They are competitors because they have different owners. They both license the brand from the same franchisor (McDonald's, in this case), and pay a fee to the same franchisor, but they definitely compete with each other. There are often non-compete clauses in franchise agreements (to prohibit, say, another franchise opening next door), but these are not universal and are often very limited, which can result in franchisees competing with each other.

Yes, different locations can have different prices for this very reason. The problem is when the locations conspire together to keep prices artificially high. RealPage did (does) a version of this for apartments. Yes, a luxury 2BR near the beautiful waterfront will be more than the old 1BR by the waste treatment plant. But if they collaborate they can increase their prices in lockstep and raise prices by ending legitimate price competition, because everyone agrees to use the inflated prices and collude to maximize their profits. The landlords win and the renters lose. McD's seems to have some version of this but for burgers.

Because it is price-fixing via an app.

You are correct that the way it is supposed to work is that competing businesses compete by offering differing prices for their products or services, then customers are free to choose the price they are willing to pay. But this ain't that.

This is McDonald's (and soon every other restaurant) conspiring together to set the price as high as they want so every restaurant everywhere has the same high price - customers are no longer free to choose because all prices are the same everywhere. And extremely high.

Let me know when McDonald's starts serving meat.

Why? Getting food that is grown closer to where you live is not inherently more environmentally sustainable. (This is because only a small portion of the carbon emissions for the production of a product is related to its transportation. My jackass local farmers who spray their crops with endless amounts of herbicides and pesticides and tons of ammonia and drive their honking diesel tractors and trucks around all day are way worse than produce grown using truly sustainable farming practices that require a ride in a moderately efficient 18-wheeler to get here.)

Nor is it inherently healthier, especially because my part of the world would have *no* fresh fruit or vegetables for 8+ months of the year.

Everything I know about the pancreas I learned from Al! (I don't know if that says something bad about me or good about Al...)

Why do you want everything "flat"? It's inequitable to those who work for a living, it will reduce revenue, and there's no good evidence it will reduce waste or corruption. I'm guessing your goal is primarily #2 (reducing revenue), with the notion that if government revenue is cut it will reduce wasteful spending. This is a fallacy. Just because there's less money doesn't mean governments will spend it more wisely. In fact, rapid, thoughtless cuts, as we are seeing under Trump, has wasted a ton of money, probably more than was claimed to be saved. For example, Trump's latest move to cut the Department of Education (well, move it to various other agencies) has resulted in chaos, limits on ability to provide services to students and families, and a re-renovation to the tune of $100 million+. to a building that was just recently renovated for $50 million+ to meet the needs of the department moving there. AND, now that the education-related units are all going to be split up, the efficiency they once had by being together (they were separate at one point in the past and then were brought together for "efficiency") is gone. You can't tax-cut your way to efficiency.

And a flat income tax at the federal level is never going to happen.

Does the asteroid feature slime creatures from outer space?

I'm sure Al is celebrating the achievement with a Twinkie wiener sandwich....

And when the federal government - or any other government - creates a better, easier, faster, more simple tool similar to bitcoin for their existing currency, the value of BTC will be zero.

Most taxes in the U.S. are already "flat taxes." Gas tax, property tax, sales tax, social security tax, medicare tax...all "flat taxes." Turning the federal (and state?) income tax into a flat tax will likely reduce overall tax revenue and will not solve the tax evasion problems you mention.

I'm all for eliminating many of the tax breaks for the wealthy, especially the mortgage deduction for high earners, the capital gains tax on investments being so low for the wealthy, and the ability to hide income in offshore accounts. And an IRS that has been so gutted they don't have the resources to audit or pursue tax cheats. But a "flat income tax" won't fix these problems.

The other issue with a "flat tax" is that it removes one of the biggest mechanisms the federal government has to influence behavior of citizens. For example, if the government wants to incentivize people to have children, a tax deduction for families. If the government wants to incentivize putting solar panels on your home, a tax deduction for solar investments. And on and on. A flat tax takes away the government's ability to incentive (or punish) behaviors that are in the public's interest.

...business school, but without any pesky professors, accreditations, or quality control? AND I get to give my best ideas to Andreessen (and other VC types) who will then make a bunch of money on my idea and my work?

Where do I sign up?!?!?!

Yes, and it only counts against other profits you made during that same year. (There's no tax refund if you have negative profits for a year, although in some instances you might be able to apply those losses across multiple years.) AI says there's a $15 million limit to the deduction (maybe per year?) for movie production.

So if WB paid, say, a 20% corporate tax rate (haha, I'm sure that's much too high), a $15 million deduction from earnings only saves $3 million in tax bill ($15 x 0.2). So the execs decided to take the guaranteed $3 million (maybe x2) rather than gamble and pay for promotion and see what the movie could make in the theaters. Seems like a very stupid gamble. But, then again, most CEOs are not smart people.

I will, I promise :)!

Yes, in California you have to imagine this because demographic quotas are illegal for hiring in California. And having a racially diverse workforce in California is easy, since some 66% of the people who live there are non-white.

Should they be allowed to re-build these homes with kindling, so it easily burns in two years when the next fire sweeps through, leaving the government and charitable people to foot the bill once again for the cleanup and replacement? Or, I don't know, should rebuilt homes be required to reduce the chance of the death and danger from fire and be required to meet safety requirements?

We already have this, it's called "fan fiction."

In any case, there's something like 4 million new books released *every year.* We really don't need AI to be able to add more output more quickly - if you have a weird niche book interest, I'm confident you can find hundreds of books that fill that niche that are released every year by actual people.

The appeal of AI to the publishers is that they don't have to pay anyone but themselves. Which has been their dream for decades.

Publishers are bastards.

Where did I say anything about laws? But, now that you mention it, yes, I fully expect we will see new laws once one of these devices cause a problem for a rich person.