"Do you want someone "dictating" what you can buy, and what you will pay for it?"
Of course not. As you know. Why do you even bother to do this?
A new culprit in the Global Warming debate
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
"Do you want someone "dictating" what you can buy, and what you will pay for it?"
Of course not. As you know. Why do you even bother to do this?
I read it Man, responded to it, and challenged you to prove your hypothesis of economic factors being driven beyond cost and price competition.
You did write this didn't you?
Op2 said:
"From the POV of the business they want to make as much of a profit as possible and from the POV of the consumer he wants to a good product for as low a cost as possible. But neither of those are relevant to the market running efficiently"
So if profits for businesses and consumers shopping for the best possible price aren't "relevant" to a market running efficiently I want you to explain what is?
I'm reading you but I admit I'm not understanding you.
Last edited:
Read what I linked to in Post #68 or if that's too much then at least read the first 1.5 pages.
Op2 I like you. I like your fight. I like a person who doggedly sticks to his convictions. You're not a phony. I respect your intellect, and I admire your tenacity. You're a good fighter. You truly believe what you advocate for.
However my friend, even the best Warriors sometimes must admit when they're either outgunned, or hopelessly out manned so as to be easily defeated.
On basic issues of free enterprise, free markets, free choice, consumerism, entrepreneurship, profit, supply & demand, cost vs price, market based competition, and the dynamic of producers in a competitive marketplace driven by profitability & constantly striving to meet customer preferences to remain profitable; in my humble opinion many of the comments you've made to me and your apparent gross misunderstanding of how these principles interrelate, demonstrate to me at least a very poor command on your part of the entire Capitalist free market economy we function in.
Not a dig at you Op2, just an observation on my part in communicating with you on this & similar topics across various threads recently.
But you are free indeed to believe what you wish, and promote it in the arena of ideas. I seriously doubt though my friend you will find many supporters, or discover many adherents to your particular brand or economic philosophy...whatever THAT is?
In my opinion though my Man, you are NOT a free market Capitalist.
In this example Op2, how is a "positive externality" not created by the property owners who are benefiting from increased property values due to others improving their particular property?
Seems to me he (author) is arguing against himself when he says the following:
"A positive externality occurs if an activity creates benefits for uninvolved people.
Examples of positive externalities: People who get vaccinations against a
communicable disease reduce other people’s chances of getting the disease.
People who improve their property may create benefits for their neighbors by
creating a more pleasing neighborhood and increasing property values"
So clearly some people are both involved (those improving their personal property) and those receiving the benefit of increased property values as a result. So who's uninvolved in this example? Who gets the benefits from the improved property values? When does that not occur?
This is pure collectivism, and Socialist redistributive thought. It is NOT the way cost/benefit analysis is accurately measured because it takes an unrealistic view of private decision making being driven by nothing other than an individual's personal desires...no other factors enter into the equation or are necessary for any one person in the example to make a decision to improve their property except for their own personal gain or pleasure. There are no other considerations, and no one remains "uninvolved" as a result of any other one's decision. Not every property will benefit, some may some won't. "Uninvolved" means nothing other than private choice. It's not a zero sum gain or net loss no matter what anyone else decides.
As I read the rest of that analysis you linked me to, it became more obvious to me that this author is indeed a pure Socialist, who doesn't see the market as a dynamic, but rather as a limited controlled environment in which all individual decisions must be "managed" for a greater Social or public good...irrespective of the impact on any oneindividual's private market choice preferences. He doesn't see individual choice on the part of businesses or consumers as important as those parties making choices for the most public benefit, or at least being forced to. Collectivism.
So I'm not surprised you think as you do if you're soaking your brain up reading exegesis like that Dude?
Try this guy:
http://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations/
Seems to me he (author) is arguing against himself when he says the following:
"A positive externality occurs if an activity creates benefits for uninvolved people.
Examples of positive externalities: People who get vaccinations against a
communicable disease reduce other people’s chances of getting the disease.
People who improve their property may create benefits for their neighbors by
creating a more pleasing neighborhood and increasing property values"
So clearly some people are both involved (those improving their personal property) and those receiving the benefit of increased property values as a result. So who's uninvolved in this example? Who gets the benefits from the improved property values? When does that not occur?
This is pure collectivism, and Socialist redistributive thought. It is NOT the way cost/benefit analysis is accurately measured because it takes an unrealistic view of private decision making being driven by nothing other than an individual's personal desires...no other factors enter into the equation or are necessary for any one person in the example to make a decision to improve their property except for their own personal gain or pleasure. There are no other considerations, and no one remains "uninvolved" as a result of any other one's decision. Not every property will benefit, some may some won't. "Uninvolved" means nothing other than private choice. It's not a zero sum gain or net loss no matter what anyone else decides.
As I read the rest of that analysis you linked me to, it became more obvious to me that this author is indeed a pure Socialist, who doesn't see the market as a dynamic, but rather as a limited controlled environment in which all individual decisions must be "managed" for a greater Social or public good...irrespective of the impact on any oneindividual's private market choice preferences. He doesn't see individual choice on the part of businesses or consumers as important as those parties making choices for the most public benefit, or at least being forced to. Collectivism.
So I'm not surprised you think as you do if you're soaking your brain up reading exegesis like that Dude?
Try this guy:
http://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations/
Last edited: