Daylight said:
How would they do that, unless there were a legitimate grievance? They'd be laughed out of court, and if we moved to a loser-pay system this would backfire.
It has no "muscle" to throw around. It deals voluntarily with the retail chain.
Wrong. Small businesses have the best chance in a free market as regulation hurts them to a much greater proportion than the larger companies who can a) afford it and b) lobby for exceptions. In fact, most of these regulations actually come about from bigger businesses wanting to stop smaller competition. I'm a small business owner; I know whereof I speak here.
There's no way they can say or enforce that. It doesn't work. It's beem tried; it just doesn't work.
Yes you have, because it was in this very thread, in response to a post of yours!
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870723044#post1870723044
Having to repeat myself is one thing...having to repeat myself in the same thread to the same guy is another matter entirely...
Kerberos said:
You have just exposed the profound levels of your ignorance. There is no such thing as "sunk costs" when you're just starting a new business. Sunk costs refer to costs that have already been incurred but that cannot be recouped. For example, if you purchase a plane ticket that cannot be refunded but then cancel the trip. Obviously a new business has no previous costs since it hasn't existed before.
There are costs of entry, but the money put up for those is an investment.
It's called "startup costs." Stop spinning.
As I have repeatedly explained, the new equilibrium occurs because the competition has shifted the supply curve to the right, resulting in a new equilibrium. It's still "market equilibrium," as you just admitted, and now you're trying to cover up your own ignorance and dishonestly put it on me.
The only one who's spinning is you, if startuå involves sunk costs then that's a barrier to entry.shanek said:
Having fun with you straw man? Market equilibrium isn't the same as a competitive equilibrium. When are you going to stop spinning anf answer the question?shanek said:
Oh and you forgot to adress this:
me said:
me said:
me said:
Kerberos said:
It is logically impossible to have sunk costs on startup. Please learn what you are talking about before you go mouthing off.
Uh, yes, it is.
http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/glossary/walraseq.htm
When did you ask a question that didn't make bogus economic assumptions?
Because it's nothing more than desperate whining. Unless, of course, you can explain how the pencil supports your assertions.
I ask you two to think of the children.
Think of the children’s blood lust at seeing two grown men destroying themselves.
We get you two into a cage match in a Las Vegas casino, stage the whole thing before time of course, but you will still get some cuts and bruises just to keep it real. There’s still time to develop personas, make-up, and costumes. We’ll bill the fight as: “TAM3 SmackDown! Claus Versus Shane!â€
Think of all the wrestling fans you will be exposing to skepticism. Think of the money that could be made of tickets and T-shirt sales. Most of it will wind up supporting skeptical organizations.
P.S. What I don’t want to see is you two in bar at TAM3 drinking beers and arguing loudly about whether governmental accounting rules are better than private sector accounting rules. In fact, no one wants to see that happen.
P.P.S. How about this line, “An epic battle that will send one man to the insane asylum, the other to the city morgue!†Think about it.
Think of the children’s blood lust at seeing two grown men destroying themselves.
We get you two into a cage match in a Las Vegas casino, stage the whole thing before time of course, but you will still get some cuts and bruises just to keep it real. There’s still time to develop personas, make-up, and costumes. We’ll bill the fight as: “TAM3 SmackDown! Claus Versus Shane!â€
Think of all the wrestling fans you will be exposing to skepticism. Think of the money that could be made of tickets and T-shirt sales. Most of it will wind up supporting skeptical organizations.
P.S. What I don’t want to see is you two in bar at TAM3 drinking beers and arguing loudly about whether governmental accounting rules are better than private sector accounting rules. In fact, no one wants to see that happen.
P.P.S. How about this line, “An epic battle that will send one man to the insane asylum, the other to the city morgue!†Think about it.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
CFLarsen said:
And who's rights take precedence in a public park - the smoker or the non-smoker?
shanek keeps avoiding that one too, although in a different thread. I guess he figures he will be more embarassed trying to answer than embarassed in avoiding the questions all together.
shanek said:
Yet you are thinking of bringing a gun to TAM3, solely to intimidate me? You fly off in a frenzied rage, if people disagree with you, or prove you wrong?
You find that "nonviolent"? I'd hate to think what you are going to do, when you are violent.
Hm. The implications of this means that you cannot tell anything aboutshanek said:
a posters personality from their posts. For all we know some of the more
pleasant posters might very well turn out to be homicidal maniacs.
Still, I want details and photos when you two meet.
P.S. Watch out for his sister - Line Larsen
She’ll pin you to the mat faster than you can say,
“pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.â€
BS, starting almost any buisness requires an investement an in fx, a factory, if that factory cannot be resold then that's a sunk cost.shanek said:
Uh, no, it's not. A couble of helpfull tips for you: When trying to prove that there is no such thing as a competitive equilibrium you shouldn't link to a page whose title is competitive market equilibrium and when trying to prove that competitive equilibrium is the same as market equilibrium you don't want to link to a page that specifically says:shanek said:
"It [competitive market equilibrium] relies crucially on the assumption of a competitive environment where buyers and sellers take the terms of trade (prices) as a given parameter of the exchange environment. Basically, each trader decides upon a quantity that is such small compared to the total quantity traded in the market that their individual transactions have no influence on the prices."
And: " this rather narrow concept of economic equilibrium is inappropriate in many situations, such as oligopolostic market structures, public goods and externalities, collusion, or markets with price rigidities"
And: "However, complete information on prices and on the characteristic of the commodities is necessary to retain the efficiency features of free price formation in competitive markets"
And: "If markets are 'thin', traders have market power, and the competitive paradigm does no longer apply."
ALso it's generally a bad idea to first insist that there is no such thing as a competitive equilibrium and then flat out contradict yourself by insisting that a competitive equilibrium is the same as a market equilibrium.
All in all this makes you look rather stupid and you properbly don't want to advertise that fact.
I haven't made any assumptions that aren't part of standard economic theory. It's not my fault you don't understand economy.shanek said:
The pencil is a pathetic rebutal to a ridicilous straw man, which is one of the points I make. Now adress the points.shanek said:
me said:
me said:
me said:
