To atkvb

[op2]

First I didn't even know personal communication was an option on here so I was surprised to get e-mail. I'd prefer to keep it on here though so I'll respond here.

Re. the thread about a carbon tax I've re-read it and I think what I said is just fine. I don't see how you can think that's so out there. The stuff about negative externalities is just regular economics. I didn't make that stuff up. It makes for more efficient markets if the buyer of a product pays the true cost of the product rather than letting the producer part of the cost onto the rest of society. The buyer of a product gets to choose whether to pay the price but when a cost is shoved onto the rest of society then the rest of society has no choice but to pay. Making potential consumers pay the true cost of a product is a good thing. That's just mainstream economics.

The second thread you said was long and I don't have time to read it now but I'll take a look later today or this weekend.

And the heath care is a right thing, really I think you just need to read more closely. Not only did I not argue that heath care is a right but I explicitly said "I don't think health care is a right" in Post #11 in that thread.

 

[atlkvb]

First I didn't even know personal communication was an option on here so I was surprised to get e-mail. I'd prefer to keep it on here though so I'll respond here.

Re. the thread about a carbon tax I've re-read it and I think what I said is just fine. I don't see how you can think that's so out there. The stuff about negative externalities is just regular economics. I didn't make that stuff up. It makes for more efficient markets if the buyer of a product pays the true cost of the product rather than letting the producer part of the cost onto the rest of society. The buyer of a product gets to choose whether to pay the price but when a cost is shoved onto the rest of society then the rest of society has no choice but to pay. Making potential consumers pay the true cost of a product is a good thing. That's just mainstream economics.

The second thread you said was long and I don't have time to read it now but I'll take a look later today or this weekend.

And the heath care is a right thing, really I think you just need to read more closely. Not only did I not argue that heath care is a right but I explicitly said "I don't think health care is a right" in Post #11 in that thread.

I put it on the conversation board Op2 because no one is interested in this thread between you and I.

in that first thread you mentioned something about "supply and demand" which if you go back and read it makes no sense economically. I tried to correct you on that.

On the negative externalities, I think I also explained to you why it is a bastardization of basic economics. I don't know of any economic models that promote it as a way to both grow businesses or markets because it's its a disincentive to use a viable product.

The 3rd thread is long,(that's why I posted the link)so you'd have to read it, but you'll understand from the responses why you were wrong in it.

On the Health Care thread, again, you never proved or demonstrated why that is a "right" as opposed to other Life essentials offered in that thread.

FYI, we can continue our discussion in the "conversation" forum. As I mentioned, no one is interested in the points we are discussing. I just wanted to respond to your thread here on the OT board to let you know that option (private conversation) is also available so we don't take up space on this forum with more current discussion.

 

[op2]

I put it on the conversation board Op2 because no one is interested in this thread between you and I.

in that first thread you mentioned something about "supply and demand" which if you go back and read it makes no sense economically. I tried to correct you on that.

On the negative externalities, I think I also explained to you why it is a bastardization of basic economics. I don't know of any economic models that promote it as a way to both grow businesses or markets because it's its a disincentive to use a viable product.

The 3rd thread is long,(that's why I posted the link)so you'd have to read it, but you'll understand from the responses why you were wrong in it.

On the Health Care thread, again, you never proved or demonstrated why that is a "right" as opposed to other Life essentials offered in that thread.

FYI, we can continue our discussion in the "conversation" forum. As I mentioned, no one is interested in the points we are discussing. I just wanted to respond to your thread here on the OT board to let you know that option (private conversation) is also available so we don't take up space on this forum with more current discussion.

I'm not doing it in private b/c I have no idea if anonymity is preserved there. Yes it will be junk to some here, but most of the threads are junk to most people here and I rarely do it so I'm not going to refrain from doing it this one time.

I'm beginning to think you're trolling because you are so badly misreading what I'm saying that I'm having a hard time believing it is accidental.

Let me again state, this time in CAPS, that I DID NOT AND DO NOT SAY THAT HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT. I explicitly said it's NOT a right and you keep ignoring it. And then you respond with "You never demonstrated why it's a right." Why should I demonstrate why it's a right when I explicitly said it's NOT a right?

Then you wrote this re. negative externalities:

OK, so then explain how either a company grows it's business, or an economy expands using this economic concept of discouraging consumers or customers from using a viable product?

So explain how 'discouraging' the use of whatever product you are trying to 'force' them to pay the true costs for actually grows any business providing that product or service or grows an economy depending on expansion from increased economic activity.

My Answer: When there are negative externalities, forcing customers to pay the true cost of a product it DOESN'T grow their business. That's why the business tries to shove the cost off onto the rest of society!

I think you're confusing perspectives. One is that of the business owner. I'm a business owner. I want to grow my business and I'll do whatever it takes. If making my products causes pollution then I'll pollute if I can and sell the product for as low a price as I can. Because the price of the product is low, you will buy it. But there are the other costs, those of my pollution, and the whole of society pays those.

From my perspective as a business owner, that is good because I make money.

And from your perspective as a buyer of my product that is good because you bought my product at a low price.

But from the perspective of the rest of society it's bad because they have to pay for my pollution.

From the perspective of an economist trying to figure out how economies work most efficiently it's bad because markets don't work efficiently when people don't pay the true cost of a product.

 

[atlkvb]

I'm not doing it in private b/c I have no idea if anonymity is preserved there. Yes it will be junk to some here, but most of the threads are junk to most people here and I rarely do it so I'm not going to refrain from doing it this one time.

I'm beginning to think you're trolling because you are so badly misreading what I'm saying that I'm having a hard time believing it is accidental.

Let me again state, this time in CAPS, that I DID NOT AND DO NOT SAY THAT HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT. I explicitly said it's NOT a right and you keep ignoring it. And then you respond with "You never demonstrated why it's a right." Why should I demonstrate why it's a right when I explicitly said it's NOT a right?

Then you wrote this re. negative externalities:

OK, so then explain how either a company grows it's business, or an economy expands using this economic concept of discouraging consumers or customers from using a viable product?

So explain how 'discouraging' the use of whatever product you are trying to 'force' them to pay the true costs for actually grows any business providing that product or service or grows an economy depending on expansion from increased economic activity.

My Answer: When there are negative externalities, forcing customers to pay the true cost of a product it DOESN'T grow their business. That's why the business tries to shove the cost off onto the rest of society!

I think you're confusing perspectives. One is that of the business owner. I'm a business owner. I want to grow my business and I'll do whatever it takes. If making my products causes pollution then I'll pollute if I can and sell the product for as low a price as I can. Because the price of the product is low, you will buy it. But there are the other costs, those of my pollution, and the whole of society pays those.

From my perspective as a business owner, that is good because I make money.

And from your perspective as a buyer of my product that is good because you bought my product at a low price.

But from the perspective of the rest of society it's bad because they have to pay for my pollution.

From the perspective of an economist trying to figure out how economies work most efficiently it's bad because markets don't work efficiently when people don't pay the true cost of a product.

I simply wanted you Op2 to provide some economic models where this has worked to successfully grow a business or an economy?

Businesses don't decide to make a product based on how much or how little they can pass "pollution costs" onto unsuspecting customers. I don't know one business plan written that way.

You wrote:
forcing customers to pay the true cost of a product it DOESN'T grow their business. That's why the business tries to shove the cost off onto the rest of society!

No business exists not to grow Op2! The decision to go into business is driven by one incentive, and all other costs, expenses, objectives, or missions are subservient to this one goal: "to grow profitably".

If you're running a business, you cannot grow profitably by "forcing" your customers to offset your expenses...whatever they are. You grow by offering your customers a superior product at a competitive price. Period. I explained this to you in the thread I posted from our previous discussion, I'd suggest you go back and re-read that thread.


On Health care if I misread you stating it's not a right I apologize.

I'll quite frankly have to go back and re-read that thread, because I started it off by asking that simple question challenging those who believe it to be a right (as most on the Left do) to explain why?

I thought you were arguing for it as a right from the Left, so again I apologize if I misunderstood your posts.

Finally, there is privacy over there on the discussion forum. You can select under your preferences if you want others to join in the conversation, otherwise only the person you post can read whatever you post.

Simply click on your profile avtar, click "conversations" then click "start a new conversation" scroll to the bottom and check the box "allow anyone in the conversation to invite others" or if you prefer no one respond to your post, simply check the other box.

If you leave both boxes blank, only the person you are posting to will be able to read the thread and respond to it.

But if you don't want to do it that's OK...I don't want to carry on this thread here on the OT board because as I mentioned, no one really cares.

 

[op2]

I simply wanted you Op2 to provide some economic models where this has worked to successfully grow a business or an economy?

Businesses don't decide to make a product based on how much or how little they can pass "pollution costs" onto unsuspecting customers. I don't know one business plan written that way.

You wrote:
forcing customers to pay the true cost of a product it DOESN'T grow their business. That's why the business tries to shove the cost off onto the rest of society!

No business exists not to grow Op2! The decision to go into business is driven by one incentive, and all other costs, expenses, objectives, or missions are subservient to this one goal: "to grow profitably".

If you're running a business, you cannot grow profitably by "forcing" your customers to offset your expenses...whatever they are. You grow by offering your customers a superior product at a competitive price. Period. I explained this to you in the thread I posted from our previous discussion, I'd suggest you go back and re-read that thread.


On Health care if I misread you stating it's not a right I apologize.

I'll quite frankly have to go back and re-read that thread, because I started it off by asking that simple question challenging those who believe it to be a right (as most on the Left do) to explain why?

I thought you were arguing for it as a right from the Left, so again I apologize if I misunderstood your posts.

Finally, there is privacy over there on the discussion forum. You can select under your preferences if you want others to join in the conversation, otherwise only the person you post can read whatever you post.

Simply click on your profile avtar, click "conversations" then click "start a new conversation" scroll to the bottom and check the box "allow anyone in the conversation to invite others" or if you prefer no one respond to your post, simply check the other box.

If you leave both boxes blank, only the person you are posting to will be able to read the thread and respond to it.

But if you don't want to do it that's OK...I don't want to carry on this thread here on the OT board because as I mentioned, no one really cares.

If you truly don't understand what I'm saying then I'm sorry, but I'm done with this. I've said it several times in plain English and there's no need to go further.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I'm not doing it in private b/c I have no idea if anonymity is preserved there. Yes it will be junk to some here, but most of the threads are junk to most people here and I rarely do it so I'm not going to refrain from doing it this one time.

I'm beginning to think you're trolling because you are so badly misreading what I'm saying that I'm having a hard time believing it is accidental.

Let me again state, this time in CAPS, that I DID NOT AND DO NOT SAY THAT HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT. I explicitly said it's NOT a right and you keep ignoring it. And then you respond with "You never demonstrated why it's a right." Why should I demonstrate why it's a right when I explicitly said it's NOT a right?

Then you wrote this re. negative externalities:

OK, so then explain how either a company grows it's business, or an economy expands using this economic concept of discouraging consumers or customers from using a viable product?

So explain how 'discouraging' the use of whatever product you are trying to 'force' them to pay the true costs for actually grows any business providing that product or service or grows an economy depending on expansion from increased economic activity.

My Answer: When there are negative externalities, forcing customers to pay the true cost of a product it DOESN'T grow their business. That's why the business tries to shove the cost off onto the rest of society!

I think you're confusing perspectives. One is that of the business owner. I'm a business owner. I want to grow my business and I'll do whatever it takes. If making my products causes pollution then I'll pollute if I can and sell the product for as low a price as I can. Because the price of the product is low, you will buy it. But there are the other costs, those of my pollution, and the whole of society pays those.

From my perspective as a business owner, that is good because I make money.

And from your perspective as a buyer of my product that is good because you bought my product at a low price.

But from the perspective of the rest of society it's bad because they have to pay for my pollution.

From the perspective of an economist trying to figure out how economies work most efficiently it's bad because markets don't work efficiently when people don't pay the true cost of a product.

If only there was a way to quote specific lines in a post....

Hint for better internet: highlight the text you want to respond to, then either select reply or select quote. The latter will add it to the multi quote in case you have multiple things you want to respond to. Then go to where the response box is and click on add multiple quotes button.

 

[atlkvb]

If you truly don't understand what I'm saying then I'm sorry, but I'm done with this. I've said it several times in plain English and there's no need to go further.

Agreed