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

"Ian B" wrote in message
...
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

Supermarkets do dictate prices, if not specifically, but by buying at the
lowest price (which they want to pay ) and which may or may not be
atisfactory to the farmer. Nobody said anything about selling at a loss.
The market pressures may leave the farmer with litlte or no choice but to
sell to supermarkets. Supermarkets have the whip hand in so many cases.

Bill

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

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

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.

Except that if Ferrari don't want to sell cheap, they can just
park the car they made and wait for the market to change. You can't
do that with a live herd of milkers, in the middle of a breeding
program. They still have to be fed, milked and managed, all costing
money. So, the buyer knows very well the farmer can't afford to
refuse to sell the product. So long as he has milkers he must sell
milk, even at aloss, until he either goes bust or gets out of
dairying. The problem with getting out of dairying, is that he's
probably still owes the bank for his dairy equipment (that nobody
else wants to buy, and can't be adapted to another use). Recipe for
bankruptcy.

In the past decade,the number of UK dairy farms has halved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sumer/2785449/
UK-dairy-farming-on-brink-of-collapse.html

"UK dairy farmers lose an average of 4.7p on every litre of milk they
produce, giving the average dairy farm an annual loss of £37,600, new
figures show.

The figures from First Milk, a farmer-owned dairy business that
supplies more than 1.8bn litres of milk a year, lay bare the
desperate plight of the UK dairy industry.

According to a report out today, the average price paid to a farmer
for a litre of milk over the year to March 31 2007 was 17.5p. However
the cost of producing this milk was 22p. This 4.7p loss multiplied by
the 800,000 litres that the average farm produces each year equates
to £37,600.

Peter Humphreys, chief executive of First Milk, said that the dairy
industry was "on the brink of collapse".

When dairying in the UK is finished, don't imagine UK
supermarkets will still sell it at the lowest price in Europe.
They'll still be the ones setting the price of milk but it will be
the consumers over a barrel.

Janet.


Then the farmers have to go bankrupt. They made a bad investment. It's
unpleasant when that happens, but it has happened to numerous businesses
over the centuries; you thought there was a market, you borrowed money, you
found there wasn't a market, you went bust with heaps of debt.

I know this sounds callous; but the market only works if we look at it this
way. Entrepreneurs take risks; they may romp home in wealth, or collapse in
poverty. If you want a free market, growth and general wealth, you have to
live with that. If not, accept the shortages, lack of growth, lack of wealth
and lack of innovation (and ultimate economic collapse) of communism.

Left alone, the milk market will set a price. That's the only way to find
out what the correct price of milk is. Those who can't sell at that price
will leave the market; those who can will prosper. There isn't any other
way.

And as I said, if government regulations are making our milk uneconomic,
don't blame the supermarkets or the markets, blame the government. And scrap
the regulations.


Ian

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

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

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.

Except that if Ferrari don't want to sell cheap, they can just
park the car they made and wait for the market to change. You can't
do that with a live herd of milkers, in the middle of a breeding
program. They still have to be fed, milked and managed, all costing
money. So, the buyer knows very well the farmer can't afford to
refuse to sell the product. So long as he has milkers he must sell
milk, even at aloss, until he either goes bust or gets out of
dairying. The problem with getting out of dairying, is that he's
probably still owes the bank for his dairy equipment (that nobody
else wants to buy, and can't be adapted to another use). Recipe for
bankruptcy.

In the past decade,the number of UK dairy farms has halved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sumer/2785449/
UK-dairy-farming-on-brink-of-collapse.html

"UK dairy farmers lose an average of 4.7p on every litre of milk
they produce, giving the average dairy farm an annual loss of
£37,600, new figures show.

The figures from First Milk, a farmer-owned dairy business that
supplies more than 1.8bn litres of milk a year, lay bare the
desperate plight of the UK dairy industry.

According to a report out today, the average price paid to a farmer
for a litre of milk over the year to March 31 2007 was 17.5p.
However the cost of producing this milk was 22p. This 4.7p loss
multiplied by the 800,000 litres that the average farm produces
each year equates to £37,600.

Peter Humphreys, chief executive of First Milk, said that the dairy
industry was "on the brink of collapse".

When dairying in the UK is finished, don't imagine UK
supermarkets will still sell it at the lowest price in Europe.
They'll still be the ones setting the price of milk but it will be
the consumers over a barrel.

Janet.

And as I said, if government regulations are making our milk
uneconomic,

They aren't. We have the highest welfare and safety standards in
Europe ,


There's your problem right there, Janet.


Ian

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

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

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.

Except that if Ferrari don't want to sell cheap, they can just
park the car they made and wait for the market to change. You
can't do that with a live herd of milkers, in the middle of a
breeding program. They still have to be fed, milked and managed,
all costing money. So, the buyer knows very well the farmer can't
afford to refuse to sell the product. So long as he has milkers
he must sell milk, even at aloss, until he either goes bust or
gets out of dairying. The problem with getting out of dairying,
is that he's probably still owes the bank for his dairy equipment
(that nobody else wants to buy, and can't be adapted to another
use). Recipe for bankruptcy.

In the past decade,the number of UK dairy farms has halved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sumer/2785449/
UK-dairy-farming-on-brink-of-collapse.html

"UK dairy farmers lose an average of 4.7p on every litre of milk
they produce, giving the average dairy farm an annual loss of
£37,600, new figures show.

The figures from First Milk, a farmer-owned dairy business that
supplies more than 1.8bn litres of milk a year, lay bare the
desperate plight of the UK dairy industry.

According to a report out today, the average price paid to a
farmer for a litre of milk over the year to March 31 2007 was
17.5p. However the cost of producing this milk was 22p. This 4.7p
loss multiplied by the 800,000 litres that the average farm
produces each year equates to £37,600.

Peter Humphreys, chief executive of First Milk, said that the
dairy industry was "on the brink of collapse".

When dairying in the UK is finished, don't imagine UK
supermarkets will still sell it at the lowest price in Europe.
They'll still be the ones setting the price of milk but it will be
the consumers over a barrel.

Janet.

And as I said, if government regulations are making our milk
uneconomic,

They aren't. We have the highest welfare and safety standards in
Europe ,


There's your problem right there, Janet.

Our supermarkets also set the retail price to UK consumers, which is
the cheapest in Europe. Historically, they set retail milk prices as
a competitive lossleader. But in the past decade, UK supermarkets
have doubled their profit margin on milk.

Hold on, one moment it's a loss-leader (negative profit), then they're
"doubling" their "profit margin".

If it's a loss-leader, doubling the profit margin would mean double the loss
to the supermarket. EIther they're making a loss or a profit. Which is it?

They have also, driven down
the price they pay to farmers, now UNDER the farmers production cost.

Like I said, you can't do that for any length of time. The farmers would all
simply go out of business; then, no milk. Somebody can afford to make milk
at this price. Who is it?

They could either, pay farmers a sustainable margin and take less
for themselves. Or, they could pay farmers a sustainable margin and
pass the extra cost to customers. It would still be cheaper than
doorstep deliveries.

Or, they can do what they're doing now, which is just get the milk as cheap
as they can, which is what every business does. Tries to get supplies at
cheapest cost, and sell the product at the highest margin. The latter- the
retial price- is held down by our (consumer) power.

The simple thing is, nobody can bargain a price down below costs, because
the producers then leave the market. Unless for some reason a producer is
doing this bizarre thing of selling below cost. If they really are doing
that- all of them- they may as well not produce the milk, and just send
Tesco a cheque every now and again. So, why are these farmers, we are led to
believe, giving money to Tesco for no reason? Is it just a fun hobby, rising
at the crack to milk the herd? Because if this really is the situation, it's
otherwise a total waste of time and effort.


Ian

"Janet" wrote in message
...
In article ,
lid says...

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

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

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.

Except that if Ferrari don't want to sell cheap, they can just
park the car they made and wait for the market to change. You can't
do that with a live herd of milkers, in the middle of a breeding
program. They still have to be fed, milked and managed, all costing
money. So, the buyer knows very well the farmer can't afford to
refuse to sell the product. So long as he has milkers he must sell
milk, even at aloss, until he either goes bust or gets out of
dairying. The problem with getting out of dairying, is that he's
probably still owes the bank for his dairy equipment (that nobody
else wants to buy, and can't be adapted to another use). Recipe for
bankruptcy.

In the past decade,the number of UK dairy farms has halved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sumer/2785449/
UK-dairy-farming-on-brink-of-collapse.html

"UK dairy farmers lose an average of 4.7p on every litre of milk
they produce, giving the average dairy farm an annual loss of
£37,600, new figures show.

The figures from First Milk, a farmer-owned dairy business that
supplies more than 1.8bn litres of milk a year, lay bare the
desperate plight of the UK dairy industry.

According to a report out today, the average price paid to a farmer
for a litre of milk over the year to March 31 2007 was 17.5p.
However the cost of producing this milk was 22p. This 4.7p loss
multiplied by the 800,000 litres that the average farm produces
each year equates to £37,600.

Peter Humphreys, chief executive of First Milk, said that the dairy
industry was "on the brink of collapse".

When dairying in the UK is finished, don't imagine UK
supermarkets will still sell it at the lowest price in Europe.
They'll still be the ones setting the price of milk but it will be
the consumers over a barrel.

Janet.

And as I said, if government regulations are making our milk
uneconomic,

They aren't. We have the highest welfare and safety standards in
Europe ,


There's your problem right there, Janet.

Our supermarkets also set the retail price to UK consumers, which is the
cheapest in Europe. Historically, they set retail milk prices as a
competitive lossleader. But in the past decade, UK supermarkets have
doubled their profit margin on milk. They have also, driven down the price
they pay to farmers, now UNDER the farmers production cost. They could
either, pay farmers a sustainable margin and take less for themselves.
Or, they could pay farmers a sustainable margin and pass the extra cost to
customers. It would still be cheaper than doorstep deliveries.

Janet

Here is a farcical (ficitious statement) which may illustrate the
Supermarket strategy.

" Bread prices rise by 10%, Wedding Cake price down by 20%"

Bill

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. Every business faces the possibility of ruin. I myself
in my cartoon business face competitors who are abroad, who are far, far
cheaper than I am, which is why I have to specialise in something they can't
do (high quality writing which is in ghastly short supply in the "adult"
business believe me, mainly). I get emails from foreign climes offering me
artwork at the equivalent of £15.00 a page. I can't even start a page for
that.

But they are cheap and I am expensive for all kinds of reasons. The UK is a
ridiculously expensive country to live in. Our housing is absurdly
expensive, our food is expensive, we are over-regulated, we pay high taxes.
There is a shedload more to poor competitiveness than anyone wants to
address; they prefer to borrow the American Left's obsessions with "the Big
Corporations". Hey, let's all hate supermarkets! That's easy!

I wonder how many of the ruralists complaining about all this have actively
campaigned to prevent housebuilding in their local area, or at least
sympathise with those campaigners. Well, those who have are actively working
to keep British housing at an extortionate price; which means our wages must
be higher, which measn everything costs more, which means we can't compete.
How many support high fuel taxes? How many demand "animal welfare"
regulations?

There's a lot more to it than supermarkets. Really there is.


Ian

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.



Fair trade is total ballcocks anyway, for all kinds of reasons. It's
basically a scam run by a bunch of champagne socialists to sell feel-good to
naive consumers. It's not even a "fair" deal for the farmers; they are
forced into communist-style collectives run by local overseers. I won't
touch the stuff myself.

The supermarkets, to be fair, just sell the stuff because there's a demand
from Guardianistas for it, like "organic" vegetables. The supermarkets
didn't create that demand, but you can't blame them for supplying it.



Ian

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

--
regards andyw

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

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

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 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, 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.