On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:14:25 +0100, "Ian B"
wrote:


As I said before, is it because there are efficient farms in the market that
*can* sell at that price, and it is only inefficient ones who can't? And if
they can't afford it, why the hell are they doing it? Farmer: sell your
cows, or just slaughter them. Save yourself money. There's no use sending a
cheque every month to Lord Tesco, is there? Something funny going on, isn't
there? It doesn't make sense.


I agree that it does not make sense. Whilst the problem can be boiled
down to one of dairy farmers needing to produce milk at a price their
customers are prepared to pay, the situation is not quite that simple
and neither is the solution as simple as selling or slaughtering the
cows.

Where assertions are made that milk prices from the big buyers such as
Wiseman and Dairy Farmers of Britain does not cover production costs,
invariably this does not mean just the direct costs such as feed and
fertiliser but includes the indirect costs such as all the farm
overheads etc. This is still not a good position to be in (hence the
number of dairy farmers selling up) but maybe not quite as dire as the
NFU like to make out during their regular profile raising efforts.

Here in the south west, a major dairy products region due to its
pastoral landscape, the climate, topography and the traditionally
relatively small size holdings are not suited to cereal production
where there is money to be made at the moment. The holdings tend to
have been in the same family for generations which tends to impair
development but frequently the younger generation are diversifying and
entering environmental stewardship schemes or getting second jobs in
order to support the farm income and their chosen lifestyle.

rbel

wrote:

Tell me - if you ask a dozen professional economists a question, will
you get one consistent answer?

No, you'll get thirteen!

Economics: invented to make astrology look good.

--
Chris

On Jun 3, 12:37*am, Janet wrote:
You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about doe-eyed
cows and sad farmers.

* Nobody did. *The supermarkets, having cornered the market in retail milk
sales, collectively stopped paying a fair price to farmers for what they
produce, so that they could rake off a doubled profit for themselves.

* It is fantastical, that these same supermarkets woo customers
consciences with "fair trade" exotic goods such as tea and coffee, with a
promise that the third world producers get a fair deal and can make a
reasonable living. At the same time supermarkets manipulate the milk *
market to deny the same fair deal to UK home producers.

* *Janet

"Fair trade" is a load of ********.
Possibly supermarket ********.

They give some poor coffee farmer a few extra pence for his crop. Then
they pile on the pounds for the consumer.
It's just a cunning ploy to increase profit.
ie, The increased price you pay is nowhere near the amount passed on
to the farmer.

On Jun 2, 10:42*pm, "Ian B" wrote:
Martin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 22:15:04 +0100, "Ian B"
wrote:

Dave Hill wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:35 pm, "Ian B" wrote:
Roger Tonkin wrote:
In article ,
says...

Why why WHY do the farmers ALWAYS bleat hard times time and time
again?

Have you ever seen a poor farmer?

There are plenty of them around here, where hill farming of sheep
is the only possibility. Also we know that dairy farmers get less
per lire for their milk than it takes to produce (unless you run
a super farm!).

Then why are they producing it? Something economically wrong there,
isn't there?

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's probably because people in the UK don't want to pay the real
cost of their food, and farming for many is a way of life,
I'm sure you would love to have your milk from a super farm with
1000 or more cows kept in close confine, Almost battery conditions,
or brought in from who knowe where , where the animals are kept in
conditions that would be illegal in the UK.
A lot of dairy farmers are going out of buisness
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/farming-...009/09/16/high....

As I said, it's just inefficeint farmers complaining then, and using
animal welfare as a crowbar.

Yes, I want my milk from the best source available; a "super farm"
or what have you. Of course I want to pay the "real cost"- not the
cost of maintaining some rural romantic in his idyll. A farm is a
food factory, not a cow sanctuary. If state regulations are forcing
farmers to be inefficient compared to their competitors, those
regulations are the problem. Get rid of them.

The point is, inefficient producers going out of business is a *good
thing*. It is the only reason we have economic growth.

UK has almost zero economic growth. Something to do with local
producers being forced out of business and their products replaced by
foreign imports.

Nope, that's an autarkic fallacy. The post-war Labour government tried
restricting imports to stimulate local production (as have numerous tinpot
third world dictators) and it has the opposite effect; shortages and reduced
growth. Suppose it's cheaper to produce lamb in Wales than in Yorkshire
(hypothetically). So the government tries to improve the Yorkshire sheep
industry by banning the import of Welsh lamb. The actual effect is just
insufficient lamb in Yorkshire, which is more expensive, impoverishing the
Yorkshiremen (even though a few Yorkshire farmers may get a bit more
income). What Yorkshire needs to do is produce something else to sell to the
Welsh for their cheap lamb, like Yorkshire Puddings or steel or something..

When you realise that trade restriction polices are a policy of "making
people better off by making them pay more" the fallacy becomes clear.

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

These problems arise when you have other economies where standards of
everything are lower, ie non-level playing field.
Any body wants to sell goods n our country should produce them to the
same standard in simlar conditions. If not yes, keep them out.
We are not here to support third world economies, we have to support
our own people.

It is not about markets. It is economic warfare by such as the Chinese
designed to destroy our economy. They are NOT our friends.
It is not a level playing field when third world currencies are
atrificially held down. They use their slave workforce as an
econonomic weapon.
And we have half-wit "entropreneurs" over here play into their hands.

On Jun 3, 12:34*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:32:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:
It's a question of supermarket chains dictating the prices they pay AND
being able to buy YOUR food at cheaper prices from other countries
which more heavily subsidise their farmers, pay less to workers or
factory farm their animals.

Hear, hear. The food market as dominated by the big supermarkets is
not a free market. The buyers are dictating the price not the sellers
based on cost plus. This why large numbers of diary farmers *are*
giving up milk production.

If you're happy with that and look forward to paying much, much higher
prices in years to come when there's no locally produced food, therefore
no choice and all is imported, you have the right attitude.

Or get used to nothing on the shelves when food gets into real
shortage for any number of reasons from bad weather to politics. Will
a country export food when it's own population are starving and
holding food riots? I think not, where does that leave us? Hungry
that's where.

It is a very dangerous path to tread relying on imports for
significant amounts of the staple foods.

--
Cheers
Dave.

That also applies to fuel.

On Jun 3, 12:54*am, "Ian B" wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:32:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

It's a question of supermarket chains dictating the prices they pay
AND being able to buy YOUR food at cheaper prices from other
countries which more heavily subsidise their farmers, pay less to
workers or factory farm their animals.

Hear, hear. The food market as dominated by the big supermarkets is
not a free market. The buyers are dictating the price not the sellers
based on cost plus. This why large numbers of diary farmers *are*
giving up milk production.

That's not how a free market operates; what you're describing is basically
something called the "Labour Theory Of Value" which was realised to be wrong
in the nineteenth century; the idea that (labour) costs fix prices. They
don't.

Costs have to adjust to prices, not the other way around, and prices are set
by buyers. Think about it at the retail level; maybe a shop would like to
sell milk for £2 a pint. But for me, and most conusmers, it isn't worth that
to us, so we wouldn't buy it. We force a lower price from the shop. It
doesn't matter if it's the only shop in the area (a "monopoly"). It can't
make me pay £2 for a pint of milk.

The same is true further up the production chain; e.g. as here between
producers and retailers.

In very crude terms "buyers dictating the price" is precisely how a free
market *does* work. Economists understand that, but unfortunately most other
people don't.

Ian

You ignore politics. Market values are not the final arbiter when it
comes to indispensible commodities.
Security of supply takes precedence. In lots of things from food to
fuel.

Besides we've seen "market priciples" in recent operation now haven't
we?
The market only exists to rob the poor and enrich the rich still
further.
Their greed knows no bounds.
Unregulated capitalism is worse than communism.

On Jun 3, 8:16*am, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message , Ian B
writes





Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:32:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

It's a question of supermarket chains dictating the prices they pay
AND being able to buy YOUR food at cheaper prices from other
countries which more heavily subsidise their farmers, pay less to
workers or factory farm their animals.

Hear, hear. The food market as dominated by the big supermarkets is
not a free market. The buyers are dictating the price not the sellers
based on cost plus. This why large numbers of diary farmers *are*
giving up milk production.

That's not how a free market operates; what you're describing is basically
something called the "Labour Theory Of Value" which was realised to be wrong
in the nineteenth century; the idea that (labour) costs fix prices. They
don't.

Costs have to adjust to prices, not the other way around, and prices are set
by buyers. Think about it at the retail level; maybe a shop would like to
sell milk for £2 a pint. But for me, and most conusmers, it isn't worth that
to us, so we wouldn't buy it. We force a lower price from the shop. It
doesn't matter if it's the only shop in the area (a "monopoly"). It can't
make me pay £2 for a pint of milk.

The same is true further up the production chain; e.g. as here between
producers and retailers.

In very crude terms "buyers dictating the price" is precisely how a free
market *does* work. Economists understand that, but unfortunately most other
people don't.

I think there's some dispute as to whether an oligopsony qualifies as a
free market.



Ian

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have it exactly.

On Jun 3, 9:14*am, "Ian B" wrote:
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , Ian B
writes
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:32:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

It's a question of supermarket chains dictating the prices they pay
AND being able to buy YOUR food at cheaper prices from other
countries which more heavily subsidise their farmers, pay less to
workers or factory farm their animals.

Hear, hear. The food market as dominated by the big supermarkets is
not a free market. The buyers are dictating the price not the
sellers based on cost plus. This why large numbers of diary farmers
*are* giving up milk production.

That's not how a free market operates; what you're describing is
basically something called the "Labour Theory Of Value" which was
realised to be wrong in the nineteenth century; the idea that
(labour) costs fix prices. They don't.

Costs have to adjust to prices, not the other way around, and prices
are set by buyers. Think about it at the retail level; maybe a shop
would like to sell milk for £2 a pint. But for me, and most
conusmers, it isn't worth that to us, so we wouldn't buy it. We
force a lower price from the shop. It doesn't matter if it's the
only shop in the area (a "monopoly"). It can't make me pay £2 for a
pint of milk. The same is true further up the production chain; e.g. as
here
between producers and retailers.

In very crude terms "buyers dictating the price" is precisely how a
free market *does* work. Economists understand that, but
unfortunately most other people don't.

I think there's some dispute as to whether an oligopsony qualifies as
a free market.

Only from people who don't understand how a free market works.

If there is no restriction by law on entry to the market, if it is
unregulated, etc, it is a free market. Of course, real markets aren't like
that. The State intervenes all the time. But that's a different problem to
the artificial "oligopsony" problem. It boils down to a fallacious argument
that unless choice is unlimited- entirely impossible- then it is not free..

A good example, socially, is marriage. Nobody has every possible spouse
available to them. Most of us will only have a choice of a very small number
of spouses (compared to the number of the opposite sex in the world, let
alone all the *possible* people that could exist). Nonetheless, we have a
free choice. It is a free market.

Another thing anyway is this; if the farmers en masse don't like the
supermarkets' terms, just refuse en masse to sell at that price. Have a
meeting. Say, "we're all not selling at that price" and demand a higher one.
The supermarkets can't force the farmers to sell, and if they refuse to buy
at the new price, they haven't got any milk. Why aren't the farmers doing
that?

As I said before, is it because there are efficient farms in the market that
*can* sell at that price, and it is only inefficient ones who can't? And if
they can't afford it, why the hell are they doing it? Farmer: sell your
cows, or just slaughter them. Save yourself money. There's no use sending a
cheque every month to Lord Tesco, is there? Something funny going on, isn't
there? It doesn't make sense.

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah ********. If it were an open market/society/world government that
might be true but it isn't.

On Jun 3, 9:56*am, Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-02 23:41:36 +0100, "Ian B" said:





Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-02 22:11:03 +0100, "Ian B" said:

Bill Grey wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
. ..
Roger Tonkin wrote:
In article ,
says...

Why why WHY do the farmers ALWAYS bleat hard times time and time
again?

Have you ever seen a poor farmer?

There are plenty of them around here, where hill farming of sheep
is the only possibility. Also we know that dairy farmers get less
per lire for their milk than it takes to produce (unless you run
a super farm!).

Then why are they producing it? Something economically wrong there,
isn't there?

at
Ian
Supermarkets provide *a ready market for them but dictate the amount
they are going to pay for their produce. *One very good reason why
farmers are sometimes desperate.

You can't sell goods for less than your production costs. If farmer
A can't produce milk for price X, and farmer B can, then all that
can happen is farmer A leaves the milk production market. That's how
economic growth occurs, with the better supplier knocking the
inferior supplier out of the market. Which is often unpleasant for
the individuals concerned, but ultimately good for everyone.

The thing is, nobody can "dictate" a price. I can say I'll only pay
100 for a Ferrari, but I can't make Ferrari sell me one for that
price. Likewise if the supermarkets demand milk at a cheaper price
than it can be produced, they will get no milk, because there won't
be any producers at that price. Any farmer foolish enough to sell milk at
below cost must be
cross-subsidising it from some profitable enterprise, e.g. crops or
sheep or something. He needs to get out of the cow juice business.
He's destroying value in the economy, and in his own bank account.

Ian

'Leaving a market" means the farmer has to sell his cows or have them
put down. *For many/most, this is a heart breaking decision so they
soldier on, hoping things will improve. *If they do get out and turn
to e.g. beef farming, all that does is widen the door for the big
buyers who dictate the prices to bring in milk from abroad. When it's
our only source of supply as all domestic sources have gone, do you
think it will still be cheap? This applies, of course, to all our food
producers. *If you want to be in the hands of giant chains and foreign
producers, this is the right way to go about it.

Sacha, any business failure is heartbreaking. Back in the 70s, my dad was
stupid enough to try to run a (taxi) business under a Labour government.. It
failed. So did my parents' marriage. Our home was taken by the bank. I ended
up in a borassically skint one parent family.

You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about doe-eyed
cows and sad farmers. snip

I don't know why you use that analogy because I don't. *I'm talking
hard business. If we see all our farmers go out of business because
supermarkets are forcing down the price to the farmer, then we'll be
the long-term users. *It has nothing to do with doe-eyed cows. But as
for the farmers, it is a heart-breaking decision. *All the farmers I
know would tell you it's a way of life, not just a job, 9-5. Frankly, I
don'tk now why anyone would want to do it for so little reward in the
end.
--
Sachawww.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They are trying to force a monopoly. Simple as that.

On Jun 3, 10:05*am, "Ian B" wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
Janet writes

You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about
doe-eyed cows and sad farmers.

*Nobody did. *The supermarkets, having cornered the market in retail
milk sales, collectively stopped paying a fair price to farmers for
what they produce, so that they could rake off a doubled profit for
themselves. It is fantastical, that these same supermarkets woo customers
consciences with "fair trade" exotic goods such as tea and coffee,
with a promise that the third world producers get a fair deal and
can make a reasonable living. At the same time supermarkets
manipulate the milk market to deny the same fair deal to UK home
producers.

I'm afraid you seem to be arguing with an advocate of a totally free
market. *The market is king. Make a profit and damn the consequences.
etc.

The consequences of everyone trying to get the best deal is a general
improvement. How hard is that?

So I suspect that any argument to try and point out that the results
of this are almost always unpleasant and bad for society is likely to
go unheard.

This is simply ridiculous. The results of this are a general improvement.
What do you think happens if you tell people not to seek a profit?

Do a simple thought experiment. Tell shoppers they aren't allowed to seek
the best deal. What happens?

Profit at any cost, making a killing and taking advantage for personal
gain seem to be the only principles.

Yes. Because that's how people work. Even you. Faced with two identical
products, and one is cheaper, which one do you buy? Why is that? Would your
life be improved if the government ordered you to buy the more expensive
one? How?

For example, the implied comment on welfare and safety - 'there's your
problem...'. *Such things are just an impediment to raking it in.

It was quite clear what that meant. The government forces our farmers to
waste more resources on their cows than foreign ones. Result: the foreign
milk is cheaper. That's a regulation problem.

There *are* reasons for regulations in certain areas. *The sharks in
the market need to be controlled - it isn't a choice of either free
market or communism, despite Ian's implication.

Actually it is. You see, everyone has a reason to want the State to protect
them- it's always "just me, just this one thing". So it ends up with
everybody demanding the State fix prices, and that does indeed end up
shading into communism. *And then, the economy falls apart, and they say,
"oh, that ghastly free market".

The fact that unregulated markets result in valueless speculation
becoming an industry in itself is either ignored or, worse, justified
- despite it being damaging for all but the speculators.

Ah the old "it's the speculators' fault" fallacy. Free market speculation is
fine, because when it's done badly it collapses and the speculators lose
their money; otherwise it's good as it diverts capital to the right places.
But you have to understand economics to understand that.

Just remember that you're actually arguing for scarcity of goods in the
marketplace. You are arguing for higher prices, and less wealth for every
man Jack and woman Jill in the country; to satisfy your own preferences.
That's actually a pretty despicable thing to do, when you get down to it.
You want to pay more and have less, you go for it. But don't drag the rest
of us down with you.

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wrong.
You should buy the product made by your own people. Not from a
tyranical regime using near slave/child labour. Now that would be
fair trade.

On Jun 3, 10:46*am, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:20:49 +0100, "Ian B"
wrote:





Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-02 23:41:36 +0100, "Ian B" said:

Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-02 22:11:03 +0100, "Ian B"
said:
Bill Grey wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
k...
Roger Tonkin wrote:
In article ,
says...

Why why WHY do the farmers ALWAYS bleat hard times time and
time again?

Have you ever seen a poor farmer?

There are plenty of them around here, where hill farming of
sheep is the only possibility. Also we know that dairy farmers
get less per lire for their milk than it takes to produce
(unless you run a super farm!).

Then why are they producing it? Something economically wrong
there, isn't there?

at
Ian
Supermarkets provide *a ready market for them but dictate the
amount they are going to pay for their produce. *One very good
reason why farmers are sometimes desperate.

You can't sell goods for less than your production costs. If farmer
A can't produce milk for price X, and farmer B can, then all that
can happen is farmer A leaves the milk production market. That's
how economic growth occurs, with the better supplier knocking the
inferior supplier out of the market. Which is often unpleasant for
the individuals concerned, but ultimately good for everyone.

The thing is, nobody can "dictate" a price. I can say I'll only pay
£100 for a Ferrari, but I can't make Ferrari sell me one for that
price. Likewise if the supermarkets demand milk at a cheaper price
than it can be produced, they will get no milk, because there won't
be any producers at that price. Any farmer foolish enough to sell
milk at below cost must be
cross-subsidising it from some profitable enterprise, e.g. crops or
sheep or something. He needs to get out of the cow juice business.
He's destroying value in the economy, and in his own bank account.

Ian

'Leaving a market" means the farmer has to sell his cows or have
them put down. *For many/most, this is a heart breaking decision so
they soldier on, hoping things will improve. *If they do get out
and turn to e.g. beef farming, all that does is widen the door for
the big buyers who dictate the prices to bring in milk from abroad.
When it's our only source of supply as all domestic sources have
gone, do you think it will still be cheap? This applies, of course,
to all our food producers. *If you want to be in the hands of giant
chains and foreign producers, this is the right way to go about it.

Sacha, any business failure is heartbreaking. Back in the 70s, my
dad was stupid enough to try to run a (taxi) business under a Labour
government. It failed. So did my parents' marriage. Our home was
taken by the bank. I ended up in a borassically skint one parent
family. You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about
doe-eyed cows and sad farmers. snip

I don't know why you use that analogy because I don't. *I'm talking
hard business. If we see all our farmers go out of business because
supermarkets are forcing down the price to the farmer, then we'll be
the long-term users. *It has nothing to do with doe-eyed cows. But as
for the farmers, it is a heart-breaking decision. *All the farmers I
know would tell you it's a way of life, not just a job, 9-5. Frankly,
I don'tk now why anyone would want to do it for so little reward in
the end.

It's not just "hard business" when we start into the heart-breaking way of
life stuff. It was heartbreaking when my dad's business failed. It's going
to be heartbreaking if mine does, and things are dicey at the moment but,
like those farmers, I'm soldiering on in the hope of improvement.

But you can't expect a business to be propped up if it's not competitive..
And what we seem to be down to here is that these farmers just aren't
competitive. Somebody is producing cheap milk, and it isn't them. They're in
a business selling a fungible product at wholesale, and that's always been
dicey and always will be. One pint of milk is much like another. It all ends
up in a tanker heading off to the bottling plant. All that matters is the
price. And industries like that tend to end up with a few large players over
time, because of their economies of scale.

Take your business; you're in retail. You can build up customer
relationships. You can compete on product quality. You can compete on
service. You can get loyal customers who care about more than price. None of
that can really apply to milk. EIther you can grow cows as cheap as the next
guy, or you can't.

The fact that a guy wants with all his heart to be a dairy farmer, because
his dad was, and his grandad, that just doesn't matter to the ultimate end
buyer in Sainsburys. As the market seeks out the cheapest suppliers,
Sainsburys woman gets cheaper milk, and that's all she's going to care
about. If these people go out of business, we're all long-term winners, not
long-term losers. It's why economic growth happens, and we can all afford to
spend money on fripperies like our gardens; because over the centuries,
millions of people lost their businesses and jobs. It's harsh, but better
than the alternatives by far.

Report back after your job has been transferred to a third world
country.
--

Martin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like Birmingham Council.

On Jun 3, 11:27*am, "Ian B" wrote:
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:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:20:49 +0100, "Ian B"
snip
The fact that a guy wants with all his heart to be a dairy
farmer, because his dad was, and his grandad, that just doesn't
matter to the ultimate end buyer in Sainsburys. As the market
seeks out the cheapest suppliers, Sainsburys woman gets cheaper
milk, and that's all she's going to care about. If these people
go out of business, we're all long-term winners, not long-term
losers. It's why economic growth happens, and we can all afford
to spend money on fripperies like our gardens; because over the
centuries, millions of people lost their businesses and jobs.
It's harsh, but better than the alternatives by far.

Report back after your job has been transferred to a third world
country.

Oh dear, how very true. *;-(

In this case, hopefully :-)

Ugh - I don't want to see anyone lose their job! *But if we don't
support our small businesses, we know what the outcome will be. *How
often do I hear or read of people who can only buy supplies easily if
they buy from supermarkets. *We're so lucky here in having many small
shops still popular and doing well, a milkman who delivers and brings
the papers, too. *Long may it last. *I really don't want all my choice
of meat or veg dictated by a supermarket's pricing and buying regime.

Well, after Martin's devastating smackdown there I'm truly devastated.

Really, this conversation is utterly depressing. It's not so much that
people don't know about economics- that's fair enough, they have lots of
other things to do. It's the dogged, pig-headed refusal to both understand,
but to hold opinions anyway. It's like somebody who's never studied physics,
saying, "time runs at different speeds, don't be silly!"

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. So, Northampton Town Council get together and they say, "Ian's
business is being transferred to Wales! Let's protect Ian and ban all rose
imports from outside Northamptonshire! That'll work!".

So, that's good for me. Now I can sell expensive roses. But what about
everybody else? They are being denied Bob's cheaper roses. The result is
*fewer roses in Northampton*. It's not a net benefit. It's a net loss. Now
try doing that to every part of the economy; milk, motor cars, lawnmowers,
meat, fish... do you see what happens? The people of Northampton just get
poorer and poorer. You are inducing scarcity, not wealth. Do you see?

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's you that doesn't understand politics. You are in Lala land. The
ulitmate in short termism. Are you a banker? Not everything is about
money. You are a sad bugger if you think it is so.

On Jun 3, 11:45*am, wrote:
In article , Ian B
writes

wrote:

I'm afraid you seem to be arguing with an advocate of a totally free
market. *The market is king. Make a profit and damn the consequences..
etc.

The consequences of everyone trying to get the best deal is a general
improvement. How hard is that?

Not hard - just not inevitable. *And far too simplistic.



So I suspect that any argument to try and point out that the results
of this are almost always unpleasant and bad for society is likely to
go unheard.

This is simply ridiculous. The results of this are a general improvement..
What do you think happens if you tell people not to seek a profit?

Do a simple thought experiment. Tell shoppers they aren't allowed to seek
the best deal. What happens?

A complete straw man. *I'm not arguing from the pov of denying the
market entirely. *Just that it should not be allowed complete free rein..
This is for (at least) two reasons -
1 the unscrupulous will seek to take unfair advantage which will damage
individuals, society or even the local market;
2 there is an inherent inbalance in people's abilities and
circumstances. *Whilst some might argue for a completely laissez-faire
approach to this it is (subjectively) unfair - and objectively, results
in an unbalanced and hence dangerous society.



Profit at any cost, making a killing and taking advantage for personal
gain seem to be the only principles.

Yes. Because that's how people work. Even you. Faced with two identical
products, and one is cheaper, which one do you buy? Why is that? Would your
life be improved if the government ordered you to buy the more expensive
one? How?

But I'm talking about the businesses that provide these things or
services. *There isn't much damage an individual can do by choosing
where to shop. *There is damage done by by unscrupulous 'entrepreneurs'
taking short-term decisions for immeidate profit. *Its why we need lawas
and regulations. *If they were all perfect people, we wouldn't.



For example, the implied comment on welfare and safety - 'there's your
problem...'. *Such things are just an impediment to raking it in.

It was quite clear what that meant. The government forces our farmers to
waste more resources on their cows than foreign ones. Result: the foreign
milk is cheaper. That's a regulation problem.

Yes - it is quite clear what that meant. *Regulation in welfare and
safety is an impediment to making more profit - at the expense of
tedious things like some consideration of living things. *Its better for
the balance sheet not to have to consider such pink and fluffy things.



There *are* reasons for regulations in certain areas. *The sharks in
the market need to be controlled - it isn't a choice of either free
market or communism, despite Ian's implication.

Actually it is. You see, everyone has a reason to want the State to protect
them- it's always "just me, just this one thing". So it ends up with
everybody demanding the State fix prices, and that does indeed end up
shading into communism. *And then, the economy falls apart, and they say,
"oh, that ghastly free market".

That, believe it or not, is why we have a government to decide on these
things. *It might not get it right all the time, but that is what its
for. *And who is talking about the state fixing prices (although that
might be better than monopolies fixing prices)?



The fact that unregulated markets result in valueless speculation
becoming an industry in itself is either ignored or, worse, justified
- despite it being damaging for all but the speculators.

Ah the old "it's the speculators' fault" fallacy. Free market speculation is
fine, because when it's done badly it collapses and the speculators lose
their money; otherwise it's good as it diverts capital to the right places.
But you have to understand economics to understand that.

Bullshit. *Despite the fact that you have this tendency to read what you
expect rather than what is there, I didn't say it was all the
speculators' fault. *I'm sure they are not the only ones that service
their own greed at the expense of long term stability or others.

But on specifics, how is speculation on oil prices which artificially
pushes up prices good? *I don't recall ever seeing a shortage of
investors in what is after all, a product with a limited supply.

How was speculation on mortgage defaults or many of the other financial
betting instruments beneficial for us?



Just remember that you're actually arguing for scarcity of goods in the
marketplace.

And just how was I doing that?

You are arguing for higher prices, and less wealth for every
man Jack and woman Jill in the country; to satisfy your own preferences.
That's actually a pretty despicable thing to do, when you get down to it..
You want to pay more and have less, you go for it. But don't drag the rest
of us down with you.

You have a very strange way of interpreting arguments that don't fit
with your worldview. *It seems to go with your interpretations of other
people's words.

I'm not arguing for higher prices. *As far as I'm arguing prices at all,
I'm arguing that they should take account of other things than financial
profit. *An unfettered market is good for no-one in the long term. *Do
we want ACME Inc cutting corners when they produce nuclear power? *Do we
want harsher environments for labout providers?

Just how far does the lack of regulation in your free market go?

--
regards * andyw

He will be satisfied when our workforce is living in slums and eating
bread and water.
I expect he will still have cake.

On Jun 3, 9:14*pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 3, 11:45*am, wrote:





In article , Ian B
writes

wrote:

I'm afraid you seem to be arguing with an advocate of a totally free
market. *The market is king. Make a profit and damn the consequences.
etc.

The consequences of everyone trying to get the best deal is a general
improvement. How hard is that?

Not hard - just not inevitable. *And far too simplistic.

So I suspect that any argument to try and point out that the results
of this are almost always unpleasant and bad for society is likely to
go unheard.

This is simply ridiculous. The results of this are a general improvement.

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 22:51:34 +0100, Sacha wrote:

I think so and that's what worries me when people talk blithely about
'market forces'. They have NO idea what they're going to lose.

Market forces are OK provided that both sides have equal say in the
prices paid. Trouble is the big supermarkets have such domination of
the market that they control the price as the farmer has little
choice but to sell to the big supermarkets.

Economists are just as bad as accountants, they know the price of
everything but the value of nothing.

The bold and simple theories put forward by economists just don't
work in the real world there are just to many other factors involved
that they fail to take into account. If they do the results of the
theory descend into chaos, in that result varies wildly with only
tiny changes to the starting values.

--
Cheers
Dave.