The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
My spidey sense is tingling. I think we are about to have a hissy fit.
Do I get the million?
Do I get the million?
No, I didn't learn anything from the pencil. The pencil is not Brazilian rosewood, it is not elephant tusks, etc. I'm just talking about what is happening in the world. Species are being hunted to extinction for bush meat, for panelling in executive offices, etc. Some groups take an enlightened self interest and moderate consumption, as you note. In that case, I agree, government should keep well away.shanek said:No, I don't. If such wood is commanding such a price, then there's an incentive to plant more of it and make sure it grows to be profitable, and continues from there.
Did you learn nothing from the pencil?
shanek said:I never said collusion didn't exist. I'm just saying there are market forces that limit what it can do as long as there's no government support for them.
Chaos said:Justice? The concept of "justice" does not exist in economics. And anything that is not a market force is, by definition, an intervention - more formally speaking, an exogenous factor.
shanek said:The free market is by far the best tool for dealing with limited resources that humanity has ever devised!
Well, as you said, as the resource becomes more scarce, the price goes up and up and up and up and up. Eventually, it becomes too expensive for anyone to buy it anymore, or, at least, consumption goes down until its numbers increase enough to make it viable again. It's a problem that takes care of itself.
Ed said:Dunno. I would suggest that consumer prices for grocery items are fixed, ie. manufacturers and retailers collude to maintain certain price points. Unfortunately, the data to prove it (which would be mind numbingly simple) is very limited in distribution and releasing it publicly would probably result in a nice fat lawsuit. The only way that I can see to do anything at all would be for the government to hop in and supeana the necessary data but I wouldn't hold my breath.
shanek said:Well, there's no Economics subforum (yet), but in the interests of education and enlightenment I'd like to present an essay written in the 1950s by Leonard E. Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education. It's a wonderful description of how the free market improves life for everyone, using something as deceptively simple as a pencil...told from the pencil's point of view. You can read the whole thing at the link, of course, but I'll post some relevant highlights:
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=316
He continues with the shipping of the logs, the millwork, etc., all of the complex tasks performed by an uncountable number of people, all of whom participate, in one form or another, in the making of the pencil.
Seems to me that today, much moreso than when Read wrote this piece, we are much in need of the lessons that can be taught to us by a simple pencil...or pen, or a pair of jeans, or any other simple and basic item everyone has and thinks little about when buying it. While the big government types deny even the existance of the Invisible Hand, it is at work every day in practically every aspect of our lives.
digitalmcq said:I'm curious as to what your evidence is to support this. In a completely free market with perfect competition (ie. few barriers to entry, many firms) collusion would be effectively curtailed as you could never get all firms on board with whatever it is that you're trying to do. However, in firms with minimal competition and many barriers to entry (ex. any industry that requires a large 'economy of scale' where small firms cannot survive) it is very possible for collusion to undermine 'market forces.' This can happen without govt intervention and typically requires govt intervention to prevent.
roger said:No, I didn't learn anything from the pencil.
But it's simply fact that not everyone is doing that.
Let me know when you present a lecture at a GAL convention of sustainable instruments woods, or otherwise get published among a company of peers, and I'll be all ears. Until then, I'm going to pay attention to the experts in the field, not the googlers.
Ed said:But, but, what about my point?
A bud of mine who worked for a "major food manufacturer" (since promoted) was called upon to testify in the UK when the bloody Brits sensed something amiss. Nothing ever happened, as far as I know. It easy to snow people. Unfortunately.
digitalmcq said:I'm curious as to what your evidence is to support this.
digitalmcq said:This is only true to a limited extent. Let me give you the example of Haiti. Haiti was once heavily forrested but has since lost most of its forests due to world demand for lumber. The govt didn't effectively regulate the market and the trees were not cut down in a way that would allow the regeneration of the forests.
digitalmcq said:I'd just like to point out that this is not an example of the success of the free market - this is an example of the success of the division of labor. They are not the same thing.
shanek said:Yeah, and they're covering up testimony of UFO landings, too.
Ed said:My point exactly. While Mrs. Larson's Broderbred is a really nifty product she likely cannot afford the slotting allowences that it takes (read 'payoff') to get her product on the shelves at major retailers. That being the case, she will always be, alas, a high priced local alternative to the major brands. Unless, of course, she is acquired. Then Mrs. Larson's Broderbred becomes Mrs. Larson's Danish Original Broderbred in no fat, lowered fat, hi fat, and "natural' varieties, all made in China and all carefully scripted as to distribution and price. What happens when the players literally buy the "market forces"?
For reference, here are the brands owned by my good friends at Kraft. The only market forces that they give a rat's ass about are demographic trends. Though, given their parent is PM, I suspect that they a re working on that angle too.
shanek said:Do you not have any evidence for these assertions of yours?
[list of items deleted]
Ed, all of those items have competing brands sold right next to them on the grocery store shelves. Try again.
Ed said:Cute but irrelevant.
shanek said:Ed, what is the difference between your arguments and those of a UFO conspiracy theorist?