Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message ll.co.uk... 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. Dave that is a very interesting subject. I give illustrated talks to Historical, Military and Social Groups. One which I have asked to do to a large group of W.I.'s is one on Rationing during World War II. Thrown up some interesting facts and here is part of the talk compressed from part of the presentation ;...... WHY? .. Plenty of land to grow our own crops. .. Plenty of land to raise cattle etc. .. Smaller population than we have now. .. So why rationing? .. Did we need rationing in World War 1? .. So are we ready for it now? .. Picture we are now in 1939 ................. This year we are importing .. 55 Million tons of feed and foodstuffs .. 33 Million tons of this is for cattle .. 22 Million tons is for human consumption Why so much imports? .. 12.9 Million Acres of cultivated land .. 18.8 Million Acres of permanent grassland .. This produced only 40% of Britain's food! .. Agriculture was 'slow' with 649,000 farm horses .. And only 55,000 tractors So what were we importing? .. 92% of our fats .. 51% of our meat and bacon .. 73% of our sugar .. 87% of our flour and cereals .. Plus a large proportion of cheese, eggs, vegetables and other everyday foods. ""Plus a large proportion of cheese, eggs, vegetables and other everyday foods""!!!!! and then came the U Boats etc, etc, etc. In 1939 we were importing 60% of our foodstuffs. Anyone know how much we import now? Mike -- .................................... Remember, a statue has never been erected to a critic. .................................... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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. 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. Ian |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
"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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
In article , Ian B
writes 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? You keep disparaging other people's understanding of economics without knowing the facts. I'm not an economist by trade but I have studied it in the dim and distant past and try to keep abreast of things. Tell me - if you ask a dozen professional economists a question, will you get one consistent answer? I very much doubt it, even if they were talking from a pure economic theory pov (which tends to neglect the fact that real people are involved and there are many other variables in what is a very complex equation). Sure, pricing and the elasticity of supply and demand have key effects on the market. However, they are more complex than a bare theory allows. And a bare theory finds it difficult to be truly predictive when it's translated to an inherently complex marketplace. And I ask again - how far do you go with your free market? A long way or all the way? -- regards andyw |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Any tropcal or temperate farmers or hobby farmers here? | Australia | |||
other poor abysmal pins will shout locally below farmers | United Kingdom | |||
[IBC] For old, Old, OLD members ;-) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] For old, Old, OLD members ;-) | Bonsai | |||
Bloody VERMIN Cats again, and again, and again, and again....:-(((( | United Kingdom |