Wal-Mart burned by its OWN report/study...

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mail5398
I used to be a free market whacko until one day I woke up and looked around at the real world. Free market is a buzz word for investors. I agree that perfect competition is the model we really need to work for. Perfect competition is many buyers and sellers with no one having influence over price. Wal-Mart does not exist in this state. They go to their suppliers and tell them we will give you this. If you do not like it, we will go to another company that uses sweatshop labor in China to manufacture it. What this has led to is U.S. firms closing down their American plants and investing in plants in other parts of the world where you can get away with paying wages that provide workers with wages that barely cover their purchase of food.

If fair wages existed in all countries around the world then U.S. workers might stand a chance at competing. Who wants to work 70 hours a week to live in a 240 square foot apartment with no electricity, own no motorized vehicle, and be able to buy rice and maybe a vegtable or two a week?

Most of the guys who are complaining about U.S. workers probably still live at home living off their mommy and daddy's money.

"Perfect competition" is cutting the legs off all the football players so the legless player can compete. It destroys incentive and will stifle innovation. Why try harder if you're not allowed to succeed?

There is no such thing as a "fair wage." What an absurd concept. Fair for who? One man's "fair" is another man's oppression. You can have freedom, or fairness. You cannot have both.

Finally, you actually have that last line in your post completely backwards, most of the people in this thread who are promoting free trade and lamenting the US worker pricing themselves out of jobs are older. The one's bleating the anti-capitalist, anti-walmart mantra are younger. I'm 38. I've been a fast food worker, a gas station attendant, a retail worker, a soldier, a construction worker, a factory worker and am now a business owner.

perfect competition does no such thing. perfect competition is a model that claims if all factors then there will be many buyers and many sellers.

even in america's "free" economy, the companies that are the largest stay there because of artificial barriers to entry. they large corporations do everything in their power to prevent free flow of information (this is where it's dicey because how do you determine which information is public domain and which is protected).

all businesses that make high profits do su becuase they have an edge in information, ease of access to a resource or some other such barrier to free flow.

perfect competition assumes that all buyers and all sellers have the same access to information and that inventory and workers are easily as accessible by all sellers and that goods are equally accessible by all buyers.

let's look at 2 gas stations. they could have the same product, the same prices and yet because of location one could do exceedingly well and one could go out of business. perfect competition assumes this doesn't happen.

the goal of the conservative govt is supposed to be, create a situation as close to perfect competition model as possible, hence we have laws against monopolies etc. we want to eliminate artificial barriers to trade. when the japanese govt exercises protectionism it is creating an artificial barrier to trade. you have to think these artificial barriers give the japanese companies an advantage.

perfect competition does not cut the legs off football players, it just assumes they all have equal amounts of talent.

The only way to assure all players have "equal amounts of talent" is to cut the legs off the talented so the untalented can compete. "Fairness," in all cases, is merely catering to the lowest common denominator by holding back the most talented. "Perfect competition" is merely another term for fair trade. Fair is NOT free. It is far from it. Like I said, one man's "fair" is another man's oppression. "Fair" for one man always comes at the expense of another man's freedom.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mail5398
I used to be a free market whacko until one day I woke up and looked around at the real world. Free market is a buzz word for investors. I agree that perfect competition is the model we really need to work for. Perfect competition is many buyers and sellers with no one having influence over price. Wal-Mart does not exist in this state. They go to their suppliers and tell them we will give you this. If you do not like it, we will go to another company that uses sweatshop labor in China to manufacture it. What this has led to is U.S. firms closing down their American plants and investing in plants in other parts of the world where you can get away with paying wages that provide workers with wages that barely cover their purchase of food.

If fair wages existed in all countries around the world then U.S. workers might stand a chance at competing. Who wants to work 70 hours a week to live in a 240 square foot apartment with no electricity, own no motorized vehicle, and be able to buy rice and maybe a vegtable or two a week?

Most of the guys who are complaining about U.S. workers probably still live at home living off their mommy and daddy's money.

"Perfect competition" is cutting the legs off all the football players so the legless player can compete. It destroys incentive and will stifle innovation. Why try harder if you're not allowed to succeed?

There is no such thing as a "fair wage." What an absurd concept. Fair for who? One man's "fair" is another man's oppression. You can have freedom, or fairness. You cannot have both.

Finally, you actually have that last line in your post completely backwards, most of the people in this thread who are promoting free trade and lamenting the US worker pricing themselves out of jobs are older. The one's bleating the anti-capitalist, anti-walmart mantra are younger. I'm 38. I've been a fast food worker, a gas station attendant, a retail worker, a soldier, a construction worker, a factory worker and am now a business owner.

perfect competition does no such thing. perfect competition is a model that claims if all factors then there will be many buyers and many sellers.

even in america's "free" economy, the companies that are the largest stay there because of artificial barriers to entry. they large corporations do everything in their power to prevent free flow of information (this is where it's dicey because how do you determine which information is public domain and which is protected).

all businesses that make high profits do su becuase they have an edge in information, ease of access to a resource or some other such barrier to free flow.

perfect competition assumes that all buyers and all sellers have the same access to information and that inventory and workers are easily as accessible by all sellers and that goods are equally accessible by all buyers.

let's look at 2 gas stations. they could have the same product, the same prices and yet because of location one could do exceedingly well and one could go out of business. perfect competition assumes this doesn't happen.

the goal of the conservative govt is supposed to be, create a situation as close to perfect competition model as possible, hence we have laws against monopolies etc. we want to eliminate artificial barriers to trade. when the japanese govt exercises protectionism it is creating an artificial barrier to trade. you have to think these artificial barriers give the japanese companies an advantage.

perfect competition does not cut the legs off football players, it just assumes they all have equal amounts of talent.

The only way to assure all players have "equal amounts of talent" is to cut the legs off the talented so the untalented can compete. "Fairness," in all cases, is merely catering to the lowest common denominator by holding back the most talented. "Perfect competition" is merely another term for fair trade. Fair is NOT free. It is far from it. Like I said, one man's "fair" is another man's oppression. "Fair" for one man always comes at the expense of another man's freedom.

hehehe. i love the way you completely ignore the discussion and try to sum it up in a trite phrase.

1st of all, i am discussing perfect competition as the model on which our govt has based policy for a long time.

2nd, perfect competition is a MICRO economic model and not a MACRO economic model. many economist have attempted to get our govt to move from the micro model to the macro model for years with no real success.

macro has competinng theories as well, free market laissez faire (currently referred to as Supply Side) vs govt supported (such as we see in japan also referred to as Keynsian Economics).

milton friedman one of the foremost macro economist of our day has argued for laissez faire to the point of private school vouchers etc.

Keynsian argues that ideally laissez faire works, BUT there are situations where you can't just leave it to the market and a push by the govt is critical, key points would be the building of damns, highway systems, spending by govt when there is a depression etc. modern keynsians also argue that govt should work to help our industries stay competitive.

to simply argue that anyone who is not supply-side is communist is way to simplistic and simply not true.

even the most die hard keynsians believe that market forces are an important factor in driving economies.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


hehehe. i love the way you completely ignore the discussion and try to sum it up in a trite phrase.

Because the concept is absurd. To take paragraphs and paragraphs to try and explain away the fact that "perfect competition" is just another phrase for "fair trade" is absurd. To argue that fair trade is not anathema to freedom is absurd.

I'll choose free over fair any day. In "fair," I stand a 50/50 chance of losing my freedom to make life "fair" for another. In freedom, I have every opportunity to ensure I am no one's bitch.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


hehehe. i love the way you completely ignore the discussion and try to sum it up in a trite phrase.

Because the concept is absurd. To take paragraphs and paragraphs to try and explain away the fact that "perfect competition" is just another phrase for "fair trade" is absurd. To argue that fair trade is not anathema to freedom is absurd.

I'll choose free over fair any day. In "fair," I stand a 50/50 chance of losing my freedom to make life "fair" for another. In freedom, I have every opportunity to ensure I am no one's bitch.

perfect competition is not about fair or free. it's about what happens when information, movement of resources, changes in vocation and all the barriers to trade are removed. economics does not deal, at least not theoretic economics, in fair.

unless you understand the model and can discuss it in any intelligent form, i don't understand how you can criticize it.

again, perfect competition model is the basis or assumption made in a lot of our federal govt policies, the liberals lean more towards the neo keynsian interpretation of that model the conservatives towards the supply side.

your criticisms are one liners that shed no light on the topic other than you think you don't like it.

and no, it is not about "fair" perfect competiton model has NEVER been about fair or free. it is the description of free market economy taken to perfection.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


hehehe. i love the way you completely ignore the discussion and try to sum it up in a trite phrase.

Because the concept is absurd. To take paragraphs and paragraphs to try and explain away the fact that "perfect competition" is just another phrase for "fair trade" is absurd. To argue that fair trade is not anathema to freedom is absurd.

I'll choose free over fair any day. In "fair," I stand a 50/50 chance of losing my freedom to make life "fair" for another. In freedom, I have every opportunity to ensure I am no one's bitch.

perfect competition is not about fair or free. it's about what happens when information, movement of resources, changes in vocation and all the barriers to trade are removed. economics does not deal, at least not theoretic economics, in fair.

unless you understand the model and can discuss it in any intelligent form, i don't understand how you can criticize it.

again, perfect competition model is the basis or assumption made in a lot of our federal govt policies, the liberals lean more towards the neo keynsian interpretation of that model the conservatives towards the supply side.

your criticisms are one liners that shed no light on the topic other than you think you don't like it.

and no, it is not about "fair" perfect competiton model has NEVER been about fair or free. it is the description of free market economy taken to perfection.

"Perfection" requires restriction and control. The fact that you either ignore this, or worse yet attempt to hide it is the issue now.

To remove non-governmental "barriers" requires severe restriction. What you call "barriers" is another man's earned advantage. You cannot take one man's freedom and give it to another and call it "perfection." The very concept is absurd.

The free market isn't "taken" anywhere. To "take" something somewhere you need to closely control and restrict it.

Finally, I hope this isn't true, but it appears you've been duped. By any defintion the "perfect competition" model IS about "fair" trade at the expense of freedom.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


hehehe. i love the way you completely ignore the discussion and try to sum it up in a trite phrase.

Because the concept is absurd. To take paragraphs and paragraphs to try and explain away the fact that "perfect competition" is just another phrase for "fair trade" is absurd. To argue that fair trade is not anathema to freedom is absurd.

I'll choose free over fair any day. In "fair," I stand a 50/50 chance of losing my freedom to make life "fair" for another. In freedom, I have every opportunity to ensure I am no one's bitch.

perfect competition is not about fair or free. it's about what happens when information, movement of resources, changes in vocation and all the barriers to trade are removed. economics does not deal, at least not theoretic economics, in fair.

unless you understand the model and can discuss it in any intelligent form, i don't understand how you can criticize it.

again, perfect competition model is the basis or assumption made in a lot of our federal govt policies, the liberals lean more towards the neo keynsian interpretation of that model the conservatives towards the supply side.

your criticisms are one liners that shed no light on the topic other than you think you don't like it.

and no, it is not about "fair" perfect competiton model has NEVER been about fair or free. it is the description of free market economy taken to perfection.

"Perfection" requires restriction and control. The fact that you either ignore this, or worse yet attempt to hide it is the issue now.

To remove non-governmental "barriers" requires severe restriction. What you call "barriers" is another man's earned advantage. You cannot take one man's freedom and give it to another and call it "perfection." The very concept is absurd.

The free market isn't "taken" anywhere. To "take" something somewhere you need to closely control and restrict it.

Finally, I hope this isn't true, but it appears you've been duped. By any defintion the "perfect competition" model IS about "fair" trade at the expense of freedom.

no, i'd say you are the one that is duped. go to any microecon professor anywhere in the country and ask him if perfect competition if about "fair", i guarantee you their answer will be no.

and yes, our economy is not and has never been a completely free market. yes, it has been "taken". and yes it has been controled and restricted. federal govt spending is upwards of 3 trillion dollars (it could be more i don't have the exact figure in front of me). any time one institution spends that kind of money, it is a significant guiding force in the market like it or not. state and local govt probably spend half that. so if gross gdp last year was 11 Trillion dollars.

you don't think being accountable for 40% of gross GDP means no guidance.

the problem with conservatives (and no i'm not calling you a conservative) is they claim they want to reduce govt but they NEVER have.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


hehehe. i love the way you completely ignore the discussion and try to sum it up in a trite phrase.

Because the concept is absurd. To take paragraphs and paragraphs to try and explain away the fact that "perfect competition" is just another phrase for "fair trade" is absurd. To argue that fair trade is not anathema to freedom is absurd.

I'll choose free over fair any day. In "fair," I stand a 50/50 chance of losing my freedom to make life "fair" for another. In freedom, I have every opportunity to ensure I am no one's bitch.

perfect competition is not about fair or free. it's about what happens when information, movement of resources, changes in vocation and all the barriers to trade are removed. economics does not deal, at least not theoretic economics, in fair.

unless you understand the model and can discuss it in any intelligent form, i don't understand how you can criticize it.

again, perfect competition model is the basis or assumption made in a lot of our federal govt policies, the liberals lean more towards the neo keynsian interpretation of that model the conservatives towards the supply side.

your criticisms are one liners that shed no light on the topic other than you think you don't like it.

and no, it is not about "fair" perfect competiton model has NEVER been about fair or free. it is the description of free market economy taken to perfection.

"Perfection" requires restriction and control. The fact that you either ignore this, or worse yet attempt to hide it is the issue now.

To remove non-governmental "barriers" requires severe restriction. What you call "barriers" is another man's earned advantage. You cannot take one man's freedom and give it to another and call it "perfection." The very concept is absurd.

The free market isn't "taken" anywhere. To "take" something somewhere you need to closely control and restrict it.

Finally, I hope this isn't true, but it appears you've been duped. By any defintion the "perfect competition" model IS about "fair" trade at the expense of freedom.

no, i'd say you are the one that is duped. go to any microecon professor anywhere in the country and ask him if perfect competition if about "fair", i guarantee you their answer will be no.

and yes, our economy is not and has never been a completely free market. yes, it has been "taken". and yes it has been controled and restricted. federal govt spending is upwards of 3 trillion dollars (it could be more i don't have the exact figure in front of me). any time one institution spends that kind of money, it is a significant guiding force in the market like it or not. state and local govt probably spend half that. so if gross gnp last year was 11 Trillion dollars.

you don't think being accountable for 40% of gross GDP means no guidance.

the problem with conservatives (and no i'm not calling you a conservative) is they claim they want to reduce govt but they NEVER have.

Of course not. The whole concept behind calling it "perfect competition" is to elude the stigma of fair trade.

And I agree. Modern conservatives are anything but about smaller government. Which is why I'm a libertarian leaning independent who loathes both parties almost equally.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused
Of course not. The whole concept behind calling it "perfect competition" is to elude the stigma of fair trade.

And I agree. Modern conservatives are anything but about smaller government. Which is why I'm a libertarian leaning independent who loathes both parties almost equally.

that's what i figured. you don't actually understand the model, you've just created your own definition for it.

fine. that's your opinion. it isn't what the model is about, never was intended to be and just flat out isn't. that's my opinion. it just happens to agree with almost every economist in the world.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused
Of course not. The whole concept behind calling it "perfect competition" is to elude the stigma of fair trade.

And I agree. Modern conservatives are anything but about smaller government. Which is why I'm a libertarian leaning independent who loathes both parties almost equally.

that's what i figured. you don't actually understand the model, you've just created your own definition for it.

fine. that's your opinion. it isn't what the model is about, never was intended to be and just flat out isn't. that's my opinion. it just happens to agree with almost every economist in the world.

A market structure in which the following five criteria are met:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices
charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

Sometimes referred to as "pure competition".

Can you not understand that this requires strict controls and stifling/limiting of the most successful? This is the very definition of "fair," NOT free.

It is completely unachievable unless it is completely controlled and success is limited. It's about as probable as pure communism. It's an impossible ideology.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused
Of course not. The whole concept behind calling it "perfect competition" is to elude the stigma of fair trade.

And I agree. Modern conservatives are anything but about smaller government. Which is why I'm a libertarian leaning independent who loathes both parties almost equally.

that's what i figured. you don't actually understand the model, you've just created your own definition for it.

fine. that's your opinion. it isn't what the model is about, never was intended to be and just flat out isn't. that's my opinion. it just happens to agree with almost every economist in the world.

A market structure in which the following five criteria are met:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices
charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

Sometimes referred to as "pure competition".

Can you not understand that this requires strict controls and stifling/limiting of the most successful? This is the very definition of "fair," NOT free.

It is completely unachievable unless it is completely controlled and success is limited. It's about as probable as pure communism. It's an impossible ideology.

yes, it is an impossible ideology and it is as probable as pure communism. but it is the ideal upon which many of our policy's are based. and they aren't based on them for reasons of "fairness" as much as it is purity.

examples of relatively pure competition are commodoties trading. most of the factors are pretty well known. in order to get an edge and really win out in commodoties is to get a hold of information that would drastically effect trade and act on it.

but we have laws against.

yes, perfect competition is stagnant, but in an ideal world, we would have approach perfect competition model, then a producer will find a better way to produce goods, one that gives him a competitive advantage. he milks it for a short time but eventually everyone catches up until someone else comes up with another idea. this is called progress.

what govt does or should do, is stiffle ways of creating this "monopoly" type situation when it is created by means that isn't furthering "progress" but is artifically designed simply to give one competitor an advantage.

in other words, there are healthy ways (healthy for the economy) to get a monopoly type situation (an inventor patents a new idea, this idea then renders the inventor a certain amount of profit until other catch up to him). it is the govt job to ensure that incentive exists for inventors to take advantage of that new invention (hence patents) but not forever as to stifle competition. at some point, that patent expires, others catch up and he or someone else comes up with another invention.

the difference between capitalism and communism is simply that capitalism not only recognizes that initiative that brings about change in the status quo but rewards it. communism refuses to recognize it and simply steals it because it's for the "good" of the people.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

well if the government would buy the insurance, everbody would have to choose, who is going to lose and die.

Another ATOT Socialist/Democrat... just what we needed (speaking of screwing the taxpayers)!

Ok, so if business doesn't have to pay for insurance and gov't doesn't have to pay for insurance then what are sick people supposed to do (other than go to the ER)?

 

[Ornery]

...what govt does or should do, is stiffle ways of creating this "monopoly" type situation when it is created by means that isn't furthering "progress" but is artifically designed simply to give one competitor an advantage.

Are you saying Walmart has a "monopoly" type situation?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused
Of course not. The whole concept behind calling it "perfect competition" is to elude the stigma of fair trade.

And I agree. Modern conservatives are anything but about smaller government. Which is why I'm a libertarian leaning independent who loathes both parties almost equally.

that's what i figured. you don't actually understand the model, you've just created your own definition for it.

fine. that's your opinion. it isn't what the model is about, never was intended to be and just flat out isn't. that's my opinion. it just happens to agree with almost every economist in the world.

A market structure in which the following five criteria are met:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices
charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

Sometimes referred to as "pure competition".

Can you not understand that this requires strict controls and stifling/limiting of the most successful? This is the very definition of "fair," NOT free.

It is completely unachievable unless it is completely controlled and success is limited. It's about as probable as pure communism. It's an impossible ideology.

yes, it is an impossible ideology and it is as probable as pure communism. but it is the ideal upon which many of our policy's are based. and they aren't based on them for reasons of "fairness" as much as it is purity.

examples of relatively pure competition are commodoties trading. most of the factors are pretty well known. in order to get an edge and really win out in commodoties is to get a hold of information that would drastically effect trade and act on it.

but we have laws against.

yes, perfect competition is stagnant, but in an ideal world, we would have approach perfect competition model, then a producer will find a better way to produce goods, one that gives him a competitive advantage. he milks it for a short time but eventually everyone catches up until someone else comes up with another idea. this is called progress.

what govt does or should do, is stiffle ways of creating this "monopoly" type situation when it is created by means that isn't furthering "progress" but is artifically designed simply to give one competitor an advantage.

in other words, there are healthy ways (healthy for the economy) to get a monopoly type situation (an inventor patents a new idea, this idea then renders the inventor a certain amount of profit until other catch up to him). it is the govt job to ensure that incentive exists for inventors to take advantage of that new invention (hence patents) but not forever as to stifle competition. at some point, that patent expires, others catch up and he or someone else comes up with another invention.

the difference between capitalism and communism is simply that capitalism not only recognizes that initiative that brings about change in the status quo but rewards it. communism refuses to recognize it and simply steals it because it's for the "good" of the people.

OK, can we kiss and make up now?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

well if the government would buy the insurance, everbody would have to choose, who is going to lose and die.

Another ATOT Socialist/Democrat... just what we needed (speaking of screwing the taxpayers)!

Ok, so if business doesn't have to pay for insurance and gov't doesn't have to pay for insurance then what are sick people supposed to do (other than go to the ER)?

If you cannot afford healthcare, you turn to charity.

Healthcare is not, and can never be a "right." You cannot have a right to the work product of others.

And think about this: Healthcare was a LOT more affordable when insurance wasn't used widely.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused
Of course not. The whole concept behind calling it "perfect competition" is to elude the stigma of fair trade.

And I agree. Modern conservatives are anything but about smaller government. Which is why I'm a libertarian leaning independent who loathes both parties almost equally.

that's what i figured. you don't actually understand the model, you've just created your own definition for it.

fine. that's your opinion. it isn't what the model is about, never was intended to be and just flat out isn't. that's my opinion. it just happens to agree with almost every economist in the world.

A market structure in which the following five criteria are met:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices
charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

Sometimes referred to as "pure competition".

Can you not understand that this requires strict controls and stifling/limiting of the most successful? This is the very definition of "fair," NOT free.

It is completely unachievable unless it is completely controlled and success is limited. It's about as probable as pure communism. It's an impossible ideology.

yes, it is an impossible ideology and it is as probable as pure communism. but it is the ideal upon which many of our policy's are based. and they aren't based on them for reasons of "fairness" as much as it is purity.

examples of relatively pure competition are commodoties trading. most of the factors are pretty well known. in order to get an edge and really win out in commodoties is to get a hold of information that would drastically effect trade and act on it.

but we have laws against.

yes, perfect competition is stagnant, but in an ideal world, we would have approach perfect competition model, then a producer will find a better way to produce goods, one that gives him a competitive advantage. he milks it for a short time but eventually everyone catches up until someone else comes up with another idea. this is called progress.

what govt does or should do, is stiffle ways of creating this "monopoly" type situation when it is created by means that isn't furthering "progress" but is artifically designed simply to give one competitor an advantage.

in other words, there are healthy ways (healthy for the economy) to get a monopoly type situation (an inventor patents a new idea, this idea then renders the inventor a certain amount of profit until other catch up to him). it is the govt job to ensure that incentive exists for inventors to take advantage of that new invention (hence patents) but not forever as to stifle competition. at some point, that patent expires, others catch up and he or someone else comes up with another invention.

the difference between capitalism and communism is simply that capitalism not only recognizes that initiative that brings about change in the status quo but rewards it. communism refuses to recognize it and simply steals it because it's for the "good" of the people.

OK, can we kiss and make up now?

no, of course not, just simply admit you were wrong and that i was right and all is well again.

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

well if the government would buy the insurance, everbody would have to choose, who is going to lose and die.

Another ATOT Socialist/Democrat... just what we needed (speaking of screwing the taxpayers)!

Ok, so if business doesn't have to pay for insurance and gov't doesn't have to pay for insurance then what are sick people supposed to do (other than go to the ER)?

If you cannot afford healthcare, you turn to charity.

Healthcare is not, and can never be a "right." You cannot have a right to the work product of others.

And think about this: Healthcare was a LOT more affordable when insurance wasn't used widely.

hardcore Ayn Rand huh.

it's true, it used to be, i gave you a helping hand or you gave me a helping hand because we both valued what the other contributed to the economy, to the town, and because our own livelihoods would be harder without the contributions of the other party. it used to be that cooperation and mutual effort was the basis of survival, so no one claimed they DESERVED anything, we all equally saw the value of contributing to each others lives.

now, it's not anywhere near as personal, when someone claims they DESERVE something they don't care nor to they care to think where it comes from. they only know that this "Government" somewhere is going to pull resources out of it's infinitely large @ss and give it to me.

in economic terms, we call this the free loader problem. the problem with assigning this responsibility to an entity like the federal government is, the human connection dissappears. now, i'm not contributing to YOU and you are not accepting aid from ME, to whom you now owe a debt of gratitude. i have to pay TAXES and now it is not only my right but my obligation to get back as MUCH of those taxes from the government as possible, by hook or by crook no matter, i will get my DUE.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused
Of course not. The whole concept behind calling it "perfect competition" is to elude the stigma of fair trade.

And I agree. Modern conservatives are anything but about smaller government. Which is why I'm a libertarian leaning independent who loathes both parties almost equally.

that's what i figured. you don't actually understand the model, you've just created your own definition for it.

fine. that's your opinion. it isn't what the model is about, never was intended to be and just flat out isn't. that's my opinion. it just happens to agree with almost every economist in the world.

A market structure in which the following five criteria are met:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices
charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

Sometimes referred to as "pure competition".

Can you not understand that this requires strict controls and stifling/limiting of the most successful? This is the very definition of "fair," NOT free.

It is completely unachievable unless it is completely controlled and success is limited. It's about as probable as pure communism. It's an impossible ideology.

yes, it is an impossible ideology and it is as probable as pure communism. but it is the ideal upon which many of our policy's are based. and they aren't based on them for reasons of "fairness" as much as it is purity.

examples of relatively pure competition are commodoties trading. most of the factors are pretty well known. in order to get an edge and really win out in commodoties is to get a hold of information that would drastically effect trade and act on it.

but we have laws against.

yes, perfect competition is stagnant, but in an ideal world, we would have approach perfect competition model, then a producer will find a better way to produce goods, one that gives him a competitive advantage. he milks it for a short time but eventually everyone catches up until someone else comes up with another idea. this is called progress.

what govt does or should do, is stiffle ways of creating this "monopoly" type situation when it is created by means that isn't furthering "progress" but is artifically designed simply to give one competitor an advantage.

in other words, there are healthy ways (healthy for the economy) to get a monopoly type situation (an inventor patents a new idea, this idea then renders the inventor a certain amount of profit until other catch up to him). it is the govt job to ensure that incentive exists for inventors to take advantage of that new invention (hence patents) but not forever as to stifle competition. at some point, that patent expires, others catch up and he or someone else comes up with another invention.

the difference between capitalism and communism is simply that capitalism not only recognizes that initiative that brings about change in the status quo but rewards it. communism refuses to recognize it and simply steals it because it's for the "good" of the people.

OK, can we kiss and make up now?

no, of course not, just simply admit you were wrong and that i was right and all is well again.

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

well if the government would buy the insurance, everbody would have to choose, who is going to lose and die.

Another ATOT Socialist/Democrat... just what we needed (speaking of screwing the taxpayers)!

Ok, so if business doesn't have to pay for insurance and gov't doesn't have to pay for insurance then what are sick people supposed to do (other than go to the ER)?

If you cannot afford healthcare, you turn to charity.

Healthcare is not, and can never be a "right." You cannot have a right to the work product of others.

And think about this: Healthcare was a LOT more affordable when insurance wasn't used widely.

hardcore Ayn Rand huh.

it's true, it used to be, i gave you a helping hand or you gave me a helping hand because we both valued what the other contributed to the economy, to the town, and because our own livelihoods would be harder without the contributions of the other party. it used to be that cooperation and mutual effort was the basis of survival, so no one claimed they DESERVED anything, we all equally saw the value of contributing to each others lives.

now, it's not anywhere near as personal, when someone claims they DESERVE something they don't care nor to they care to think where it comes from. they only know that this "Government" somewhere is going to pull resources out of it's infinitely large @ss and give it to me.

in economic terms, we call this the free loader problem. the problem with assigning this responsibility to an entity like the federal government is, the human connection dissappears. now, i'm not contributing to YOU and you are not accepting aid from ME, to whom you now owe a debt of gratitude. i have to pay TAXES and now it is not only my right but my obligation to get back as MUCH of those taxes from the government as possible, by hook or by crook no matter, i will get my DUE.

You know, you have a funny way of arguing with me when you actually agree with me.

And no, I wasn't wrong about "Perfect competion."

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused
Of course not. The whole concept behind calling it "perfect competition" is to elude the stigma of fair trade.

And I agree. Modern conservatives are anything but about smaller government. Which is why I'm a libertarian leaning independent who loathes both parties almost equally.

that's what i figured. you don't actually understand the model, you've just created your own definition for it.

fine. that's your opinion. it isn't what the model is about, never was intended to be and just flat out isn't. that's my opinion. it just happens to agree with almost every economist in the world.

A market structure in which the following five criteria are met:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices
charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

Sometimes referred to as "pure competition".

Can you not understand that this requires strict controls and stifling/limiting of the most successful? This is the very definition of "fair," NOT free.

It is completely unachievable unless it is completely controlled and success is limited. It's about as probable as pure communism. It's an impossible ideology.

yes, it is an impossible ideology and it is as probable as pure communism. but it is the ideal upon which many of our policy's are based. and they aren't based on them for reasons of "fairness" as much as it is purity.

examples of relatively pure competition are commodoties trading. most of the factors are pretty well known. in order to get an edge and really win out in commodoties is to get a hold of information that would drastically effect trade and act on it.

but we have laws against.

yes, perfect competition is stagnant, but in an ideal world, we would have approach perfect competition model, then a producer will find a better way to produce goods, one that gives him a competitive advantage. he milks it for a short time but eventually everyone catches up until someone else comes up with another idea. this is called progress.

what govt does or should do, is stiffle ways of creating this "monopoly" type situation when it is created by means that isn't furthering "progress" but is artifically designed simply to give one competitor an advantage.

in other words, there are healthy ways (healthy for the economy) to get a monopoly type situation (an inventor patents a new idea, this idea then renders the inventor a certain amount of profit until other catch up to him). it is the govt job to ensure that incentive exists for inventors to take advantage of that new invention (hence patents) but not forever as to stifle competition. at some point, that patent expires, others catch up and he or someone else comes up with another invention.

the difference between capitalism and communism is simply that capitalism not only recognizes that initiative that brings about change in the status quo but rewards it. communism refuses to recognize it and simply steals it because it's for the "good" of the people.

OK, can we kiss and make up now?

no, of course not, just simply admit you were wrong and that i was right and all is well again.

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

well if the government would buy the insurance, everbody would have to choose, who is going to lose and die.

Another ATOT Socialist/Democrat... just what we needed (speaking of screwing the taxpayers)!

Ok, so if business doesn't have to pay for insurance and gov't doesn't have to pay for insurance then what are sick people supposed to do (other than go to the ER)?

If you cannot afford healthcare, you turn to charity.

Healthcare is not, and can never be a "right." You cannot have a right to the work product of others.

And think about this: Healthcare was a LOT more affordable when insurance wasn't used widely.

hardcore Ayn Rand huh.

it's true, it used to be, i gave you a helping hand or you gave me a helping hand because we both valued what the other contributed to the economy, to the town, and because our own livelihoods would be harder without the contributions of the other party. it used to be that cooperation and mutual effort was the basis of survival, so no one claimed they DESERVED anything, we all equally saw the value of contributing to each others lives.

now, it's not anywhere near as personal, when someone claims they DESERVE something they don't care nor to they care to think where it comes from. they only know that this "Government" somewhere is going to pull resources out of it's infinitely large @ss and give it to me.

in economic terms, we call this the free loader problem. the problem with assigning this responsibility to an entity like the federal government is, the human connection dissappears. now, i'm not contributing to YOU and you are not accepting aid from ME, to whom you now owe a debt of gratitude. i have to pay TAXES and now it is not only my right but my obligation to get back as MUCH of those taxes from the government as possible, by hook or by crook no matter, i will get my DUE.

You know, you have a funny way of arguing with me when you actually agree with me.

And no, I wasn't wrong about "Perfect competion."

i have always been for smaller govt. however if we are going to spend money on govt anyway, then i want to have a say in how it is spent, that's my position. that's why i lean liberal because despite what the conservatives say, they always spend more money than the liberals and they lie about how they are spending it.

you are wrong about perfect competition because it is the model that most closely approximate what you want ultimately in our economy. that people excel based on their work habits and abilities and not based on artificial barriers created by government or by orgainisations hiding information. (read my description above).

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
So fvcking what, that's the cost of business. Wal-Mart is a giant monopoly, they earned their place, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you can always start a commy revolution.

Obviously you haven't taken any economics course. The worst thing to a capitalist free-market society is prescense of a strong monopoly. In order to maximize profit of a monopoly in a given market (retail for example), that monopoly finds the "sweet spot" between revenue and cost. Often, that "sweet spot" creates deadweight. To put it simply, deadweight is "lost business" that could've been realized if the monopoly did not try to maximize its profit. Thus, having monopoly is BAD for the society and capitalism. Many people often misunderstand capitalism and free market as unrestricted business without regard. Capitalism works when there is a true free market. Free market only exist when there are numerous competition in the market. A monopoly is a complete contradiction to such.

*Psst*
Walmart isn't a monolopy.

edit: fvcking skoorb effect. Didn't realize how old the post I was replying to was.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused
Of course not. The whole concept behind calling it "perfect competition" is to elude the stigma of fair trade.

And I agree. Modern conservatives are anything but about smaller government. Which is why I'm a libertarian leaning independent who loathes both parties almost equally.

that's what i figured. you don't actually understand the model, you've just created your own definition for it.

fine. that's your opinion. it isn't what the model is about, never was intended to be and just flat out isn't. that's my opinion. it just happens to agree with almost every economist in the world.

A market structure in which the following five criteria are met:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices
charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

Sometimes referred to as "pure competition".

Can you not understand that this requires strict controls and stifling/limiting of the most successful? This is the very definition of "fair," NOT free.

It is completely unachievable unless it is completely controlled and success is limited. It's about as probable as pure communism. It's an impossible ideology.

yes, it is an impossible ideology and it is as probable as pure communism. but it is the ideal upon which many of our policy's are based. and they aren't based on them for reasons of "fairness" as much as it is purity.

examples of relatively pure competition are commodoties trading. most of the factors are pretty well known. in order to get an edge and really win out in commodoties is to get a hold of information that would drastically effect trade and act on it.

but we have laws against.

yes, perfect competition is stagnant, but in an ideal world, we would have approach perfect competition model, then a producer will find a better way to produce goods, one that gives him a competitive advantage. he milks it for a short time but eventually everyone catches up until someone else comes up with another idea. this is called progress.

what govt does or should do, is stiffle ways of creating this "monopoly" type situation when it is created by means that isn't furthering "progress" but is artifically designed simply to give one competitor an advantage.

in other words, there are healthy ways (healthy for the economy) to get a monopoly type situation (an inventor patents a new idea, this idea then renders the inventor a certain amount of profit until other catch up to him). it is the govt job to ensure that incentive exists for inventors to take advantage of that new invention (hence patents) but not forever as to stifle competition. at some point, that patent expires, others catch up and he or someone else comes up with another invention.

the difference between capitalism and communism is simply that capitalism not only recognizes that initiative that brings about change in the status quo but rewards it. communism refuses to recognize it and simply steals it because it's for the "good" of the people.

OK, can we kiss and make up now?

no, of course not, just simply admit you were wrong and that i was right and all is well again.

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

well if the government would buy the insurance, everbody would have to choose, who is going to lose and die.

Another ATOT Socialist/Democrat... just what we needed (speaking of screwing the taxpayers)!

Ok, so if business doesn't have to pay for insurance and gov't doesn't have to pay for insurance then what are sick people supposed to do (other than go to the ER)?

If you cannot afford healthcare, you turn to charity.

Healthcare is not, and can never be a "right." You cannot have a right to the work product of others.

And think about this: Healthcare was a LOT more affordable when insurance wasn't used widely.

hardcore Ayn Rand huh.

it's true, it used to be, i gave you a helping hand or you gave me a helping hand because we both valued what the other contributed to the economy, to the town, and because our own livelihoods would be harder without the contributions of the other party. it used to be that cooperation and mutual effort was the basis of survival, so no one claimed they DESERVED anything, we all equally saw the value of contributing to each others lives.

now, it's not anywhere near as personal, when someone claims they DESERVE something they don't care nor to they care to think where it comes from. they only know that this "Government" somewhere is going to pull resources out of it's infinitely large @ss and give it to me.

in economic terms, we call this the free loader problem. the problem with assigning this responsibility to an entity like the federal government is, the human connection dissappears. now, i'm not contributing to YOU and you are not accepting aid from ME, to whom you now owe a debt of gratitude. i have to pay TAXES and now it is not only my right but my obligation to get back as MUCH of those taxes from the government as possible, by hook or by crook no matter, i will get my DUE.

You know, you have a funny way of arguing with me when you actually agree with me.

And no, I wasn't wrong about "Perfect competion."

i have always been for smaller govt. however if we are going to spend money on govt anyway, then i want to have a say in how it is spent, that's my position. that's why i lean liberal because despite what the conservatives say, they always spend more money than the liberals and they lie about how they are spending it.

you are wrong about perfect competition because it is the model that most closely approximate what you want ultimately in our economy. that people excel based on their work habits and abilities and not based on artificial barriers created by government or by orgainisations hiding information. (read my description above).

Again, that's why I hate both major parties. I lean away from liberalism (in reality a US liberal is all about authoritarian socialism) because I see that nanny-state socialism as a far greater threat to our freedoms than the other side in our country today. They are making far more gains and taking away far more freedoms in my lifetime.

And no, it's an impossible ideal that one can only strive to achieve through oppression and government control, i.e., the loss of freedom.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
So fvcking what, that's the cost of business. Wal-Mart is a giant monopoly, they earned their place, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you can always start a commy revolution.

Obviously you haven't taken any economics course. The worst thing to a capitalist free-market society is prescense of a strong monopoly. In order to maximize profit of a monopoly in a given market (retail for example), that monopoly finds the "sweet spot" between revenue and cost. Often, that "sweet spot" creates deadweight. To put it simply, deadweight is "lost business" that could've been realized if the monopoly did not try to maximize its profit. Thus, having monopoly is BAD for the society and capitalism. Many people often misunderstand capitalism and free market as unrestricted business without regard. Capitalism works when there is a true free market. Free market only exist when there are numerous competition in the market. A monopoly is a complete contradiction to such.

*Psst*
Walmart isn't a monolopy.

edit: fvcking skoorb effect. Didn't realize how old the post I was replying to was.

uhh, they exercise monopoly type power.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
So fvcking what, that's the cost of business. Wal-Mart is a giant monopoly, they earned their place, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you can always start a commy revolution.

Obviously you haven't taken any economics course. The worst thing to a capitalist free-market society is prescense of a strong monopoly. In order to maximize profit of a monopoly in a given market (retail for example), that monopoly finds the "sweet spot" between revenue and cost. Often, that "sweet spot" creates deadweight. To put it simply, deadweight is "lost business" that could've been realized if the monopoly did not try to maximize its profit. Thus, having monopoly is BAD for the society and capitalism. Many people often misunderstand capitalism and free market as unrestricted business without regard. Capitalism works when there is a true free market. Free market only exist when there are numerous competition in the market. A monopoly is a complete contradiction to such.

*Psst*
Walmart isn't a monolopy.

edit: fvcking skoorb effect. Didn't realize how old the post I was replying to was.

uhh, they exercise monopoly type power.

No they don't. They drive a hard bargin in an effort to bring low pricers to their customer and compete in the retail market. Driving a hard bargin is NOT a monopoly. They price shop, same as you. They are FAR from the only retailer or buyer of goods.

 

[Mail5398]

Good stuff here. Wal-Mart is very close to a monopoly in many markets it operates in. I have seen small towns here in the rural south where all of the smaller department and grocery stores were shut down once a Wal-Mart moved in. You could either buy from Wal-Mart or drive 20 miles to the next city. You have to think scope sometimes. Not all of us live in big cities with Targets and K-Marts.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Again, that's why I hate both major parties. I lean away from liberalism (in reality a US liberal is all about authoritarian socialism) because I see that nanny-state socialism as a far greater threat to our freedoms than the other side in our country today. They are making far more gains and taking away far more freedoms in my lifetime.

And no, it's an impossible ideal that one can only strive to achieve through oppression and government control, i.e., the loss of freedom.

as i said once before, i think we will just have to agree to disagree on the perfect competition model.

however, ironically, we seem to agree on implementation. what we would like to see of our government.

the biggest difference to me between liberal and conservative is, when liberals tell me they will spend money, i can say, NO and they end up spending some but not as much as they wanted.

conservatives get up there and they tell me, they will not only reduce my taxes but they will also reduce spending, i can't believe a word of it because they never have. and guess what, they usually end up spending more money than the liberals.

i truly hate the conservatives a lot more than i do the liberals. well except the anti christian liberals, they just annoy me.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
So fvcking what, that's the cost of business. Wal-Mart is a giant monopoly, they earned their place, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you can always start a commy revolution.

Obviously you haven't taken any economics course. The worst thing to a capitalist free-market society is prescense of a strong monopoly. In order to maximize profit of a monopoly in a given market (retail for example), that monopoly finds the "sweet spot" between revenue and cost. Often, that "sweet spot" creates deadweight. To put it simply, deadweight is "lost business" that could've been realized if the monopoly did not try to maximize its profit. Thus, having monopoly is BAD for the society and capitalism. Many people often misunderstand capitalism and free market as unrestricted business without regard. Capitalism works when there is a true free market. Free market only exist when there are numerous competition in the market. A monopoly is a complete contradiction to such.

*Psst*
Walmart isn't a monolopy.

edit: fvcking skoorb effect. Didn't realize how old the post I was replying to was.

uhh, they exercise monopoly type power.

No they don't. They drive a hard bargin in an effort to bring low pricers to their customer and compete in the retail market. Driving a hard bargin is NOT a monopoly. They price shop, same as you. They are FAR from the only retailer or buyer of goods.

no matter, target and costco will drive sams club and walmart out of business due to better business practices.

i love what costco is doing so effectively, better relationships with their employees, customers and suppliers than sams club = win for everyone.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Again, that's why I hate both major parties. I lean away from liberalism (in reality a US liberal is all about authoritarian socialism) because I see that nanny-state socialism as a far greater threat to our freedoms than the other side in our country today. They are making far more gains and taking away far more freedoms in my lifetime.

And no, it's an impossible ideal that one can only strive to achieve through oppression and government control, i.e., the loss of freedom.

as i said once before, i think we will just have to agree to disagree on the perfect competition model.

however, ironically, we seem to agree on implementation. what we would like to see of our government.

the biggest difference to me between liberal and conservative is, when liberals tell me they will spend money, i can say, NO and they end up spending some but not as much as they wanted.

conservatives get up there and they tell me, they will not only reduce my taxes but they will also reduce spending, i can't believe a word of it because they never have. and guess what, they usually end up spending more money than the liberals.

i truly hate the conservatives a lot more than i do the liberals. well except the anti christian liberals, they just annoy me.

I tend to direct my hate towards who is more of a danger to my freedoms and rights. In my lifetime, that has been the left and nanny-statism/socialsim.

That's not to say I don't have a healthy amount of hate for the right as well.