Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-03 10:55:57 +0100, Martin said:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:52:39 +0100, Sacha
wrote:
On 2011-06-03 10:46:03 +0100, Martin said:
Try this. I live in Northampton. Let's say there's this guy Bob,
and he lives in Cardiff. And we both sell roses. And Bob's roses
are cheaper than mine.
Try this; both Bob and your self have to buy your stock, fertiliser
and compost at market costs; and these are pretty much the same all
over the country. The only place buying roses is Tesco and Asda and
they offer the same price per stem to you and to Bob. It doesn't
even cover your production costs.
Then I'm less productive than Bob, and the market will boot me out.
Bob's roses are no better than yours,
Yes they are, because they are the same quality, but *cheaper*.
Cheaper, does not make them better roses.
Yes they are better. We are agreed that they are the same in all aspects
except for the price. Thus, a cheaper rose is the better purchase. As a
consumer, if you are offered two bunches of roses, identical in quality but
different prices, what would you choose? The cheaper one. That is by
definition better.
but Bob has a wife who is a
teacher bringing in money; your wife works for you. Bob is
therefore better able to withstand the rose market fiasco.
Then if Bob is subsidiising his roses with the wife's income, they
need to think hard about what they're doing. The wife is working to
give roses away to Tesco at a loss.
Mrs Bob;s income is what stands between paying the bank loan, and
foreclosure.
Yes, she's subsidising her husband. It can be quite reasonably argued that
her foolisness is subsidising this lower price that you consider unfair.
Back with the roses. You own a rose shop. So does Bob. Bob is selling
cheaper roses because Mrs Bob is subsidising him. Won't you feel pretty
annoyed that your business is being undercut by Mrs Bob? Who's to blame
here, the purchasers buying the cheapest roses, or Mrs Bob allowing Bob to
sell below cost?
You go bust, Bob
doesn't; not because you are less efficient but because Bob has more
financial leeway.
If there really are masses of farmers acting so bizarrely,
Of course they do.
So this is really a very bizarre example;
No, its a typical one. Bob hangs on because he hopes that..
eventually.. the supermarkets will relent and pay a sustainable rate.
Bob's taking a gamble. But as it stands, his business model is
unsustainable.
what my comment was trying to show
is that it always benefits the consumer to buy from the cheapest
source.
I can only imagine you're too young to remember food shortages and
rationing. As an island society, we must retain and support our food
producers.
Yes I am too young. But rationing occurred because of an extreme situation;
a total war in which countries were trying to destroy each other. Any
country will have very great problems in that circumstance.
One interesting fact is that Hitler, like protectionists in general,
believed in "autarky". That is the name for the system in which you produce
everything yourself and do not trade. But since of course Germany could not
produce everything itself- for instance, oil and steel- Hitler was naturally
led to trying to conquer other productive areas. It was the heart of the
liebensraum concept. It is a very dangerous concept. No modern society can
produce everything it needs itself.
It's also significant that the Attlee government *intensified* rationing
after the war, under Stafford Cripps, with the intention of encouraging
British production. As usual, it didn't work. It just made everyone poorer
and extended the miserable privations of war into peacetime, entirely
unnecessarily. The population voted them out, rationing was lifted, trade
with foreign nations resumed again, and things improved.
Autarky just does not work.
Not that I'd ever marry a man who made money from sexploitationm but
why DON'T you get a proper job?
I have a proper job. I'm an artist. I sell a useful product on the market,
which is entertainment, which provides some small portion of happiness to my
customers, like everybody else in the entertainment business. I get no
subsidies, preferentialism or protection from the State. Like roses, my
product is not an essential one, but it brings a little colour and a smile
or two into the world. That is a very proper job indeed.
Ian