Gas prices are a little less clear as it seems primarily the increases have been due to Iranian destabilization in the Middle East and less so tariffs, but gas prices do effect each country differently so increases here in the US are a lot less painful than, say, Singapore.

I agree with you that increases in the prices of both are good for reducing carbon emissions. I think it's interesting to see how folks are reacting to, what in my mind seem to be still incredibly low prices relative to the negative externalities. If we factored in the destruction and harm we're doing to the planet gas in the US should probably be more in the neighborhood of $20/gallon or something (that's a made up number and I'm just guessing) and beef probably should be quite a bit more expensive too. Though I think it's also worth pointing out gas prices are still lower than when Russia unjustly invaded Ukraine and if we can stomach those we can stomach these too.

Many markets don't really have 'competition'

But if you want to follow that train of thought with that faulty premise, then sure yes we must stop communism to lower prices because the OP says that oligopoly is solely responsible for price increases, so it follows that further restriction on market participants further increases prices. I don't agree with that premise, but if that's your view and the OPs view then it would be logically consistent for you to also advocate stamping out communism to lower prices.

(Also communism doesn't follow the same rules as monopolies.)

They advocated for competition instead of ogliopoly. You decided to talk about a completely different and irrelevant way there could be a lack of competition. Even if your conclusion is right, that they would be against communism if it was a realistic threat here, there was no reason to bring it up.

I could say that a bunch of badly placed volcanos would reduce competition and they must be against those volcanos. Such a statement is technically true but it's a non-sequitur.

Both things can be true.

https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/07/28/food-fraud-...

https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa...

You're going to have to change those habits anyway because even without inflation that has been ongoing since the pandemic began you still have a lot of pressure to push prices higher on beef and other "luxury" goods as global demand continues to increase, the environment becomes worse off and requires further regulation, &c. It's perhaps a head start, but the long term trend isn't toward lower prices regardless of the impact of inflation (for example).

I also rarely eat in a restaurant, but when I do I make it a great one (to me -- I'm not talking only or even mostly about highfalutin places). Aside from being a better inherent experience, it also makes it more of a special event, which increases the pleasure I get from it. Any fantastic thing experienced frequently ceases to feel fantastic.

The truth is that most people can cook better (and healthier) food than most restaurants. The value proposition restaurants provide is mostly experience (a lovely night out in a pleasant environment where you're being waited on is fun) and convenience (just because you could cook it better doesn't mean you want to, particularly for lengthy and involved dishes).

I wouldn't mind this up to a point. One of the things that I find really irritating about most US restaurants (I'm an American, if it matters) is that the portion sizes tend to be far too large.

It is really the goal of food service: to make something that is ready-to-eat, and this is incompatible with tossing it in the fridge or freezer for later.

A burrito may be mostly forgiving, but your cheese and the lard will congeal, and the juices will soak through the tortilla, and guacamole will oxidize, and reheating the burrito cannot reverse these processes.