Tire antitrust class action suit

Increasing tire prices are just the tip of the iceberg.


Corporations are public companies. I would think that any proof of greedflation would be self evident in looking at historical trends for a given company.

I've looked into a few companies and haven't seen anything outside of historical deviation/norms. That said, I could have missed something

Also, something often forgotten, are the narrow profit margins for most businesses. Wal Mart operates at 2.2%, for instance. So, big deviations should be rather easy to spot.

I also have to wonder, logically, why these companies just now started to be so greedy. Collusion is one thing and it happens. But, on the whole, pricing oneself out of the market isn't beneficial.
 
Corporations are public companies. I would think that any proof of greedflation would be self evident in looking at historical trends for a given company.

I've looked into a few companies and haven't seen anything outside of historical deviation/norms. That said, I could have missed something

Also, something often forgotten, are the narrow profit margins for most businesses. Wal Mart operates at 2.2%, for instance. So, big deviations should be rather easy to spot.

I also have to wonder, logically, why these companies just now started to be so greedy. Collusion is one thing and it happens. But, on the whole, pricing oneself out of the market isn't beneficial.
Usually, it comes with new management and a focus on short-term results.
 
Huh…. So uncontrolled money printing and un checked government spending didn’t cause inflation…. It was the corporations…..

Got it. How long before this just happens to become a political campaign talking point.
It becomes a talking point when those who don't know any better start listening.
 
Usually, it comes with new management and a focus on short-term results.
It comes with higher prices, because everyone pays in the end. Its supposed to incentivize others not to do it but it doesn't seem to work.

I suggest public flogging of the upper management instead. We could sell tickets to compensate those who were financially affected.
 
And manufacturers keep putting larger tires on vehicles and have done away with tire sizes like we grew up with. The large sizes increase the un-sprung weight and cost more. Try finding tires in 13 and 14 inch sizes now. Even 15" is hard to find.
Isn’t this also a function of larger brakes too though? Cars stop a lot faster than they used to, pound for pound.

Edit: I see others have discussed this above. Disregard.
 
The weight that any tire can support is nothing but an engineering challenge irrespective of diameter imo. Larger disc brakes do indeed need larger wheels but the trade off is larger is not always better as rotating mass eats power. So 22" wheels with spinner hubcaps is just about the bling on passenger vehicles.
I am not talking here about 22". But many SUVs run 19" as the absolute minimum.
 
And manufacturers keep putting larger tires on vehicles and have done away with tire sizes like we grew up with. The large sizes increase the un-sprung weight and cost more. Try finding tires in 13 and 14 inch sizes now. Even 15" is hard to find.
This is really a silly statement considering the weight and performance of today's CUVs/SUVs/Trucks. Yea-they cost more-because 15" tires will not work well.
 
Pretty heavy cars back in a day needed 15sec or more to 60mph and had 140hp.
Depends on what you mean by "back in the day". Ford's 427 was 400+ Hp. Chrysler's 427 Hemi was 400+ Hp. Etc.

In truth, cars back then didn't stop all that well. So there is some reason for bigger brakes and therefore somewhat bigger wheels. But 17" or 18" should be plenty.

Really big (and in consequence heavy) wheels detract from performance. And a wide wheel and a narrow tire side wall are more likely to be a problem in a pot hole.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't that many years ago when 16" tires with 10 ply's and E rated were common place on 3/4-1 ton pickups. Almost all of which had front disc brakes. I agree that 17" should be more than sufficient for 90% of passenger vehicles.
 
Depends on what you mean by "back in the day". Ford's 427 was 400+ Hp. Chrysler's 427 Hemi was 400+ Hp. Etc.

In truth, cars back then didn't stop all that well. So there is some reason for bigger brakes and therefore somewhat bigger wheels. But 17" or 18" should be plenty.

Really big (and in consequence heavy) wheels detract from performance. And a wide wheel and a narrow tire side wall are more likely to be a problem in a pot hole.
17" is too small on some SUVs (I talk SUVs as they are the most popular). Brands like BMW and Mercedes can execute exceptional brakes using 17" or even 16", but in the appliance category, there is too much cost-cutting to utilize some more expensive materials. Therefore, 17" is some minimum to fit 335-340mm rotors and decent calipers.
Don't get me wrong; I know what an argument is. I downsized from 20" on Atlas to 18.
 
Wasn't that many years ago when 16" tires with 10 ply's and E rated were common place on 3/4-1 ton pickups. Almost all of which had front disc brakes. I agree that 17" should be more than sufficient for 90% of passenger vehicles.
Yes but that wasn't the argument that started this - it was 13 and 14 inch tires.

16 inch wheel will clear the brakes on my 2019 Rav4 even though it came with 19's. I believe the Rav4 in that generation is the number one selling non pickup in the country still.
 
Yes but that wasn't the argument that started this - it was 13 and 14 inch tires.

16 inch wheel will clear the brakes on my 2019 Rav4 even though it came with 19's. I believe the Rav4 in that generation is the number one selling non pickup in the country still.
Ok
 
Huh…. So uncontrolled money printing and un checked government spending didn’t cause inflation…. It was the corporations…..

Got it. How long before this just happens to become a political campaign talking point.
Exactly (sarcasm)

If you do the math, the extra money pumped into the economy in 2020 and 2021 when viewed as a percentage of GDP tracks pretty closely with inflation during that period.

Not exactly, as there were other factors. But this one seems to go hand-in-hand.

I won't say any more out of respect of the SRP guidance. But I do have strong opinions on the topic :)
 
Exactly (sarcasm)

If you do the math, the extra money pumped into the economy in 2020 and 2021 when viewed as a percentage of GDP tracks pretty closely with inflation during that period.

Not exactly, as there were other factors. But this one seems to go hand-in-hand.

I won't say any more out of respect of the SRP guidance. But I do have strong opinions on the topic :)
The federal Reserve Bank themselves say inflation is a monetary phenomena. If you think of currency as any other commodity - and supply of currency makes it worth more or less, its easier to understand.
 
The federal Reserve Bank themselves say inflation is a monetary phenomena. If you think of currency as any other commodity - and supply of currency makes it worth more or less, its easier to understand.
Indeed.

If you look at their policy, when they want to cool down the economy, they start removing money from the system by increasing interest rates, essentially making money more expensive.

The theory is money is created when it's loaned and "destroyed" when those loans are paid off.

There is no ONE factor that determines the price at the cash register for what you and I purchase. However, money supply is one of those factors. If you have "too many" dollars chasing the amount of goods and services being sold, the price of those goods and services goes up.

Without getting into inelasticity of demand and other factors, this is the general simple explanation.
 
Back
Top