Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Poor old Farmers ............ again :-(
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. |
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 |