Dave Hill wrote:
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. 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Harry, he isn't a banker, he describes himself as
"I have to specialise in something they can't do (high quality writing
which is in ghastly short supply in the "adult" business"
Probably moved to the country and doesnb't like the noise of smells of
farming.

Sigh.

I live in an ordinary little flat in an ordinary little Middle English town
with an ordinary little garden. I write and draw an online comic for a
living which is "adult" in nature but, some people think, rather good
anyway.

I am also rather fascinated by economics. Unfortunately, any attempt to
discuss how free markets work automatically gets one accused of being some
kind of super-rich capitalist looking to grind the proleteriat beneath the
wheels of his gilded coach or something. Normally by people who've never
read so much as an article, let alone a book, on economics.

You see, I passionately want life to improve. I want us all to get
wealthier. I want a society where people don't struggle to survive. I want a
society where we can have the wealth and time to potter in our gardens, or
whatever we wish to do. But what people don't understand, really they do not
understand, is where wealth comes from. They think it comes from higher
wages, or it comes from protecting themselves from competition. They think
that high taxes can do it, that redistribution can do it. That forcing
everyone to pay more for some product (like milk) will help the economy. But
the fact is, the economy does not work that way. If you do that, you make
everyone a little poorer. You do it to every product, and you make everyone
*much* poorer. The policies which people support in their belief that they
will benefit from them, actually achieve the exact opposite. The result is
poverty, it is unemployment, it is dwindling industry, ghost towns, failure.

It's just the way things are. It's no good pretending that things aren't
that way. Nobody likes facing competition, but everyone has to. It's the
only way for us all to get wealthier. So, if you want to accuse me of
wanting a better life for everyone, guilty as charged. But anti-farming? No,
not that.


Ian

On Jun 3, 10:51*pm, Sacha wrote:
On 2011-06-03 21:05:08 +0100, harry said:





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
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 amou
nt
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 mil
k 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 forei
gn
producers, this is the right way to go about it.

Sacha, any business failure is heartbreaking. Back in the 70s, my dad w
as
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-ey
ed
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.

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.
--
Sachawww.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Market forces eh? How about the Southern Cross debacle? Bought out by
Blackstone and asset stripped. Left to rent back property they once
owned. The F***g Yanks made millions and 30,000 old people are now
left without a home unless the taxpayer picksup the bill

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html?ITO=1490

Market forces eh? Why don't you just bugger off. Thieving *******s
like you make me sick.

On Jun 4, 11:13*am, "Ian B" wrote:
Dave Hill wrote:
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. 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Harry, he isn't a banker, he describes himself as
"I have to specialise in something they can't do (high quality writing
which is in ghastly short supply in the "adult" business"
Probably moved to the country and doesnb't like the noise of smells of
farming.

Sigh.

I live in an ordinary little flat in an ordinary little Middle English town
with an ordinary little garden. I write and draw an online comic for a
living which is "adult" in nature but, some people think, rather good
anyway.

I am also rather fascinated by economics. Unfortunately, any attempt to
discuss how free markets work automatically gets one accused of being some
kind of super-rich capitalist looking to grind the proleteriat beneath the
wheels of his gilded coach or something. Normally by people who've never
read so much as an article, let alone a book, on economics.

You see, I passionately want life to improve. I want us all to get
wealthier. I want a society where people don't struggle to survive. I want a
society where we can have the wealth and time to potter in our gardens, or
whatever we wish to do. But what people don't understand, really they do not
understand, is where wealth comes from. They think it comes from higher
wages, or it comes from protecting themselves from competition. They think
that high taxes can do it, that redistribution can do it. That forcing
everyone to pay more for some product (like milk) will help the economy. But
the fact is, the economy does not work that way. If you do that, you make
everyone a little poorer. You do it to every product, and you make everyone
*much* poorer. The policies which people support in their belief that they
will benefit from them, actually achieve the exact opposite. The result is
poverty, it is unemployment, it is dwindling industry, ghost towns, failure.

It's just the way things are. It's no good pretending that things aren't
that way. Nobody likes facing competition, but everyone has to. It's the
only way for us all to get wealthier. So, if you want to accuse me of
wanting a better life for everyone, guilty as charged. But anti-farming? No,
not that.

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Greed knows no bounds. There is nothing these *******s won't stoop to
do to enrich themselves.

Robin Hood robbed the rich and gave to the poor, Gordon Brown robbed
the poor to give to the rich.
These scumbag bankers are still living it up when they should have all
been sacked. Meanwhile, everybody else is suffering.

We need to start a revolution and shoot the *******s.

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

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...


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?

Not necessarily. They all face the same regulation, feed and labour
costs and the same market price paid per litre.

Regardless of their "efficiency" as a dairy farmer, those farmers who
have some alternative stock, crop or income, can better afford to
subsidise and weather the current dairy losses, than those who only
dairy.

If a dairy farmer goes bust, he can't just turn his business on a
sixpence and start selling chickens or potatoes instead; because such
turnarounds take time before there's any product to sell AND require
capital investment (impossible when broke).


That's true of any failed business, unfortunately. It's never pleasant for
the person concerned. But as a society we can't therefore just prop up every
such business of nothing would ever improve. We'd still be weaving in our
front rooms instead of having cheap factory clothes. Indeed, we'd still be
farming on strips instead of having enclosed fields. A lot of people lost
their livelihoods to create the enclosed farms we're discussing.

If a dairy farmer goes bust, he has gone bust. He needs to turn his business
to another product, if he can, before that happens. If he can't do that,
there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's a failed business. Tough for
the farmer, but good for the consumer. His land will be purchased by someone
who can use it more efficiently, thus enhancing the general good. It's the
process which has transformed us all from being poor peasant farmers to
advanced westerners living in unprecedented luxury compared to them. We
can't stand in its way.


Ian

On Jun 5, 10:19*pm, "Ian B" wrote:
Janet wrote:
In article ,
says...

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?

Not necessarily. They all face the same regulation, feed and labour
costs and the same market price paid per litre.

Regardless of their "efficiency" as a dairy farmer, those farmers who
have some alternative stock, crop or income, can better afford to
subsidise and weather the current dairy losses, than those who only
dairy.

If a dairy farmer goes bust, he can't just turn his business on a
sixpence and start selling chickens or potatoes instead; because such
turnarounds take time before there's any product to sell AND require
capital investment (impossible when broke).

That's true of any failed business, unfortunately. It's never pleasant for
the person concerned. But as a society we can't therefore just prop up every
such business of nothing would ever improve. We'd still be weaving in our
front rooms instead of having cheap factory clothes. Indeed, we'd still be
farming on strips instead of having enclosed fields. A lot of people lost
their livelihoods to create the enclosed farms we're discussing.

If a dairy farmer goes bust, he has gone bust. He needs to turn his business
to another product, if he can, before that happens. If he can't do that,
there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's a failed business. Tough for
the farmer, but good for the consumer. His land will be purchased by someone
who can use it more efficiently, thus enhancing the general good. It's the
process which has transformed us all from being poor peasant farmers to
advanced westerners living in unprecedented luxury compared to them. We
can't stand in its way.

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. More ********. It was technological innovation transformed us from
being peasants.
Once you take manufacturing out of the hands of enthusiasts and put it
in the hands of finance, the business goes bust. Because they only
think money.