I am unaccustomed to social media -- did you notice that you start by labelling some party to these public events with an insulting label? and then follow with a second word that convicts the entire process without evidence or substantiation? since the words flow easily as spoken, I assume this is common practice, but it is really startling to see in a forum based on evidence and specifics.
Nothing that is complex and public is so simple as to convict with one word, and no party to public participation is so one-dimensional as to suffer a derogatory class name without losing real meaning.
I call on readers and posters to fall back to learned basic inquiry skills, and to substantiate statements, to raise the level of dialog about emerging public events here.
I recognize my comment was dismissive, because I agree with my sibling comment here. I felt this is so obviously a sham and didn't expect it to be controversial. Do you take issue with the point made or just the tone? Nobody on this thread seems to have explained what exactly makes this not a sham, for anyone even a little bit informed about the world it's obvious that inflation isn't due primarily to corporate profiteering even if that is happening. Do you expect this hearing will help to combat inflation in any meaningful way?
Nothing that is complex and public is so simple as to convict with one word, and no party to public participation is so one-dimensional as to suffer a derogatory class name without losing real meaning.
I call on readers and posters to fall back to learned basic inquiry skills, and to substantiate statements, to raise the level of dialog about emerging public events here.