Money often costs too much.

Money often costs too much. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Because I like giving peanuts to the monkey(s) in Jordan's brain, I want to talk about today's Supreme Court decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products v . PSKS (06-480), which did away with the 96 year old antitrust precedent prohibiting minimum price setting between manufacturers and retailers, and what that means for the voting, consuming, and deeply in debt public...

It sounds like to me that the Court just permitted manufacturers to require that their goods be sold at a (presumably higher) minimum price, in order for a retailer to sell their product(s). Consumers have enjoyed antitrust protections, against this very behavior, in this country for almost a century. What is the Court doing? Why?

Is it because our politicians/lobbyists like to encourage consumer debt, credit card debts, bank and mortgage debt? Because those shackles tie us to our crappy service-industry jobs and crap wages, so that there's nothing for us to do but work 50 hour weeks and sit in front of our televisions, watching commercials for more $*&% to buy on credit, from the very same people who in essence are running our country?

Sounds like fascism to me...

I guess I was starting to have some sort of thought (or maybe I'm about to sneeze?), but due to the half gallon of dayquil i have consumed today, I'm afraid I'm about to go horizontal. I am interested to see if anyone (Jordan?) wants to comment here...

References
Bloomber.com
ScotusBlog.com
Money Cnn.com
Fool.com