich?
White House Sub Shop
en.wikipedia.org
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
Amato's
Arby’s
Big Bite Submarines
Big John Steak & Onion
Blimpie
Campo's
Capriotti's
Charleys Philly Steaks
Cousins Subs
Dalessandro's Steaks
D'Angelo Sandwich Shops
DiBella's
Donkey's Place
Eegee's
Erbert and Gerbert's
Earl of Sandwich (restaurant)
Firehouse Subs
Jerry's Subs & Pizza
Jimmy John's
Jersey Mike's
Larry's Giant Subs
Lenny's Sub Shop
Max's Steaks
Milio's Sandwiches
Moe's Italian Sandwiches
Mr. Sub
Penn Station
Planet Sub
Port of Subs
Potbelly Sandwich Works
Primo Hoagies
Publix Supermarket
Quiznos
Schlotzsky's
Submarina
Subway
Togo's
Tubby's
Wawa (company)
Which Wich?
White House Sub Shop
List of submarine sandwich restaurants - Wikipedia
You don't have to own literally everything to be big enough to artificially manipulate costs that affect everyone. Subway owns 38% of the market. If big enough a company could choke out their competition over time. Does that really need to be explained? It doesn't matter the number of competitors when 1 group has a controlling interest.
This doesn't seem to me to be a top priority worthy of a US senator's time.
It's not really a monopoly in the first place since there are several sandwich shops he doesn't own and even if he did own them all he would still be in competition with a lot of other types of quick service places that serve things other than sandwiches.
I would prefer her to focus on products that I can not easily avoid and still live in the modern world. If I don't like a sandwich shop's prices I don't have to buy sandwiches.
It's not really a monopoly in the first place since there are several sandwich shops he doesn't own and even if he did own them all he would still be in competition with a lot of other types of quick service places that serve things other than sandwiches.
I would prefer her to focus on products that I can not easily avoid and still live in the modern world. If I don't like a sandwich shop's prices I don't have to buy sandwiches.
Elizabeth Warren Wants the Government To Investigate America's 'Sandwich Shop Monopoly'
Christian Britschgi
Mon, November 27, 2023 at 11:30 AM CST·3 min read
1.2k
Subway might not be the only one that's freshly baked. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) thinks the government should investigate America's alleged "sandwich shop monopoly."
"We don't need another private equity deal that could lead to higher food prices for consumers," Warren tweeted Sunday. She was responding to a Politico piece reporting that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is probing the private equity firm Roark Capital's $10 billion acquisition of Subway.
Roark already owns the sandwich-serving chains Arby's, Jimmy Johns, McAlister's Deli, and Schlotzky's. Warren said that adding Subway to that list could create a "sandwich shop monopoly."
The senator has made a career of crusading against such "monopolies," regardless of how monopolististic they actually are or beneficial to consumers they might be. (Witness her war on Amazon-branded chargers.)
Her attack on America's alleged "sandwich shop monopoly" scores new points for pettiness. It also shows just how broad (and therefore meaningless) the word "monopoly" has become in modern political discourse—and at Lina Kahn's FTC.
It's easy to assert that something is a monopoly if you narrow your focus on the market or product being discussed. There are, after all, only so many national fast-casual restaurant chains focused on serving deli sandwiches. If Roark snatches up Subway, then ownership of that particular ham slice of the market may in fact look pretty consolidated.
But from the casual consumer's perspective, competition remains robust. There are endless options for getting a sandwich without paying a Roark-owned enterprise. Grocery stores, convenience stores, coffee shops, non-chain delis, and more all sell some variety of sandwich. And yes, non-Roark-owned national sandwich chains still exist.
Sandwiches, not being the most elaborate meal in the world, can also be made by most Americans at home.
On top of all that robust competition within the sandwich market, sandwich shops are in heated competition with all manner of other restaurants selling hamburgers (technically also a sandwich), hot dogs (debatably a sandwich), burritos (not a sandwich), salads, soups, Asian rice bowls, Mediterranean rice bowls, and more.
Consumers can, and do, flit between all of these options with ease. Even if Roark's acquisition of Subway gives it a stranglehold over the sandwich market, its ability to raise prices on consumers will still be hemmed in by this dizzying array of additional lunchtime options.
The original purpose of antitrust laws was to prevent the Cornelius Vanderbilts of the world from using their ownership of the commanding heights of the economy to raise prices and gouge consumers. Libertarians have long criticized such statutes, arguing that an existing monopoly can't sustainably charge consumers above-market prices as long as new competitors armed with new technologies are allowed to undercut them. And indeed, even tech companies that once seemed invincible are now being laid low by competitive pressures.
If markets can work in that arena, we surely don't need the government to police who owns businesses that specialize in putting cold cuts between slices of bread.
There is quite literally nothing to suggest that this putative 'monopoly' has the ability to exercise vertical/supply chain influence to cause raw material sellers who are otherwise eager to make sales to raise prices to other buyers (setting aside, too, the Robinson Patman Act). Again, there are literally thousands of buyers of processed meats, and I would imagine that many of those markets have strongly regional elements to them as well. As to 'choking out competition' by dropping prices, that's actually just 'good old' competition, and given the low costs and barriers to entry, the risks of following it up by subsequently raising prices to recover losses have been pretty thoroughly debunked in the economic literature. But as for me, I'll gladly pay a buck or two more for a sub from the Italian Store in Arlington, VA or from the Patricia Street Deli in Jasper, AB, or Jetty's in Washington DC, rather than some chain.
Either way, Senator P is simply wrong to suggest this is a problematic arrangement from an antitrust perspective. As the articles notes, sandwiches compete with other sandwiches, and burgers, and chicken tenders, and...well, you get the idea. And if you don't, just drive down your local interstate to the next exit, and I'm sure you'll be presented with several choices.
I don't like Elizabeth Warren, I probably disagree with her on about 97% of everything, and I think this probably doesn't rise to the definition of a monopoly.
However...you know what? On a purely real world level...I agree with her on this. Nothing good will come from this for consumers, only bad. This is the perfect example of the enshittification of everything. More consolidation, less competition, less choices, higher barrier of entry.
The food will get worse at all these restaurants as a result. The prices will probably go up. Jersey Mikes and Firehouse will have more difficulty competing, and you will see fewer of them and they will probably get worse.
It's a slight exaggeration, but everything is getting worse now. Very bizarre turn of events in the last 10-15 years...food tastes worse, products are poorer quality, service is worse, online shopping is worse, services like AirBNB etc are worse, movies are getting worse, streaming services getting worse and more expensive.
People are constantly asking why the quality and experience of almost everything is getting worse, and frequently worse AND more expensive. Well, behind the scenes, this is the type of thing that contributes with it. Along with mega-companies like google and facebook and amazon buying up almost every promising competitor that hits the market with a new or potentially better approach to anything. Or Apple or Google holding the door to the app store closed to anyone who might do something a better way that threatens them.
Should it be illegal for Roark to by Subway, or Google to buy Nest, or VRBO to buy Flipkey or whatever? Does it create a dictionary definition of a monopoly? Probably not. But it's just part of the trend that makes everything shittier little by little.
However...you know what? On a purely real world level...I agree with her on this. Nothing good will come from this for consumers, only bad. This is the perfect example of the enshittification of everything. More consolidation, less competition, less choices, higher barrier of entry.
The food will get worse at all these restaurants as a result. The prices will probably go up. Jersey Mikes and Firehouse will have more difficulty competing, and you will see fewer of them and they will probably get worse.
It's a slight exaggeration, but everything is getting worse now. Very bizarre turn of events in the last 10-15 years...food tastes worse, products are poorer quality, service is worse, online shopping is worse, services like AirBNB etc are worse, movies are getting worse, streaming services getting worse and more expensive.
People are constantly asking why the quality and experience of almost everything is getting worse, and frequently worse AND more expensive. Well, behind the scenes, this is the type of thing that contributes with it. Along with mega-companies like google and facebook and amazon buying up almost every promising competitor that hits the market with a new or potentially better approach to anything. Or Apple or Google holding the door to the app store closed to anyone who might do something a better way that threatens them.
Should it be illegal for Roark to by Subway, or Google to buy Nest, or VRBO to buy Flipkey or whatever? Does it create a dictionary definition of a monopoly? Probably not. But it's just part of the trend that makes everything shittier little by little.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and perceptions of course, and many would probably agree with your feelings and I'm sure everyone can think of an example that illustrates it..... but I can't help but wonder if there's any objective way to actually measure what you're describing here. Not sure what that would look like, but it would be interesting to be able to better compare perception and reality.
Here's the thing. When you live in a continent sized country of north of 300 million people, efficiencies of production, shelf life, and distribution sort of become a thing, because they're actually necessary for probably about 250 million of those people. Now sure, the other 50 million may be well off enough and live in locations where they can eat well, in terms of quality, at least compared to the other 250 million. That's why french, or spanish, or italian food is as good as it is - they don't have to produce enough of it for 300 million freaking people, and they don't have to distribute it for on-demand consumption over an entire continent. It's our curse, and our genius.
So at a core level, you're right. Stuff does suck more here at the median, at least if you're one of the 250 million whose time, resources,and/or location make it necessary for them to eat the shitty stuff.
Social media giants, FB, ISG, X those may be considered monopolies, Subway, please..............
Did you just list a few different competitors in the same industry as an example of monopolies? AI has a ways to go.
Absolutely valid...it's more of a vibe than anything that can be quantified.
Obviously, plenty of things are better and more advanced, especially around medicine let's say. Objectively, cars are better than they used to be, in terms of longevity and safety. But even in those cases, the experience of paying for and receiving medical care is a worse experience than ever, less time with a doctor, etc. And cars, while objectively better, are way more boring and of less variety.
Even things that should be better on the face of it...kind of suck. The promise of streaming to replace cable has devolved into dozens of fragmented providers, all getting more expensive all the time, caliber of programming worse, need a half dozen different services, etc.
AirBNB has gotten worse. Amazon has gotten way worse with crap products, a terrible search, fake reviews, etc. Google search is worse than it was 10-15 years ago. Ebay is pretty much shit.
The US Post Office is worse, and honestly, as someone who does a fair amount of shipping, FedEx is noticeably worse. I don't use UPS enough to know.
Consumer electronics have pretty much ground to a halt, there hasn't been a culture-shifting addition to consumer or office electronics in 15 years now. For most of my life, we had rapid advances in daily life tech pretty much from year to year.
And we all know the quality of food and service at restaurants and even grocery stores has been falling for some time now, even before the pandemic. Next time you are grocery shopping, look how much of the ice cream in the freezer isn't actually ice cream, it's "frozen dairy dessert".
Quantifiable? No.
Subjective? Totally.
Exceptions? Certainly numerous.
Is overall quality of life worse? No, I don't believe that, not in most the important ways. There is less hunger, disease, abuse, etc than there ever have been. I am not a nihilist, an anti-capitalist, or a doomer. Nothing like that.
But it's more about the degrading of the little things that you interact with every day. Very few of them seem better than they were ten years ago, and a whole hell of a lot of them seem worse.
Certainly I'm biased, having lived through an era of from the 70s into the 2000s which brought amazing tech advances and life-improving products and services and entertainment seemingly year after year. Maybe the last ten years is just the norm. Maybe it's just a fluke of history that I happened to live through the microprocessor era, the end of the cold war, the internet revolution, mass communication, the second golden age of television, and massive economic and commercial expansion.
Maybe I'm just an old man yelling at a cloud, and maybe the newest Tik Tok dance really is as good and important as The Sopranos, and I'm just to old to appreciate it.
But if you're 50, you can't tell me that the last decade or so has been like the previous four decades.
I guess so. I suppose it made life better if it now allows you to work from home, and you couldn't before.
I'm not sure how many people would say Zoom calls made their life better. Most people hate them. Even then, Zoom was around before the pandemic, I'd say that the zoom call/wfh shift was a function of the pandemic more than zoom, and I still think the pandemic would be considered a net negative.
