On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:59:32 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :
big snip
The price of -any- product relies upon the laws of supply and demand.
That's true to an extent.
No, that's true for any product or service. That's why they are call
the LAWS of supply and demand.
If you have a hammer made in China and a hammer made in the USA, the
price is going to be the same because the market dictates the price.
Right, and when a hammer can be made cheaper in China, it forces the
American company to lower its price (Often resulting in sharp
reductions in overhead to keep a reasonable profit margin). At some
point the American company will no longer be able to compete.
Hence the success of Wally World.
The
price is set by the lowest price that someone is will to sell it for.
Wrong. It's set, as I stated before, by the laws of supply and demand.
Just because the curves intersect at one point doesn't mean the price
is fixed -- there are variations in supply -and- demand based on a
number of factors such as quality, geography, culture, perception.....
or the tactic used by some companies to flood the market with cheap
products in order to drive the competition out of business (which is
why our cars run on gasoline instead of alcohol).
That is why competition is so important for a free market economy. If
there is only one source for a popular product, they can set
practically any price, and if a consumer wants it bad enough, they'll
cough up the money.
That still follows the laws of supply and demand.
Look as gasoline. We all bitch about the high cost
of gasoline. But we still pay it, because we need it.
Gasoline also follows the laws of supply and demand. And here is proof
that you never studied economics -- when the price fluctuates easily
in response to demand then the product is said to be "elastic";
likewise, when the demand remains relatively constant despite the
price, the product is called "inelastic". Very basic terminology from
Econ 101. And one more thing: the government -loves- to tax any
product that is inelastic because it doesn't affect the demand for the
product. That's why alcohol, tobacco and gasoline are taxed so
heavily.
big snip
But because of this interference, there
is no longer a free-market economy, and free-market economic models no
longer apply.
No ****. But things like tariffs are also interfering with the free
market. Outsourcing, free and open trade, and elimination of
protectionist tariffs support the free market. If you favor tariffs,
limits on trade, and penalties for outsourcing, then you don't support
a free market.
Import tariffs interfere with a free -international- market, and
that's the intent: when the international market starts to hurt the
domestic market, you establish import tariffs. It's been done for
hundreds of years and it works pretty darn well. And in case you
didn't notice, Toyota has offered to raise the price of their cars so
GM can stay competitive (and in business) in the domestic market. The
reason given was that low import prices hurt the American economy (the
recent GM layoffs) and is therefore bad for US/Japanese relations.
Looks like Japanese industry is looking out for American interests
better than our own government.
I'll make this as simple as I can: If a country outsources almost all
it's industry (like the US has done in the past 25 years) then you no
longer have an industry-based economy. With the loss of industry we
have been reverting to a service-based economy. Now the -service- jobs
are being outsourced as well. So what's the next rung down on the
ladder, Dave? Salvage -- a nation with an economy that's based on
scrounging through our garbage piles for resale to, ironically, the
now industrialized nations that only a few decades ago were called
'third-world countries'. And that change is already happening. The US
is literally exporting it's garbage to foreign countries to be
recycled into the raw materials for -their- industries.
But you think I should go back to school. I don't know why since I
earned a 3.9 in both Micro- and Macro-Economics. At what school did
-you- learn economics, Dave? "Internet University"?
snip
Speaking of policy, when do you suppose Bush is going to make good on
his promise to unite the parties and do away with partisan politics?
I suppose it has a lot to do with the democrats opposing anything that
a republican does. It's a two way street. The democrats are obligated
to be uniters as well. But like you can lead a horse to water but not
make him drink, we can sit politicians into a room, but we can't make
them cooperate. They have to do that on their own. And with nutcases
like Howard Dean trashing republicans in public speeches, it's doing
nothing more than driving a wedge into the crack.
So it's the Democrats fault that Bush can't overcome partisan
politics? ROTFLMMFAO!!!!!
snip
But since you cannot provide substance for your claims, allow me to
provide it for mine:
http://web.infoweb.ne.jp/fairtradec/new/b031107.pdf
This report outlines, among other things, what happens when a global
organization, such as the WTO, reacts negatively to what they perceive
as "protectionist" tactics such as tariffs. So tell me again how I am
"wrong" about potential retaliation for any tariffs we may place on
foreign made goods.
Sure. Go to college and take Macro- and Micro-Economics. And since you
are so gullible, try to avoid those neocon and WTO proxy websites.
So you deny that the EU was about to pass retaliatory measures to
counter the steel tariffs? You refuse to acknowledge the influence of
the WTO on global business practices? Are you one of those slackers
who was protesting the WTO in Seattle the other year, when all that
violence occurred?
Facts only please.
One fact is that too much free international trade hurts the domestic
economy. Another fact is that the US isn't subject to the laws of the
WTO or NAFTA. We can pull out just like Bush pulled out of the Kyoto
accord. And another fact is that if the US pulls out of the WTO or
NAFTA then there will -still- be international trade for the simple
reason that the US has money and foreign companies want it. And yet
-another- fact is that you have an extremely limited understanding of
economics.
snip
I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't
you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is
often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your
brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations?
So you posit that a Ford is on equal standing, quality wise, with a
Mercedes? People will sometimes pay more for something if they
perceive a greater value for it.
Oh, you mean like if an employer sees a greater value in a better
education?
Not the same thing.
It's -EXACTLY- the same thing.
A Mercedes earned it's pedigree and reputation and
that pedigree and name recognition is worth money alone. On the other
hand, if you went to a 4 year school, over a 2 year school, unless you
worse a shirt that said "I went to a 4 years college, hire me", you
would have to prove your pedigree. I agree that the intrinsic value is
there. But the public perception isn't necessarily there as well.
First, look up the word 'pedigree'.
Second, I can communicate my credentials (not my 'pedigrees') to a
potential employer with my resume.
Third, public perception only matters if the public is doing the
hiring, such as making a choice between Bush or Kerry (both of whom
had ****ty grades in college, a fact which has been ignored by the
press until just just recently for whatever reason).
Fourth, many academic institutions have reputations (not 'pedigrees')
that speak to the benefit of the graduate. A graduate from Cal-Tech
has a much better chance at getting hired than someone who passed a
correspondence course advertised in a magazine.
So what's the name of that tech school you claim to have attended,
Dave?
snip
US/UK ownership and control of Iraq's oil prior to Saddam (Iraqi Oil
Company, later known as Shell Oil) is well documented.
Yea, so?
Try Funk &
Wagnall's. The fact that Saddam reclaimed Iraq's oil was not only
documented by Western civilization but used as propaganda by Saddam.
He even tried to reclaim oil fields that were stolen from Iraq by
international charter long before Saddam took power (see Funk &
Wagnall's for the history of Kuwait).
So you are now attempting to justify Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in
1990?
Is that what I said?
Only one month after the US
invasion, Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, took
control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government.
Temporarily.
By January
2004, a "state-owned" oil company was created by James Baker (former
Secretary of State, now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil) that
favoured the US oil industry. Shell Oil (as well as several other US
oil companies) quickly established exclusive contracts with this new
Iraqi oil company.
This is an interim arrangement and only supposed to be in place until
the Iraqi government becomes stable enough to take over for
themselves.
The contracts are both long-term and binding on Iraq, regardless of
what name they call the company or who runs it. You are clearly out of
the loop on this issue, Dave. Take some time and get yourself up to
speed. And take a couple semesters of economics while you're at it.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----