[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93241#msg93241 date=1103744332]
Like freemarket is oppression?
[/quote]

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed.  The rich get richer and the poor poorer.

[MyndFyre note: Split from "Bush is Time's Person of the Year"]

Well at least communism worked so well to even things out...

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93251#msg93251 date=1103753390]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93241#msg93241 date=1103744332]
Like freemarket is oppression?
[/quote]

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed. The rich get richer and the poor poorer.
[/quote]
And yet somehow the world turns.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9969.msg93239#msg93239 date=1103743278]
[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9969.msg93230#msg93230 date=1103739532]
Forgive if I am wrong, but Hitler's notion was to conquer the world and expand Germany, while Saddam's intentions were otherwise.
[/quote]

What about expanding american capitalism (conquering communism)?
[/quote]Sounds like someone is a little pro-bad stuff & not enough pro-good stuff.  Communism is a good idea, but in reality we all found out doesn't work.  Why not expand capitalism, it is why any other nation on earth can recieve our outsourced jobs.  If there was no US, we wouldn't need India to do all of our programming & other *-collar jobs.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93251#msg93251 date=1103753390]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93241#msg93241 date=1103744332]
Like freemarket is oppression?
[/quote]

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed.  The rich get richer and the poor poorer.
[/quote] What kind of voodoo economics are you talking about? Explain why you think a poor person will get poorer, because that is not the way I was thought... I might have just gotten lucky on the ap if I am wrong about this eh.

[quote]Sounds like someone is a little pro-bad stuff & not enough pro-good stuff.  Communism is a good idea, but in reality we all found out doesn't work.  Why not expand capitalism, it is why any other nation on earth can recieve our outsourced jobs.  If there was no US, we wouldn't need India to do all of our programming & other *-collar jobs. [/quote]
Other countries can out source us because of regulations are put on U.S buisness for good reason.  If you think Lassie Faire is the way to go I suggest you read some Upton Sinclaire.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9969.msg93280#msg93280 date=1103775272]
[quote]Sounds like someone is a little pro-bad stuff & not enough pro-good stuff.  Communism is a good idea, but in reality we all found out doesn't work.  Why not expand capitalism, it is why any other nation on earth can recieve our outsourced jobs.  If there was no US, we wouldn't need India to do all of our programming & other *-collar jobs. [/quote]
Other countries can out source us because of regulations are put on U.S buisness for good reason.  If you think Lassie Faire is the way to go I suggest you read some Upton Sinclaire.
[/quote] If there are regulations then it corrupts the whole free market theory. If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.

Also, I fail to see how the Jungle and other works by a socialist have to do with laissez faire not working. So some people get some toes cut off at a meat factory? Well people would naturally quit buying their meat, they will clean up their act, it all works out naturally. Some regulation is always neccessary to correct the market failiors (like negative externalities) but other then that the market can take care of its self, and it has proven that time and time again.

If you are against free market then you cannot a libertarian, which I believe you claimed to be one time forged. To my knowlege free market conservative economic theories were some core values of the libertarian party.

PS: It is laissez faire, not lassie, some retarded dog  :P.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93251#msg93251 date=1103753390]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93241#msg93241 date=1103744332]
Like freemarket is oppression?
[/quote]

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed. The rich get richer and the poor poorer.
[/quote]

Yea because, you know, Arnold came over here with millions of dollars in hand.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93291#msg93291 date=1103785293]
If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.
[/quote]

Umm, I don't think you've carefully thought through what you are saying here. Without regulations, there would be no reason at all for companies not to move as much of their production as possible to India, China or other similar countries.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9969.msg93242#msg93242 date=1103744767]
What exactly does Bush want to conquer? Well, I mean, apart from terrorist spawning grounds. I highly doubt Hitler was opressing Jews/others in order to stop terrorism.
[/quote]

Wasn't that the way jews were made out; terrorists, saboteurs, thieves?

Adron was just speculating on how the Germans probably thought of Jews whether it was true or not.  This was probably mostly true though.  But I believe Hitler got rid of them largely because he viewed them as the minority of Germany, and since he was trying to expand Germany and develop nationalism (I may be wrong, but IIRC this is true) he wanted to eradicate the Jews; but he also got rid of the elderly, sick, and others he viewed useless to society.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9969.msg93317#msg93317 date=1103820645]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93291#msg93291 date=1103785293]
If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.
[/quote]

Umm, I don't think you've carefully thought through what you are saying here. Without regulations, there would be no reason at all for companies not to move as much of their production as possible to India, China or other similar countries.

[/quote] Without regulation there would be no need for them to.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93330#msg93330 date=1103827710]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9969.msg93317#msg93317 date=1103820645]
Umm, I don't think you've carefully thought through what you are saying here. Without regulations, there would be no reason at all for companies not to move as much of their production as possible to India, China or other similar countries.

[/quote] Without regulation there would be no need for them to.
[/quote]

Actually, there would. That's what people from the western civilization forget when they imagine how much better things would be without regulation.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9969.msg93342#msg93342 date=1103829125]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93330#msg93330 date=1103827710]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9969.msg93317#msg93317 date=1103820645]
Umm, I don't think you've carefully thought through what you are saying here. Without regulations, there would be no reason at all for companies not to move as much of their production as possible to India, China or other similar countries.

[/quote] Without regulation there would be no need for them to.
[/quote]

Actually, there would. That's what people from the western civilization forget when they imagine how much better things would be without regulation.
[/quote] You are wrong adron. Without regulation, without price floors like minimum wage the market would reach an quilibrium on its own and companies would not save any money by having facilities over seas.

I guess I should expect you to reject and not give these freemarket economic principles a chance if you have rejected them all of your life being a socialist... you like the government to handle your cash.

[quote author=DOOM link=topic=9969.msg93255#msg93255 date=1103759844]
Well at least communism worked so well to even things out...
[/quote]

Never been tested.  There really has never been a *true* communist country.  Whether or not this is a testament that communism doesn't work is arguable.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93276#msg93276 date=1103771525]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93251#msg93251 date=1103753390]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93241#msg93241 date=1103744332]
Like freemarket is oppression?
[/quote]

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed.  The rich get richer and the poor poorer.
[/quote] What kind of voodoo economics are you talking about? Explain why you think a poor person will get poorer, because that is not the way I was thought... I might have just gotten lucky on the ap if I am wrong about this eh.
[/quote]

What you learn in AP economics is purely theory.  But in any case, maybe I should revise it to say: "The gap between the rich and poor is getting wider."  It's something like the wealthiest 20% have nearly 50% of all income in the US.  If you compare incomes, the richer get richer much faster than the poor and I don't even think this is taking into account inflation.  So while on the surface everyone may become a little richer (or a lot richer in the case of the already rich), inflation counter acts it.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93291#msg93291 date=1103785293]
If there are regulations then it corrupts the whole free market theory. If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.
[/quote]

Always fun to make up our own standards.  But the whole unemployment thing has been discussed before and it's proven that there are people who can't find work for a lot of reason.  Look at the thread again.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93356#msg93356 date=1103840982]
[quote author=DOOM link=topic=9969.msg93255#msg93255 date=1103759844]
Well at least communism worked so well to even things out...
[/quote]

Never been tested.  There really has never been a *true* communist country.  Whether or not this is a testament that communism doesn't work is arguable.
[/quote]

That is true, there has never been a true communist country.  But I think the examples of so-called communist countries in this world do show communism's overall failure to some extent.  For communism to truly work, everyone has to agree to and play by the rules.  But there is always going to be someone who isn't satisfied, who wants more.  And they are going to try get more power for themselves at the expense of everyone else.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93346#msg93346 date=1103831821]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9969.msg93342#msg93342 date=1103829125]
Actually, there would. That's what people from the western civilization forget when they imagine how much better things would be without regulation.
[/quote] You are wrong adron. Without regulation, without price floors like minimum wage the market would reach an quilibrium on its own and companies would not save any money by having facilities over seas.

I guess I should expect you to reject and not give these freemarket economic principles a chance if you have rejected them all of your life being a socialist... you like the government to handle your cash.
[/quote]

I'm not wrong. I'm exactly right, and we probably agree. The only difference is that you're speaking of the equilibrium situation and I'm speaking of what would happen after today. If regulations were removed right now, a lot of Americans would suddenly be unemployed, unless they were willing to work for $1 / day.

America is high on the scale right now, and development countries are low on the scale. The current state of American economics, the current wellbeing, requires that there is an imbalance. There have to be people to make Nike shoes for wages low enough that they never make enough money to be able to buy a pair themselves.

Then come balance, come equilibrium, when location doesn't matter for economic status. Come cars for everyone, computers for everyone? No, of course not. Those were previously financed by the imbalances created by regulation!

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93358#msg93358 date=1103841836]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93276#msg93276 date=1103771525]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93251#msg93251 date=1103753390]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93241#msg93241 date=1103744332]
Like freemarket is oppression?
[/quote]

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed.  The rich get richer and the poor poorer.
[/quote] What kind of voodoo economics are you talking about? Explain why you think a poor person will get poorer, because that is not the way I was thought... I might have just gotten lucky on the ap if I am wrong about this eh.
[/quote]

What you learn in AP economics is purely theory.  But in any case, maybe I should revise it to say: "The gap between the rich and poor is getting wider."  It's something like the wealthiest 20% have nearly 50% of all income in the US.  If you compare incomes, the richer get richer much faster than the poor and I don't even think this is taking into account inflation.  So while on the surface everyone may become a little richer (or a lot richer in the case of the already rich), inflation counter acts it.
[/quote] You are inherently wrong. Inflation aids the debtor but hurts the loaner.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93360#msg93360 date=1103842365]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93291#msg93291 date=1103785293]
If there are regulations then it corrupts the whole free market theory. If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.
[/quote]

Always fun to make up our own standards.  But the whole unemployment thing has been discussed before and it's proven that there are people who can't find work for a lot of reason.  Look at the thread again.
[/quote] What reason is that? I have not seen unemployment disgussed anywhere in the thread but here.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9969.msg93380#msg93380 date=1103861659]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93346#msg93346 date=1103831821]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9969.msg93342#msg93342 date=1103829125]
Actually, there would. That's what people from the western civilization forget when they imagine how much better things would be without regulation.
[/quote] You are wrong adron. Without regulation, without price floors like minimum wage the market would reach an quilibrium on its own and companies would not save any money by having facilities over seas.

I guess I should expect you to reject and not give these freemarket economic principles a chance if you have rejected them all of your life being a socialist... you like the government to handle your cash.
[/quote]

I'm not wrong. I'm exactly right, and we probably agree. The only difference is that you're speaking of the equilibrium situation and I'm speaking of what would happen after today. If regulations were removed right now, a lot of Americans would suddenly be unemployed, unless they were willing to work for $1 / day.

America is high on the scale right now, and development countries are low on the scale. The current state of American economics, the current wellbeing, requires that there is an imbalance. There have to be people to make Nike shoes for wages low enough that they never make enough money to be able to buy a pair themselves.

Then come balance, come equilibrium, when location doesn't matter for economic status. Come cars for everyone, computers for everyone? No, of course not. Those were previously financed by the imbalances created by regulation!
[/quote] Even if there are some layoffs american citizens still have power, they can boycott. Nothing would stop them from doing that. In any case if there were mass layoffs the buying ability of the citizen sharply decreases too and then you have massive deflation, hence you can now work for a doller. Boom, no regulation, the system repairs its self. No matter what you do there is always a period of adjustment, like imposing or removing a regulation. For instance in florida they just pulled up minimum wage 1 doller... I hate minimum wage because it is a price floor and it drives up inflation. Now inflation will go up with the minimum wage and my pay will eventually go up with it. The adjustment period will be probably about a year, but just wait a year, we will be exactly where we are started... the market controls it's self.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93291#msg93291 date=1103785293]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=9969.msg93280#msg93280 date=1103775272]
[quote]Sounds like someone is a little pro-bad stuff & not enough pro-good stuff.  Communism is a good idea, but in reality we all found out doesn't work.  Why not expand capitalism, it is why any other nation on earth can recieve our outsourced jobs.  If there was no US, we wouldn't need India to do all of our programming & other *-collar jobs. [/quote]
Other countries can out source us because of regulations are put on U.S buisness for good reason.  If you think Lassie Faire is the way to go I suggest you read some Upton Sinclaire.
[/quote] If there are regulations then it corrupts the whole free market theory. If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.

Also, I fail to see how the Jungle and other works by a socialist have to do with laissez faire not working. So some people get some toes cut off at a meat factory? Well people would naturally quit buying their meat, they will clean up their act, it all works out naturally. Some regulation is always neccessary to correct the market failiors (like negative externalities) but other then that the market can take care of its self, and it has proven that time and time again.

If you are against free market then you cannot a libertarian, which I believe you claimed to be one time forged. To my knowlege free market conservative economic theories were some core values of the libertarian party.

PS: It is laissez faire, not lassie, some retarded dog  :P.
[/quote]

Free market or not, corps should not be able to dump hazardous materials or be able to sell things without labels.  They also shouldn't be able to fuck over their employs in ways like they did in [u]The Jungle[/u].  While I do consider myself a libertarian, I think some of their ideas to be a little wacky, but it is the party I tend to agree with the most.  As for the spelling mistake, please forgive my incomptence.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9969.msg93392#msg93392 date=1103867231]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93291#msg93291 date=1103785293]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=9969.msg93280#msg93280 date=1103775272]
[quote]Sounds like someone is a little pro-bad stuff & not enough pro-good stuff.  Communism is a good idea, but in reality we all found out doesn't work.  Why not expand capitalism, it is why any other nation on earth can recieve our outsourced jobs.  If there was no US, we wouldn't need India to do all of our programming & other *-collar jobs. [/quote]
Other countries can out source us because of regulations are put on U.S buisness for good reason.  If you think Lassie Faire is the way to go I suggest you read some Upton Sinclaire.
[/quote] If there are regulations then it corrupts the whole free market theory. If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.

Also, I fail to see how the Jungle and other works by a socialist have to do with laissez faire not working. So some people get some toes cut off at a meat factory? Well people would naturally quit buying their meat, they will clean up their act, it all works out naturally. Some regulation is always neccessary to correct the market failiors (like negative externalities) but other then that the market can take care of its self, and it has proven that time and time again.

If you are against free market then you cannot a libertarian, which I believe you claimed to be one time forged. To my knowlege free market conservative economic theories were some core values of the libertarian party.

PS: It is laissez faire, not lassie, some retarded dog  :P.
[/quote]

Free market or not, corps should not be able to dump hazardous materials or be able to sell things without labels.  They also shouldn't be able to fuck over their employs in ways like they did in [u]The Jungle[/u].  While I do consider myself a libertarian, I think some of their ideas to be a little wacky, but it is the party I tend to agree with the most.  As for the spelling mistake, please forgive my incomptence.
[/quote] I forgive you :) It is one of those dirty french words that I feel dirty uttering.
Well pollution is a negative externality, which is a market failure. That is one of the few things the government should regulate. For example, I feel that a pollution tax is a good idea. That way it will not drive the company out of business if they pollute, but it can give them a very real incentive to figure out a more environmental friendly way to produce their widgets. Also, I like to think of employees as a small company in themselves because they are selling a service. If the employees team up, which is a form of collusion yes, but it can occur naturally if the company is fucking everyone, and they can get what they want (which would probably be more money or better working conditions) in the form of a strike. I mean its not like they are powerless. I know this is all on paper because no government is going to be able to let a market run completely free, there need to be laws and taxes (which will create dead weight loss), but I believe we should keep it to the absolute minimum.... This is why I consider myself to be a libertarian fiscally.

I have a cool libertarian assault doughnot button. I will take a picture of it sometime and post it here.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93389#msg93389 date=1103866403]
Even if there are some layoffs american citizens still have power, they can boycott. Nothing would stop them from doing that. In any case if there were mass layoffs the buying ability of the citizen sharply decreases too and then you have massive deflation, hence you can now work for a doller. Boom, no regulation, the system repairs its self.
[/quote]

Oh, of course. The system will regulate itself. But the new balance won't involve living at the standard that Americans are used to.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9969.msg93405#msg93405 date=1103889656]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93389#msg93389 date=1103866403]
Even if there are some layoffs american citizens still have power, they can boycott. Nothing would stop them from doing that. In any case if there were mass layoffs the buying ability of the citizen sharply decreases too and then you have massive deflation, hence you can now work for a doller. Boom, no regulation, the system repairs its self.
[/quote]

Oh, of course. The system will regulate itself. But the new balance won't involve living at the standard that Americans are used to.
[/quote] Sure it will, there will just be the correctional period. So things well be messy for a few years if you just remove the regulations, but then it will recover, my bet is in the end the standard would end up higher because we would have a more efficient market.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93441#msg93441 date=1103924541]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9969.msg93405#msg93405 date=1103889656]
Oh, of course. The system will regulate itself. But the new balance won't involve living at the standard that Americans are used to.
[/quote] Sure it will, there will just be the correctional period. So things well be messy for a few years if you just remove the regulations, but then it will recover, my bet is in the end the standard would end up higher because we would have a more efficient market.
[/quote]

I think the global standard would end up lower than the American standard, but higher than the current standard in development countries. The average would probably increase a bit, but there just isn't enough to get everyone in the world a car.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9969.msg93392#msg93392 date=1103867231]They also shouldn't be able to fuck over their employs in ways like they did in [u]The Jungle[/u].
[/quote]

The Jungle was written in 1906. Things have changed drastically since then.

Yes but if we go back to deregulation like in that book it will start aknew, maybe not to the extreme it was then, but it would still be pretty shitty.

Well if there are now laws saying the company cant screw its employees the employees can say you cant screw us by joining forces... forming a union.

What quite a few buisness's have done is threaten to move if the employes form a union, kind of hard to form one if your company won't let you.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9969.msg93534#msg93534 date=1104037206]
What quite a few buisness's have done is threaten to move if the employes form a union, kind of hard to form one if your company won't let you.
[/quote] The company really has no control... if everyone gets together they would have to fire their whole work force which is not what they want to do. In reality they would have you sign a contract, but I am still talking in theoretical land where there are no laws governing the market. Also in the real world some states are right to work and some are not.

If the whole company is unionized it wouldn't be a problem.  But expecially here in the south where unions are rare, as soon as someone tryed to start a union all the copany has to do is fire them, and threaten to fire anyone that joins the union.  Majority of people would be to scared to join one.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9969.msg93581#msg93581 date=1104093546]
If the whole company is unionized it wouldn't be a problem.  But expecially here in the south where unions are rare, as soon as someone tryed to start a union all the copany has to do is fire them, and threaten to fire anyone that joins the union.  Majority of people would be to scared to join one.
[/quote] They can maybe manage to form one with maybe a third of the work force depending on the size of the company and get away with it. But if the quality of work is so bad and the pay is not good enough the people always have the option of simply not working at that company. If the market is running efficiently there should be other jobs available.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93608#msg93608 date=1104122112]
But if the quality of work is so bad and the pay is not good enough the people always have the option of simply not working at that company. If the market is running efficiently there should be other jobs available.
[/quote]

Of course there will be other jobs. 12 hour work, 7 days a week, sewing clothes for richer people. And if you're lucky you'll make $1/day!

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9969.msg93616#msg93616 date=1104134973]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93608#msg93608 date=1104122112]
But if the quality of work is so bad and the pay is not good enough the people always have the option of simply not working at that company. If the market is running efficiently there should be other jobs available.
[/quote]

Of course there will be other jobs. 12 hour work, 7 days a week, sewing clothes for richer people. And if you're lucky you'll make $1/day!
[/quote]

The minimum you'll make in America is $5.15 an hour, so no, you'll make at least $5.15 a day, and almost surely more. This isn't 1906. :)

The problem with saying "The Jungle" can happen again is that it won't in America. The standard is so high that it would take a concerted effort on the part of every major company to lower their quality of work conditions to such an abysmal point. Otherwise the best workers will simply move to the best companies and performance will fall at the crappy companies.

That's the key here. Performance -- what the people calling the shots in 1906 didn't realize is that a happy worker is a productive worker. People who enjoy their job work harder and more voluntarily, and that's something companies like.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93388#msg93388 date=1103866268]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93360#msg93360 date=1103842365]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93291#msg93291 date=1103785293]
If there are regulations then it corrupts the whole free market theory. If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.
[/quote]

Always fun to make up our own standards.  But the whole unemployment thing has been discussed before and it's proven that there are people who can't find work for a lot of reason.  Look at the thread again.
[/quote] What reason is that? I have not seen unemployment disgussed anywhere in the thread but here.
[/quote]

I meant to say look at that thread before, sorry.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93386#msg93386 date=1103866168]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93358#msg93358 date=1103841836]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93276#msg93276 date=1103771525]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93251#msg93251 date=1103753390]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93241#msg93241 date=1103744332]
Like freemarket is oppression?
[/quote]

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed.  The rich get richer and the poor poorer.
[/quote] What kind of voodoo economics are you talking about? Explain why you think a poor person will get poorer, because that is not the way I was thought... I might have just gotten lucky on the ap if I am wrong about this eh.
[/quote]

What you learn in AP economics is purely theory.  But in any case, maybe I should revise it to say: "The gap between the rich and poor is getting wider."  It's something like the wealthiest 20% have nearly 50% of all income in the US.  If you compare incomes, the richer get richer much faster than the poor and I don't even think this is taking into account inflation.  So while on the surface everyone may become a little richer (or a lot richer in the case of the already rich), inflation counter acts it.
[/quote] You are inherently wrong. Inflation aids the debtor but hurts the loaner.
[/quote]

Inflations doesn't aid a worker who's wages don't increase with the inflation.

[quote author=Stealth link=topic=9969.msg93645#msg93645 date=1104174639]
The minimum you'll make in America is $5.15 an hour, so no, you'll make at least $5.15 a day, and almost surely more. This isn't 1906. :)

The problem with saying "The Jungle" can happen again is that it won't in America. The standard is so high that it would take a concerted effort on the part of every major company to lower their quality of work conditions to such an abysmal point. Otherwise the best workers will simply move to the best companies and performance will fall at the crappy companies.

That's the key here. Performance -- what the people calling the shots in 1906 didn't realize is that a happy worker is a productive worker. People who enjoy their job work harder and more voluntarily, and that's something companies like.
[/quote]

The central topic of the recent discussions has been: What happens if there are no government regulations and global capitalism gets to develop freely.

Under those circumstances, work will be done by those who do it cheapest. There is a huge workforce in development countries just waiting to take the jobs. Many of them are just as smart as you and I. And they're used to low wages.

Capitalism optimizes cost - wages will be lower. At the same time things will get cheaper to buy as well. Prices won't drop as much as wages though, as there'll be a huge group of people in the third world interested in buying more. Standards will drop in America and improve in the third world.

Globally I think it would be a good thing.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93608#msg93608 date=1104122112]
They can maybe manage to form one with maybe a third of the work force depending on the size of the company and get away with it. But if the quality of work is so bad and the pay is not good enough the people always have the option of simply not working at that company. If the market is running efficiently there should be other jobs available.
[/quote]

Theoretically: What happens when this company has a monopoly on a product requiring a certain skill?  These workers are treated like crap, leave and are now out of work.  Now this skill, that they presumably went to school for is useless and they have to train for another skill.  This is time loss.  It's not like boom "I quit!  Whee! Another job the next day!"  This fear of down time is what keeps people working.  Even a few days out of work is a major blow for our standard of living.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93657#msg93657 date=1104186799]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93386#msg93386 date=1103866168]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93358#msg93358 date=1103841836]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93276#msg93276 date=1103771525]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93251#msg93251 date=1103753390]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93241#msg93241 date=1103744332]
Like freemarket is oppression?
[/quote]

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed.  The rich get richer and the poor poorer.
[/quote] What kind of voodoo economics are you talking about? Explain why you think a poor person will get poorer, because that is not the way I was thought... I might have just gotten lucky on the ap if I am wrong about this eh.
[/quote]

What you learn in AP economics is purely theory.  But in any case, maybe I should revise it to say: "The gap between the rich and poor is getting wider."  It's something like the wealthiest 20% have nearly 50% of all income in the US.  If you compare incomes, the richer get richer much faster than the poor and I don't even think this is taking into account inflation.  So while on the surface everyone may become a little richer (or a lot richer in the case of the already rich), inflation counter acts it.
[/quote] You are inherently wrong. Inflation aids the debtor but hurts the loaner.
[/quote]

Inflations doesn't aid a worker who's wages don't increase with the inflation.
[/quote] But most wages will increase over time, I know many companies increase salleries yearly with inflation.... They adjust it.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9969.msg93660#msg93660 date=1104187285]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9969.msg93608#msg93608 date=1104122112]
They can maybe manage to form one with maybe a third of the work force depending on the size of the company and get away with it. But if the quality of work is so bad and the pay is not good enough the people always have the option of simply not working at that company. If the market is running efficiently there should be other jobs available.
[/quote]

Theoretically: What happens when this company has a monopoly on a product requiring a certain skill?  These workers are treated like crap, leave and are now out of work.  Now this skill, that they presumably went to school for is useless and they have to train for another skill.  This is time loss.  It's not like boom "I quit!  Whee! Another job the next day!"  This fear of down time is what keeps people working.  Even a few days out of work is a major blow for our standard of living.
[/quote] But, there cannot be momopoly without regulation. Competition will not allow it. There can be no collusion either.

[quote]But, there cannot be momopoly without regulation. Competition will not allow it. There can be no collusion either. 
[/quote]
Tell that to the rockfellers and Carnegie(sp?)  They managed to eliminate competition through luck, good buisness sense, and later through their wealth.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9969.msg93674#msg93674 date=1104197231]
[quote]But, there cannot be momopoly without regulation. Competition will not allow it. There can be no collusion either. 
[/quote]
Tell that to the rockfellers and Carnegie(sp?)  They managed to eliminate competition through luck, good buisness sense, and later through their wealth.
[/quote] They all took advantage of the laws at the time. Veritcal Integration was very easy back then. So was horizontal integration too.

And it won't if there are no laws governing it?

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94279#msg94279 date=1104812419]
And it won't if there are no laws governing it?
[/quote] Nope. Can't happen naturally. Game theory tells us that horizontal integration is imporbable.

Hows so? If the best possible move is to sell why pass it up?

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94285#msg94285 date=1104817186]
Hows so? If the best possible move is to sell why pass it up?
[/quote] If the best possible move is to sell then you are operating in the shutdown zone because of inefficient production or something and likely you are not in an oligopoly or monopolisitic competition where only few ferms exist, but rather a very competative industry, either that or there is just not much demand for the product you make. Game theory basically states that companies are not going to act together/collude or even merge (would not be the most profitiable solution) because it they have a chance at getting more money by keeping their price low. I can show you a diagram of this. We had this really great cube example in our econ class, it made great sence. This is not to say that firms are not going to buy eachother out in a very competative industry with lots of firms, but monopoly is not going to occur.\

I think you're wrong. Well, depends on how much regulation you'd like to remove, but in what I think you mean, I think monopolies are highly likely to spontaneously happen. This is due to the size of investments required to start up - if the cost to start up a company isn't small enough, that becomes a strong slowing force for competition. As the big big company, you can either buy out your competition while they are still burdened under their loans, or just dump prices selectively until they go bankrupt.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94319#msg94319 date=1104874709]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94285#msg94285 date=1104817186]
Hows so? If the best possible move is to sell why pass it up?
[/quote] If the best possible move is to sell then you are operating in the shutdown zone because of inefficient production or something and likely you are not in an oligopoly or monopolisitic competition where only few ferms exist, but rather a very competative industry, either that or there is just not much demand for the product you make. Game theory basically states that companies are not going to act together/collude or even merge (would not be the most profitiable solution) because it they have a chance at getting more money by keeping their price low. I can show you a diagram of this. We had this really great cube example in our econ class, it made great sence. This is not to say that firms are not going to buy eachother out in a very competative industry with lots of firms, but monopoly is not going to occur.\
[/quote]
In a competitive industry anyone that trys to start up is automatically going to lose.  The main groups are going to drop prices or buy out the company before it can get its' ass off the ground.  This leaves you with a couple of corps that control the prices, and as long as they agree with one another can do pretty much what ever it is they want.  Granted that is pretty much what we have now,  I think it would be more rampid and monopolistic if we where to have no laws governing how corperations handle things.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10098.msg94321#msg94321 date=1104875251]
I think you're wrong. Well, depends on how much regulation you'd like to remove, but in what I think you mean, I think monopolies are highly likely to spontaneously happen. This is due to the size of investments required to start up - if the cost to start up a company isn't small enough, that becomes a strong slowing force for competition. As the big big company, you can either buy out your competition while they are still burdened under their loans, or just dump prices selectively until they go bankrupt.
[/quote] Adron, no. Monopoleis can't happen in pure competition. It is simply not possible, competition it's self will not allow it. I guess I will have to whip up the diagrams in paint to show you.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94326#msg94326 date=1104877946]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94319#msg94319 date=1104874709]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94285#msg94285 date=1104817186]
Hows so? If the best possible move is to sell why pass it up?
[/quote] If the best possible move is to sell then you are operating in the shutdown zone because of inefficient production or something and likely you are not in an oligopoly or monopolisitic competition where only few ferms exist, but rather a very competative industry, either that or there is just not much demand for the product you make. Game theory basically states that companies are not going to act together/collude or even merge (would not be the most profitiable solution) because it they have a chance at getting more money by keeping their price low. I can show you a diagram of this. We had this really great cube example in our econ class, it made great sence. This is not to say that firms are not going to buy eachother out in a very competative industry with lots of firms, but monopoly is not going to occur.\
[/quote]
In a competitive industry anyone that trys to start up is automatically going to lose.[/quote]Not so, in perfect competition you do not even loose, you will just cover your costs. You will not be a big winner in a competitive industry, but you will not loose. You only really loose if you are trying to sell past the shutdown point.
[quote] The main groups are going to drop prices or buy out the company before it can get its' ass off the ground.  This leaves you with a couple of corps that control the prices, and as long as they agree with one another can do pretty much what ever it is they want.  Granted that is pretty much what we have now,  I think it would be more rampid and monopolistic if we where to have no laws governing how corperations handle things.
[/quote] No, they do not agree. That is what game theory is about. Say group a and group b get together, they say we can make money if we raise our prices. Group b thinks let me keep my prices low then I take all the profit and then make more money, group a might be thinking the same thing, but if it isnt it will quickly drop its prices anyway, and bingo both groups sell low... always. In competition collusion cannot occur. Looks like I really do need to make those diagrams.

[img]http://quasi-ke.servebeer.com/gamecube.jpg[/img]
If both companies get together and there are 2 customers they would each make 10 selling at the high price. But if company b cuts lower then company a then they make 10 and a makes nothing. So both are going to naturally cut low not trusting the other. The way our econ prof explained it (he used different numbers of customers, like it was 6 and different numbers) but b would make more money by screwing a (maybe because it was like $6 and $8) but basically, if this is pure competition the companies are going to backstab eachother when collusion occurs. They do not have a military/govt to hide behind (coff opec) to keep the thing in order.

I think the demonstrable existence of monopolies, or near-monopolies, weakens your agument somewhat.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94340#msg94340 date=1104880544]
No, they do not agree. That is what game theory is about. Say group a and group b get together, they say we can make money if we raise our prices. Group b thinks let me keep my prices low then I take all the profit and then make more money, group a might be thinking the same thing, but if it isnt it will quickly drop its prices anyway, and bingo both groups sell low... always. In competition collusion cannot occur. Looks like I really do need to make those diagrams.
[/quote]

If you can produce more items at a fixed cost without any investments, yes, it might work that way. Anyone noticing that prices are kept high will start up their own company and compete with them.

When you add the fact that there's a startup cost, you can suddenly keep prices a bit higher. This helps reduce the number of players in the market. As the startup cost increases, and as production cost decreases with volume, the largest player will increase his profits. Over time, his economical advantage will keep increasing as he grows, and eventually he'll outbuy all the competition, unless there is a stalemate where everyone is equally big. This is unlikely to happen with many competitors, so there'll at least be an oligopoly.

You may want to make those diagrams so we know what you're talking about, but I think you shall find when you think about it that those diagrams aren't proving your point when there is a startup cost.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94356#msg94356 date=1104888191]
I think the demonstrable existence of monopolies, or near-monopolies, weakens your agument somewhat.
[/quote] No. We are talking about in an ideal completely free market... that is what this whole thread has been about.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10098.msg94385#msg94385 date=1104945895]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94340#msg94340 date=1104880544]
No, they do not agree. That is what game theory is about. Say group a and group b get together, they say we can make money if we raise our prices. Group b thinks let me keep my prices low then I take all the profit and then make more money, group a might be thinking the same thing, but if it isnt it will quickly drop its prices anyway, and bingo both groups sell low... always. In competition collusion cannot occur. Looks like I really do need to make those diagrams.
[/quote]

If you can produce more items at a fixed cost without any investments, yes, it might work that way. Anyone noticing that prices are kept high will start up their own company and compete with them.

When you add the fact that there's a startup cost, you can suddenly keep prices a bit higher. This helps reduce the number of players in the market. As the startup cost increases, and as production cost decreases with volume, the largest player will increase his profits. Over time, his economical advantage will keep increasing as he grows, and eventually he'll outbuy all the competition, unless there is a stalemate where everyone is equally big. This is unlikely to happen with many competitors, so there'll at least be an oligopoly.

You may want to make those diagrams so we know what you're talking about, but I think you shall find when you think about it that those diagrams aren't proving your point when there is a startup cost.
[/quote] Startup cost does not really change the fact that there cannot be monoply. I never said there cannot be monopolisitic competition, or oligopoly. The only things that are really not going to exist are pure competition and a pure monopoly. If there is only one company making a good and it is expencive and no one else can get in, chances are the consumer will not have any consumer surplus and will just not buy it so even the 'monopoly' will not have price setting control, which is one of the characteristics of a monopoly. I think this will be an elastic good, otherwise there would probably be other companies going after it. So therefore the consumer is not going to pay for it when he has no surplus.

Hitler was a moron in killing the jews. Guess how many they could've used in the army?

What?

[quote author=woodtroll link=topic=10098.msg94402#msg94402 date=1104967003]
Hitler was a moron in killing the jews. Guess how many they could've used in the army?
[/quote] That has absolutly nothing to do with our topic....

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94394#msg94394 date=1104959321]
Startup cost does not really change the fact that there cannot be monoply. I never said there cannot be monopolisitic competition, or oligopoly. The only things that are really not going to exist are pure competition and a pure monopoly. If there is only one company making a good and it is expencive and no one else can get in, chances are the consumer will not have any consumer surplus and will just not buy it so even the 'monopoly' will not have price setting control, which is one of the characteristics of a monopoly. I think this will be an elastic good, otherwise there would probably be other companies going after it. So therefore the consumer is not going to pay for it when he has no surplus.
[/quote]

A pure monopoly? Of course, if it by definition cannot exist, it cannot exist. It's very likely that a situation bearing every similarity to a monopoly will occur naturally given no regulations of the market.

I'm not going to read all 5 pages of this thread, so soryy if this has been asked before.

What happens if only one company is good at something, and thus eventually, by the forces of competition, puts everyone else out of business? Or, to extend the situation: what happens if one company is particularly cut-throat and has enough money to force everyone else out of the market? Wouldn't that give rise to a monopoly too?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94356#msg94356 date=1104888191]
I think the demonstrable existence of monopolies, or near-monopolies, weakens your agument somewhat.
[/quote]

That and the fact that he is arguing theory, while most everyone is giving real world examples.  Theory is great, but not if the real world says otherwise.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94430#msg94430 date=1104998521]
I'm not going to read all 5 pages of this thread, so soryy if this has been asked before.

What happens if only one company is good at something, and thus eventually, by the forces of competition, puts everyone else out of business? Or, to extend the situation: what happens if one company is particularly cut-throat and has enough money to force everyone else out of the market? Wouldn't that give rise to a monopoly too?
[/quote]

Yes it would.  However, antitrust laws are designed not to prevent this from occurring the way that you explain (in the former situation) here, but rather as you describe (in the latter situation).  If a company produces such a kick-ass product at such a kick-ass price that everyone buys from them and stops buying from the competitors, free-market has a few opportunities:
1.) The competitors must adapt and produce a better product, or else they will go out of business; or:
2.) The competitors must diversify and enter a different specialization, or else they will go out of business.
Now, if one company just has a lot of money and decides to start buying out competitors a la Microsoft, antitrust laws begin to intervene and say "Hey!  Your business practices are threatening the freedom of the free market!"

Antitrust laws are designed to let the market do its thing as I described -- which prevents people and companies with abundant resources from damaging the market.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10098.msg94450#msg94450 date=1105027225]
Theory is great, but not if the real world says otherwise.
[/quote]

JUST LIKE COMMUNISM.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10098.msg94450#msg94450 date=1105027225]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94356#msg94356 date=1104888191]
I think the demonstrable existence of monopolies, or near-monopolies, weakens your agument somewhat.
[/quote]

That and the fact that he is arguing theory, while most everyone is giving real world examples.  Theory is great, but not if the real world says otherwise.
[/quote] Except the real world does not say otherwsie. This is how the economy wants to work, it is governments and other regulationg bodys that corrupt this.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10098.msg94426#msg94426 date=1104988494]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94394#msg94394 date=1104959321]
Startup cost does not really change the fact that there cannot be monoply. I never said there cannot be monopolisitic competition, or oligopoly. The only things that are really not going to exist are pure competition and a pure monopoly. If there is only one company making a good and it is expencive and no one else can get in, chances are the consumer will not have any consumer surplus and will just not buy it so even the 'monopoly' will not have price setting control, which is one of the characteristics of a monopoly. I think this will be an elastic good, otherwise there would probably be other companies going after it. So therefore the consumer is not going to pay for it when he has no surplus.
[/quote]

A pure monopoly? Of course, if it by definition cannot exist, it cannot exist. It's very likely that a situation bearing every similarity to a monopoly will occur naturally given no regulations of the market.
[/quote] No, there will always be competition. If there is no competition the industry will not exist.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94430#msg94430 date=1104998521]
What happens if only one company is good at something, and thus eventually, by the forces of competition, puts everyone else out of business? Or, to extend the situation: what happens if one company is particularly cut-throat and has enough money to force everyone else out of the market? Wouldn't that give rise to a monopoly too?
[/quote] The thing is it cant. I went over this earilier, even with a differentiated produc people are going to go where they have the greatest surplus. That might mean they will chase after an inferior good, but they are going to go where they have the most 'utils'.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10098.msg94463#msg94463 date=1105039879]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94430#msg94430 date=1104998521]
I'm not going to read all 5 pages of this thread, so soryy if this has been asked before.

What happens if only one company is good at something, and thus eventually, by the forces of competition, puts everyone else out of business? Or, to extend the situation: what happens if one company is particularly cut-throat and has enough money to force everyone else out of the market? Wouldn't that give rise to a monopoly too?
[/quote]

Yes it would.  However, antitrust laws are designed not to prevent this from occurring the way that you explain (in the former situation) here, but rather as you describe (in the latter situation).  If a company produces such a kick-ass product at such a kick-ass price that everyone buys from them and stops buying from the competitors, free-market has a few opportunities:
1.) The competitors must adapt and produce a better product, or else they will go out of business; or:
2.) The competitors must diversify and enter a different specialization, or else they will go out of business.
Now, if one company just has a lot of money and decides to start buying out competitors a la Microsoft, antitrust laws begin to intervene and say "Hey!  Your business practices are threatening the freedom of the free market!"

Antitrust laws are designed to let the market do its thing as I described -- which prevents people and companies with abundant resources from damaging the market.
[/quote] nononono! When in a state of unregulated competition anti trust laws are not even neccessary. That is the whole situation I am trying to talk about. In a pure unregulated market there can be no collusion, not monoplies, only competition.

(MyndFyre edit: merged four posts into one.  Quasi, please do not double-post.)

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94483#msg94483 date=1105055548]
nononono! When in a state of unregulated competition anti trust laws are not even neccessary. That is the whole situation I am trying to talk about. In a pure unregulated market there can be no collusion, not monoplies, only competition.
[/quote]

In a purely unregulated market, do you honestly think that there would be no collusion?

You're gas-station owner A.  Gas-station owner B and C both compete with you for the same street corner.  Fortunately you're all doing fairly well because you're right off of the freeway.

Let me give you two scenarios in which antitrust laws help to preserve competition:

1.) Owner C lowers his price to or below cost.  You (A) and B now have a choice: you both can follow suit (and lose money) or you can stay where you are and lose business.  In an unregulated market, A and B can talk to each other and work to both lower their prices close to (but not necessarily the same) price as A without losing money, which would force C to either raise his price (his tactic isn't working as well as he'd planned) or to go out of business (not taking enough of A's and B's business away, and so he's losing too much money in the long haul).  In a market where A and B cannot contrive, they both are forced to lower their prices to be equally competitive to C.

In the unregulated market, any team (but in this case, A and B) can collude and control the market.  In a regulated market, any of them (but in this case, C) can control the market.

2.) Let's say your gas stations are at a truck stop and there isn't another stop for 40 or 50 miles.  Cost of gas per gallon (including tax) is $0.65 for all three of you.  Cost to maintain the station, equipment, and employees brings your gas price to $1.45 before making a profit, so you all charge roughly $1.75 per gallon.  (By the way, I'm just making up numbers here; I really have no idea what costs and prices are for gas stations).  This is slightly higher than city stations anyway, but not outside the general fair-market range.

In an unregulated market, all three stations can collude and charge, say, $2.00 per gallon, well above the fair-market price.  All three will be making significantly more money (in profit) per customer, and since there is a corner on the market (the only gas stations within the next 50 miles), what is anyone going to do about it?
If someone tries to get into the market, in the unregulate market, to generate competition to lower prices, the three original owners can shoot their prices down drastically to drive out or keep out anyone who wants to infringe.  It is not in the interest of someone to come into a colluded market, but it is certainly in the interest of the members of the market to collude.

An unregulated, free-market economy will always end in monopolies or oligopolies, and that isn't our desired goal.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10098.msg94494#msg94494 date=1105057642]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94483#msg94483 date=1105055548]
nononono! When in a state of unregulated competition anti trust laws are not even neccessary. That is the whole situation I am trying to talk about. In a pure unregulated market there can be no collusion, not monoplies, only competition.
[/quote]

In a purely unregulated market, do you honestly think that there would be no collusion?

You're gas-station owner A.  Gas-station owner B and C both compete with you for the same street corner.  Fortunately you're all doing fairly well because you're right off of the freeway.

Let me give you two scenarios in which antitrust laws help to preserve competition:

1.) Owner C lowers his price to or below cost.  You (A) and B now have a choice: you both can follow suit (and lose money) or you can stay where you are and lose business.  In an unregulated market, A and B can talk to each other and work to both lower their prices close to (but not necessarily the same) price as A without losing money, which would force C to either raise his price (his tactic isn't working as well as he'd planned) or to go out of business (not taking enough of A's and B's business away, and so he's losing too much money in the long haul).  In a market where A and B cannot contrive, they both are forced to lower their prices to be equally competitive to C.

In the unregulated market, any team (but in this case, A and B) can collude and control the market.  In a regulated market, any of them (but in this case, C) can control the market.

2.) Let's say your gas stations are at a truck stop and there isn't another stop for 40 or 50 miles.  Cost of gas per gallon (including tax) is $0.65 for all three of you.  Cost to maintain the station, equipment, and employees brings your gas price to $1.45 before making a profit, so you all charge roughly $1.75 per gallon.  (By the way, I'm just making up numbers here; I really have no idea what costs and prices are for gas stations).  This is slightly higher than city stations anyway, but not outside the general fair-market range.

In an unregulated market, all three stations can collude and charge, say, $2.00 per gallon, well above the fair-market price.  All three will be making significantly more money (in profit) per customer, and since there is a corner on the market (the only gas stations within the next 50 miles), what is anyone going to do about it?
If someone tries to get into the market, in the unregulate market, to generate competition to lower prices, the three original owners can shoot their prices down drastically to drive out or keep out anyone who wants to infringe.  It is not in the interest of someone to come into a colluded market, but it is certainly in the interest of the members of the market to collude.

An unregulated, free-market economy will always end in monopolies or oligopolies, and that isn't our desired goal.
[/quote] I even posted a little picture explaining this. How game theory works. Even if a company sells at a loss, it cannot do that indefinatly and if they were in compettiion before that the other stations would be able to sell at that point for a period of time too. It would just be stupid and self destructive for company a to sell there to begin with but would not shake the competition or drive anyone out of business.

also, why were those posts merged? I was kinda hoping to keep them separate, keep my replys for separate posts apart... its organized.

ps: please refer to my diagram on game theory to why collusion cannot occur. The only reason we have had collusion today is because regulations by govts have allowed it to happen.

The market has always shown a tendancy to preserve competition, its regulation that corrupts that. The only thing the market cannot do on its own is prevent a negative externality.

Guys, I guess one thing I am trying to get at is: Government regulation and interfearence is bad. Let the market handle its self. Any tax will create a dead weight loss. I could graph how the supply and demand curves move with a tax and plot the efficiency lost, but I really would not like to right now. You also have other bad things like price floors and price ceilings. The market will be most efficient when it is left to run it's self. I know the government needs income so some taxes are neccessary, and I know there needs to be a safeguard for negative externalities, such as pollution. Free Market (the freer the better) will be inherently more efficient then something like socialism where the government and the market tend to be intertwined almost.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94510#msg94510 date=1105066442]
Guys, I guess one thing I am trying to get at is: Government regulation and interfearence is bad. Let the market handle its self. Any tax will create a dead weight loss. I could graph how the supply and demand curves move with a tax and plot the efficiency lost, but I really would not like to right now. You also have other bad things like price floors and price ceilings. The market will be most efficient when it is left to run it's self. I know the government needs income so some taxes are neccessary, and I know there needs to be a safeguard for negative externalities, such as pollution. Free Market (the freer the better) will be inherently more efficient then something like socialism where the government and the market tend to be intertwined almost.
[/quote]


Well, we've heard you claim that unregulated markets will be good, and there is some magical diagram that proves it. However, points have been made in replies that you have failed to respond to. Look at MyndFyre's scenario again; what he was really saying was that the gas stations can collude and charge $2 for their gas, and they will all make more profit from that than they would if they charged $1.75.

I think you're making reference to the prisoner scenario here, but I don't think it applies. It specifically requires that the players don't know the choices of the other players. In an unregulated market, there is no disincentive for a company to suggest to another company that they collude. If they say no, then nothing's lost. If they say yes, they will be aware of eachother's choices, and game theory no longer applies.

Unless you're talking about some other part of game theory. Perhaps you could expand on that?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94534#msg94534 date=1105083170]
I think you're making reference to the prisoner scenario here, but I don't think it applies. It specifically requires that the players don't know the choices of the other players. In an unregulated market, there is no disincentive for a company to suggest to another company that they collude. If they say no, then nothing's lost. If they say yes, they will be aware of eachother's choices, and game theory no longer applies.

Unless you're talking about some other part of game theory. Perhaps you could expand on that?
[/quote]

I agree.  The game theory scenario in which nobody can win is that situation in which everyone loses; it's called the Prisoner's Dilemma.

You and your partner in crime are both busted for a bank roberry.  Cop comes in and tells you (individually) that he has enough to put you both away for 5 years; but if you agree to trade in on your buddy, you'll only get one year (or none, even), but your buddy will get 10.  If you both trade in on each other, you'll both get 10.

In this case, Rational Choice Theory directs us to trade in on our buddy in hopes that he won't trade us in; however, in an overwhelming majority of trials, both partners turn each other in (the exception is with organized crime).

But Rational Choice Theory directs us to collude when everyone can gain together.

Your Game Theory diagram does not adequately respond to either scenario that I have illustrated.

Game Theory is based on RCT.  Tell me -- if you're part of a 3-gas station group that is charging $2.00 a gallon for no extra work, why would you lower your price?  Say you lowered your price per gallon to $1.90 -- the other two can lower their prices as well, and you'd all be at the same point as you were when you were at $2.00 per gallon, just making less money per customer.  That's irrational.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94510#msg94510 date=1105066442]
Guys, I guess one thing I am trying to get at is: Government regulation and interfearence is bad. Let the market handle its self. Any tax will create a dead weight loss. I could graph how the supply and demand curves move with a tax and plot the efficiency lost, but I really would not like to right now. You also have other bad things like price floors and price ceilings. The market will be most efficient when it is left to run it's self. I know the government needs income so some taxes are neccessary, and I know there needs to be a safeguard for negative externalities, such as pollution. Free Market (the freer the better) will be inherently more efficient then something like socialism where the government and the market tend to be intertwined almost.
[/quote]
I'm not suggesting we impose taxes or anything like that; however, enforce the freedom in the economy.  Corporations that can prevent competitors from entering a market or conducting business are not permitting a free market.  Hence they need to either be broken up or fined in some way as to destroy their monopoly.

Seems to me that an analagous suggestion would be to remove all law. By deregulating life, we make everyone more free. It would be great if we could do that; if everyone could be trusted enough, but unfortunately, some people aren't that mature, and neither are some companies.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10098.msg94533#msg94533 date=1105078939]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94510#msg94510 date=1105066442]
Guys, I guess one thing I am trying to get at is: Government regulation and interfearence is bad. Let the market handle its self. Any tax will create a dead weight loss. I could graph how the supply and demand curves move with a tax and plot the efficiency lost, but I really would not like to right now. You also have other bad things like price floors and price ceilings. The market will be most efficient when it is left to run it's self. I know the government needs income so some taxes are neccessary, and I know there needs to be a safeguard for negative externalities, such as pollution. Free Market (the freer the better) will be inherently more efficient then something like socialism where the government and the market tend to be intertwined almost.
[/quote]


Well, we've heard you claim that unregulated markets will be good, and there is some magical diagram that proves it. However, points have been made in replies that you have failed to respond to. Look at MyndFyre's scenario again; what he was really saying was that the gas stations can collude and charge $2 for their gas, and they will all make more profit from that than they would if they charged $1.75.
[/quote] My diagram provides an answer for why that cannot happen. My diagram answers that perfectly infact.
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94534#msg94534 date=1105083170]
I think you're making reference to the prisoner scenario here, but I don't think it applies. It specifically requires that the players don't know the choices of the other players. In an unregulated market, there is no disincentive for a company to suggest to another company that they collude. If they say no, then nothing's lost. If they say yes, they will be aware of eachother's choices, and game theory no longer applies.

Unless you're talking about some other part of game theory. Perhaps you could expand on that?
[/quote] I am talking about all of game theory, I am not talking about any prisoner scenario. The companies can know eachothers choices or not, either way there will always be compettiion. I do not understand what is so hard to get. I think I need to reexplain myself one more time....

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10098.msg94540#msg94540 date=1105087611]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94534#msg94534 date=1105083170]
I think you're making reference to the prisoner scenario here, but I don't think it applies. It specifically requires that the players don't know the choices of the other players. In an unregulated market, there is no disincentive for a company to suggest to another company that they collude. If they say no, then nothing's lost. If they say yes, they will be aware of eachother's choices, and game theory no longer applies.

Unless you're talking about some other part of game theory. Perhaps you could expand on that?
[/quote]

I agree.  The game theory scenario in which nobody can win is that situation in which everyone loses; it's called the Prisoner's Dilemma.

You and your partner in crime are both busted for a bank roberry.  Cop comes in and tells you (individually) that he has enough to put you both away for 5 years; but if you agree to trade in on your buddy, you'll only get one year (or none, even), but your buddy will get 10.  If you both trade in on each other, you'll both get 10.

In this case, Rational Choice Theory directs us to trade in on our buddy in hopes that he won't trade us in; however, in an overwhelming majority of trials, both partners turn each other in (the exception is with organized crime).

But Rational Choice Theory directs us to collude when everyone can gain together.

Your Game Theory diagram does not adequately respond to either scenario that I have illustrated.

Game Theory is based on RCT.  Tell me -- if you're part of a 3-gas station group that is charging $2.00 a gallon for no extra work, why would you lower your price?  Say you lowered your price per gallon to $1.90 -- the other two can lower their prices as well, and you'd all be at the same point as you were when you were at $2.00 per gallon, just making less money per customer.  That's irrational.[/quote] No, because you would get more money in the end because more customers would come your way. Its less money per customer but it would work out to being more money in the long run then you would have had with the higher price. Even if you are selling blow the equilibrium it should still work out.

Not quite, see the key difference in gaim theory is in game theory you know the other's decision. But both companies are going to backsab eachother no matter what though.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10098.msg94540#msg94540 date=1105087611]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94510#msg94510 date=1105066442]
Guys, I guess one thing I am trying to get at is: Government regulation and interfearence is bad. Let the market handle its self. Any tax will create a dead weight loss. I could graph how the supply and demand curves move with a tax and plot the efficiency lost, but I really would not like to right now. You also have other bad things like price floors and price ceilings. The market will be most efficient when it is left to run it's self. I know the government needs income so some taxes are neccessary, and I know there needs to be a safeguard for negative externalities, such as pollution. Free Market (the freer the better) will be inherently more efficient then something like socialism where the government and the market tend to be intertwined almost.
[/quote]
I'm not suggesting we impose taxes or anything like that; however, enforce the freedom in the economy.  Corporations that can prevent competitors from entering a market or conducting business are not permitting a free market.  Hence they need to either be broken up or fined in some way as to destroy their monopoly.
[/quote] I do not think so, I mean not everything is for sale, like I think I have said. Also if this industry has a good that is not essential the supposed monopoly does not even have the monopolisitc power of price control.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94549#msg94549 date=1105108294]
Seems to me that an analagous suggestion would be to remove all law. By deregulating life, we make everyone more free. It would be great if we could do that; if everyone could be trusted enough, but unfortunately, some people aren't that mature, and neither are some companies.
[/quote] I am not saying take away all law, not encouraging anarchy. I am just saying that even if the law were removed there would still be regulation. The market will naturally regulate it's self. Its regulation in the first place that corrupts it's ability to do so.

(MyndFyre edit: fixed the quote and merged two posts.  Please stop double-posting.)

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94558#msg94558 date=1105118964]
No, because you would get more money in the end because more customers would come your way. Its less money per customer but it would work out to being more money in the long run then you would have had with the higher price. Even if you are selling blow the equilibrium it should still work out.

Not quite, see the key difference in gaim theory is in game theory you know the other's decision. But both companies are going to backsab eachother no matter what though.
[/quote]

I don't get what's so hard to understand about what I'm saying here...

Game theory applies when there is a potential for loss.  However, when companies are colluding to overinflate their prices, every company wins.  It's not a zero-sum game.

You and your 2 competitors have been successfully running your businesses making $0.30 per gallon profit, charging $1.75 per gallon.  In a desire to make more money, the three of you agree to raise your prices collectively to $2.00 per gallon.

Now you, being an enterprising gas station owner, thinks that, if you lower your price, you will get more customers (correct), but the other two station owners will not lower their prices (incorrect).

Say you lower your price to $1.90 per gallon.  You might get more customers on the first day, but I guarantee you that by the next day, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE OTHER COMPANIES AREN'T LOSING ANYTHING but SOFT MONEY (money they don't have yet), they are going to lower their prices to $1.90 each, maybe even less.

It is irrational to backstab the other gas station owners, because all that happens is that you make less profit.  It's irrational.

Also, game theory doesn't apply here because the three of you aren't isolated; in game theory, decision-making by actors is done independently of each other.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94558#msg94558 date=1105118964]
I am not saying take away all law, not encouraging anarchy.
[/quote]

I know you're not - I'm just providing an analogy.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94558#msg94558 date=1105118964]
I am just saying that even if the law were removed there would still be regulation. The market will naturally regulate it's self. Its regulation in the first place that corrupts it's ability to do so.
[/quote]

In  the same way that people, in the absence of all law, would regulate themselves?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94558#msg94558 date=1105118964]
Its regulation in the first place that corrupts it's ability to do so.
[/quote]

In the same way that the existance of law corrupts people's ability to conduct themselves legally?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94584#msg94584 date=1105133236]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94558#msg94558 date=1105118964]
I am not saying take away all law, not encouraging anarchy.
[/quote]

I know you're not - I'm just providing an analogy.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94558#msg94558 date=1105118964]
I am just saying that even if the law were removed there would still be regulation. The market will naturally regulate it's self. Its regulation in the first place that corrupts it's ability to do so.
[/quote]

In  the same way that people, in the absence of all law, would regulate themselves?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94558#msg94558 date=1105118964]
Its regulation in the first place that corrupts it's ability to do so.
[/quote]

In the same way that the existance of law corrupts people's ability to conduct themselves legally?
[/quote]
Arta, comapnies exist to make a profit. The exist to have more revenue then expence... to make money. I am not saying we are not going to have laws like it is okay to steal, I am talking about many regulatory laws and taxes that affect only businesses. Because of the fact that companies always drive to make money is going to keep them in line, because if you are initially in competition you will have more money by lowering your price because you will have more customers (this is really over simplified). But businesses are not going to act like people. Comparing this to how people act without any law is comparing a free market to anarchy, it is a very bad analogy and unacurate.

One thing... What does your diagram say about limited number of customers?

If there are 1000 people needing 2000 gallons of fuel each day, there are two gas stations, and you are currently charging $295/gallon in a cooperative price-raising action, that means you currently make $295000/day. If you drop your price to $2/gallon, all customers will come to you, and you will make $2000/day. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me?

My dagram explained with a very limited number of customers. The reason why your math shows more revenue is because the gas is marked up a whole lot vs few customers. The idea is that the comapnies will never get the price hked that high to beginw ith because they are going to backstab eachother before a point like that. I doubt the gas stations will just say the price is up .95. People can always go further down the road.

In the Game Theory everyone trys to do what is best for themeselves.  In this paticular situation it is deffinatlly best for the gas stations to raise their price.  If one gas station backstabs the others it will only be a day or two before the others lower their prices as well.  The Gas stations would make more money and they know they will make more money if everyone is trustworthy.  So there is no reason to back stab.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94629#msg94629 date=1105163520]
In the Game Theory everyone trys to do what is best for themeselves.  In this paticular situation it is deffinatlly best for the gas stations to raise their price.  If one gas station backstabs the others it will only be a day or two before the others lower their prices as well.  The Gas stations would make more money and they know they will make more money if everyone is trustworthy.  So there is no reason to back stab.
[/quote] Look, in real life they would not make more money by raising the price. Before the price skyrocketed like in adron's example one station would have dropped its price and gotten more customers. That is what game theory suggests. That is what I was trying to show you with the diagram. No, they will not make more money when they collude. Also, with gas you are in almost perfect competition with other gas stations right? Because gas is gas. So if you tried to collude, it would fail. Sure stations on the corner of the highway will jack the prices up a little more, but not every gas station in the world can get together and jack the price. In reality opec can, but that is because they are governments colluding and that is completely out of our scenario here.

They would get more customers for a couple of days and then the other two would drop their prices as well. That really benefits no one.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94639#msg94639 date=1105165296]
They would get more customers for a couple of days and then the other two would drop their prices as well. That really benefits no one.

[/quote] It benefits gas station a right then and there. How can you just walk accorss the street and say lets raise our prices together? Becuase the second they start one will drop its prices and so will the other because they will both get more money on the spot by doing so. Who cares if combined they would have raised more, its all about how much total one station can make. And anyways, like I said, in the gas market it is pretty close to perfect competition as gas is gas is gas. My car will run on hess, bp, amoco, shell, chevron, kangaroo, or any other station. I get gas at whatever station is most conveiniant for me at the moment and if there are two side by side I go to the one with the lower price.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94641#msg94641 date=1105166560]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94639#msg94639 date=1105165296]
They would get more customers for a couple of days and then the other two would drop their prices as well. That really benefits no one.

[/quote] It benefits gas station a right then and there. How can you just walk accorss the street and say lets raise our prices together? Becuase the second they start one will drop its prices and so will the other because they will both get more money on the spot by doing so. Who cares if combined they would have raised more, its all about how much total one station can make. And anyways, like I said, in the gas market it is pretty close to perfect competition as gas is gas is gas. My car will run on hess, bp, amoco, shell, chevron, kangaroo, or any other station. I get gas at whatever station is most conveiniant for me at the moment and if there are two side by side I go to the one with the lower price.
[/quote]

The other two can just lower their prices to match.  There is no benefit for everyone to not work together.

You're suggesting that it is irrational for people to work together.  It's not; that is, in fact, the basic premise behind liberalism, and capitalism is really an extension of liberalism into the marketplace.

Hobbes (Pre-liberalism): People rationally choose to give up all of their rights collectively to the Leviathan, because the Leviathan will protect them.
Locke (Liberalism): People rationally choose to give up their right to be their own judge, jury, and executioner, because it protects them from others and works in the best interest of themselves; all other rights are preseved.
Smith (Capitalism): Consumers in the marketplace will regulate the marketplace when they act in their own best interests.
Nash: Producers and consumers in the marketplace will be most successful when they work not only in their own best interests but also in the best interests of the collectivity.

Have you seen A Beautiful Mind?  Nash made a very significant contribution not only to economics, but also to game theory.

Quasi, your entire argument rests on the belief that one gas station owner will lower his price and the other two will just clunk around at the higher price.  That notion is retarded and most CERTAINLY irrational.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94587#msg94587 date=1105134523]
Because of the fact that companies always drive to make money is going to keep them in line, because if you are initially in competition you will have more money by lowering your price because you will have more customers (this is really over simplified). But businesses are not going to act like people. Comparing this to how people act without any law is comparing a free market to anarchy, it is a very bad analogy and unacurate.
[/quote]

I think people and companies are pretty similar. Companies are just large groups of people, in the end. Companies and people both need money to survive. Both tend to want as much money as possible. The majority of both tend to stick to the rules, but there will always be a minority of both that don't. For some people, stealing is a quicker and easier way to make money than having a job. For some companies, getting rid of their competitors by dishonourable means is quicker and easier than competing fairly. I don't really understand how you can claim that that isn't the case.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94641#msg94641 date=1105166560]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94639#msg94639 date=1105165296]
They would get more customers for a couple of days and then the other two would drop their prices as well. That really benefits no one.

[/quote] It benefits gas station a right then and there. How can you just walk accorss the street and say lets raise our prices together? Becuase the second they start one will drop its prices and so will the other because they will both get more money on the spot by doing so. Who cares if combined they would have raised more, its all about how much total one station can make. And anyways, like I said, in the gas market it is pretty close to perfect competition as gas is gas is gas. My car will run on hess, bp, amoco, shell, chevron, kangaroo, or any other station. I get gas at whatever station is most conveiniant for me at the moment and if there are two side by side I go to the one with the lower price.
[/quote]

In most cases it doesn't actually benefit right then and there. People buy things where they're used to, they don't go to a different place just because the prices dropped a tiny bit. It takes time to pull people over. If two stations are side by side, perhaps, but even then, I tend to stick to my brand unless there's a huge price difference. Better to get everything on the same bill than to have two different ones to handle.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94630#msg94630 date=1105163917]
not every gas station in the world can get together and jack the price. In reality opec can, but that is because they are governments colluding and that is completely out of our scenario here.
[/quote]

That's not because they are governments colluding. That's because they are a few entities colluding. It doesn't matter if it's a few governments or if it's a few huge companies. If there isn't regulation imposed from the outside, the people running the companies will get together and suggest some "regulations" (that aren't regulations, since they aren't imposed by a government) that will help their common interest in generating more income for everyone.

This is hopeless... I am trying to convince the forum socialists that their economic views are flawed and they are not even really grasping what I am trying to tell them. I have told some others on this forum and a few others what I am telling you and they found this all perefectly logical. This is principle is basic and you guys keep trying to think of what if this and what if this, but this is a very fundamental principle. Companies are not going to try to work together, company A is not interested in how company B is doing and looking out for company B. Company A just wants to line the pockets of it's self. That force will always be consistant.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10098.msg94645#msg94645 date=1105176177]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94639#msg94639 date=1105165296]
They would get more customers for a couple of days and then the other two would drop their prices as well. That really benefits no one.

[/quote]
Quasi, your entire argument rests on the belief that one gas station owner will lower his price and the other two will just clunk around at the higher price.  That notion is retarded and most CERTAINLY irrational.
[/quote] No, it doesn't. My argument is centered around the fact that the other companies can't lower their prices fast enough to sway a few customers from going to company A. If we were to use something else, besides a gas station as an example, you would find that the little bit of time it takes to make that change could make a big difference. Lets talk about something else like LCD tvs or something.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94735#msg94735 date=1105318633]
This is hopeless... I am trying to convince the forum socialists that their economic views are flawed and they are not even really grasping what I am trying to tell them.
[/quote]
Calling us "socialists" does not build your credibility.  I am most certainly a Lockean liberal (in other words, a less-extreme libertarian), but I also do not believe that people given free reign to act both interpersonally (politically) and in the market (economically) will be ultimately positive to the economy. 

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94735#msg94735 date=1105318633]
I have told some others on this forum and a few others what I am telling you and they found this all perefectly logical. This is principle is basic and you guys keep trying to think of what if this and what if this, but this is a very fundamental principle. Companies are not going to try to work together, company A is not interested in how company B is doing and looking out for company B. Company A just wants to line the pockets of it's self. That force will always be consistant.
[/quote]
Generally speaking, actors will act in the best interests in the short term of themselves before acting in the best interests of themselves in the long term.  This is irrational when the benefit per time of the long term is greater than the benefit per time of the short term.  Refer to information on the Nash Equilibrium: specifically, look at the first matrix under "Coordination Games."  Also note:
[quote]
An example of a coordination game is the setting where two technologies are available to two firms with compatible products, and they have to elect a strategy to become the market standard. If both firms agree on the chosen technology, high sales are expected for both firms. If the firms do not agree on the standard technology, few sales result. Both strategies are Nash equilibria of the game.
[/quote]

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94735#msg94735 date=1105318633]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10098.msg94645#msg94645 date=1105176177]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94639#msg94639 date=1105165296]
They would get more customers for a couple of days and then the other two would drop their prices as well. That really benefits no one.

[/quote]
Quasi, your entire argument rests on the belief that one gas station owner will lower his price and the other two will just clunk around at the higher price.  That notion is retarded and most CERTAINLY irrational.
[/quote] No, it doesn't. My argument is centered around the fact that the other companies can't lower their prices fast enough to sway a few customers from going to company A. If we were to use something else, besides a gas station as an example, you would find that the little bit of time it takes to make that change could make a big difference. Lets talk about something else like LCD tvs or something.
[/quote]
Let's say that companies A and B both sell 20 units of LCD TVs at a profit of $750 per day.  Company A lowers it profit margin to $650 (effectively cutting its profit by $100 per unit) but increases its sales to 25.

Company A: $16250
Company B: $11250

All in all, less money is being made (they were both making $15,000 per day of profit, for a total of $30,000 money made; now, only $27,500); if company B does not lower its prices to compete, they will be driven out of the market.  If they do lower their prices, both companies may lay off employees to recoup the loss in profit (once company B lowers its price, the market will return to equilibrium; and both companies will be making less money.  Let's say there is a two-day lag between the time that B lowers its price.

Company A: two-days profit, $32,500.
Company B: two-days profit, $22,500.

Company B lowers its profit to $650 per unit and the market returns to equilibrium.  Both companies again sell 20 units per day apiece.  Total profit for both companies is now $13,000 per day.  This is an overall loss of $2,000 per day; Company A only made $2,500 above its original profit; by the time the second day is half-through, company A will already be at a loss for lowering its price.  A different profit difference will only make it a different amount of time before both companies are losing money equally.

If companies A and B work together, as Nash's Equilibrium suggests, they will make more money in the long term.

It is rational and in their interest to work together.

But that fails to take into account the fact that for an elastic good, the total number of buyers will go up with a lower price. So the two could very well be making more money selling lower anyway, but company a is going to make off like a bandit for the time when they cut below b. If you are increasing the consumer surplus the demand is on the rise.

PS: I was not calling you a socialist myndfyre, mainly the people that have names that begin with A.

some other things to talk about: we still have the fact that government intervention is bad because of taxation which causes a dead weight loss in the market's efficiency, and the fact that the government (US) has historically screwed things up with price ceilings and price floors and I would also like to talk about those since they do have to do with this subject.

I'm not a socialist either.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94749#msg94749 date=1105335455]
But that fails to take into account the fact that for an elastic good, the total number of buyers will go up with a lower price. So the two could very well be making more money selling lower anyway, but company a is going to make off like a bandit for the time when they cut below b. If you are increasing the consumer surplus the demand is on the rise.
[/quote]

It all depends on the goods involved, I suppose. However, you're then not looking at a competition effect at all any more. Reducing prices to get more customers to buy your wares applies equally to a monopoly. Which means that under these circumstances having a monopoly isn't negative for prices or economy - the one company will be just as motivated to drop prices as if there were other competing companies.


[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94749#msg94749 date=1105335455]
some other things to talk about: we still have the fact that government intervention is bad because of taxation which causes a dead weight loss in the market's efficiency, and the fact that the government (US) has historically screwed things up with price ceilings and price floors and I would also like to talk about those since they do have to do with this subject.
[/quote]

Price ceilings and price floors I have limited experience with. Subsidies I know, used to ensure there is sufficient overproduction in for example farming to handle a bad year. About taxation being a dead weight loss in the market's efficiency - yes, anything you do has a price. It just has to be worth it. You can't speak about taxes as being an unacceptable loss of efficiency without considering what you get for them.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10098.msg94767#msg94767 date=1105374898]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94749#msg94749 date=1105335455]
But that fails to take into account the fact that for an elastic good, the total number of buyers will go up with a lower price. So the two could very well be making more money selling lower anyway, but company a is going to make off like a bandit for the time when they cut below b. If you are increasing the consumer surplus the demand is on the rise.
[/quote]

It all depends on the goods involved, I suppose. However, you're then not looking at a competition effect at all any more. Reducing prices to get more customers to buy your wares applies equally to a monopoly. Which means that under these circumstances having a monopoly isn't negative for prices or economy - the one company will be just as motivated to drop prices as if there were other competing companies.[/quote] I never really said a monopoly was particularly bad. In some cases in the real world a monopoly is good. Take your local phone, and cable companies, without the municipality saying that there can only be one lines would be strung up all over the place. They still must strive to have good service otherwise they will loose their bid. That is an everyday legal monopoly.

[quote]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94749#msg94749 date=1105335455]
some other things to talk about: we still have the fact that government intervention is bad because of taxation which causes a dead weight loss in the market's efficiency, and the fact that the government (US) has historically screwed things up with price ceilings and price floors and I would also like to talk about those since they do have to do with this subject.
[/quote]

Price ceilings and price floors I have limited experience with. Subsidies I know, used to ensure there is sufficient overproduction in for example farming to handle a bad year. About taxation being a dead weight loss in the market's efficiency - yes, anything you do has a price. It just has to be worth it. You can't speak about taxes as being an unacceptable loss of efficiency without considering what you get for them.

[/quote] I know that some ammount of tax is neccessary, but the fact is they do cut a chunk out of the efficiency, I might forege for some graphs or make some later. So therefore that form of government intervention is inherently bad for a markets well being, so taxes should  be kept as low as possible.

An example of a price floor would be minimum wage. An example of a price ceiling would be rent control or the gas cap they had here in the states during the energy crunch. Those all keep the market from functioning out of it's equilibrium.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94823#msg94823 date=1105404283]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=10098.msg94767#msg94767 date=1105374898]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94749#msg94749 date=1105335455]
But that fails to take into account the fact that for an elastic good, the total number of buyers will go up with a lower price. So the two could very well be making more money selling lower anyway, but company a is going to make off like a bandit for the time when they cut below b. If you are increasing the consumer surplus the demand is on the rise.
[/quote]

It all depends on the goods involved, I suppose. However, you're then not looking at a competition effect at all any more. Reducing prices to get more customers to buy your wares applies equally to a monopoly. Which means that under these circumstances having a monopoly isn't negative for prices or economy - the one company will be just as motivated to drop prices as if there were other competing companies.[/quote] I never really said a monopoly was particularly bad. In some cases in the real world a monopoly is good. Take your local phone, and cable companies, without the municipality saying that there can only be one lines would be strung up all over the place. They still must strive to have good service otherwise they will loose their bid. That is an everyday legal monopoly.
[/quote]
But look -- that monopoly is enforced by the government!

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10098.msg94853#msg94853 date=1105417659]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94823#msg94823 date=1105404283]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=10098.msg94767#msg94767 date=1105374898]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94749#msg94749 date=1105335455]
But that fails to take into account the fact that for an elastic good, the total number of buyers will go up with a lower price. So the two could very well be making more money
selling lower anyway, but company a is going to make off like a bandit for the time when they cut below b. If you are increasing the consumer surplus the demand is on the rise.
[/quote]

It all depends on the goods involved, I suppose. However, you're then not looking at a competition effect at all any more. Reducing prices to get more customers to buy your wares applies equally to a monopoly. Which means that under these circumstances having a monopoly isn't negative for prices or economy - the one company will be just as motivated to drop prices as if there were other competing companies.[/quote] I never really said a monopoly was particularly bad. In some cases in the real world a monopoly is good. Take your local phone, and cable companies, without the municipality saying that there can only be one lines would be strung up all over the place. They still must strive to have good service otherwise they will loose their bid. That is an everyday legal monopoly.
[/quote]
But look -- that monopoly is enforced by the government!
[/quote]
yes, it is.

The whole thing about not needing anti trust laws was me trying to point out how the market has a tendancy to regulate it's self. Government intervention is rarely neccessary (except of course for makret failiors). When the government dabbles with the market it is generally not a good thing, so I am of the opinion that the market should be left to do its own thing as much as possible. But I never did say that a monopoly is a bad thing. Most monopolies in the real world are not price setters because their good is elastic. They do not have the ability to jack the price up and usually cannot price descriminate either to maximize their revenue.

Government intervention needed for phone lines?? Do you have monopolies on those? What a weird country!

Minimum wage is a good price floor. It's protection of the ignorant, those who do not know how much money they should ask for. Hardly anyone get minimum wages anyway, so it's not a problem. Well, unless you mean the minimum wages negotiated by the unions, but those are more like contracted standard wages.

minimum wage drives up inflation.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94873#msg94873 date=1105464248]
minimum wage drives up inflation.
[/quote]

Only if it changes. Minimum wage in itself is not the driving force behind inflation; increasing wages in general is. A strong union making huge demands in negotiations drives inflation. As well as companies charging too high prices.

The main problem is that everyone wants more and noone wants less. If you would like to redistribute/revaluate work so that some groups get more and others less, you will have to have a large enough inflation and give low raises to some and big raises to some. Cutting salaries looks so bad.

Lack of a minimum wage drives up numbres of people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94877#msg94877 date=1105466391]
Lack of a minimum wage drives up numbres of people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children.
[/quote] No. I thought we talked about this already... but maybe that was another forum. If we were to take away the price floor right now, the market would drop down to its equilibrium levels assuming they are lower and there would be a certain ammount of deflation and then we would end up where we started but with more valuble currency. All miniumum wage does is takes value away from our currency. Plus I doubt the family would be just living happily and not be on welfare if the parents of the 10 kids in the family are only making minimum wage.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94880#msg94880 date=1105469205]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94877#msg94877 date=1105466391]
Lack of a minimum wage drives up numbres of people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children.
[/quote] No. I thought we talked about this already... but maybe that was another forum. If we were to take away the price floor right now, the market would drop down to its equilibrium levels assuming they are lower and there would be a certain ammount of deflation and then we would end up where we started but with more valuble currency.
[/quote]

I doubt it.  Today, a single person couldn't live solely on minimum wage.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10098.msg94919#msg94919 date=1105489152]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94880#msg94880 date=1105469205]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94877#msg94877 date=1105466391]
Lack of a minimum wage drives up numbres of people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children.
[/quote] No. I thought we talked about this already... but maybe that was another forum. If we were to take away the price floor right now, the market would drop down to its equilibrium levels assuming they are lower and there would be a certain ammount of deflation and then we would end up where we started but with more valuble currency.
[/quote]

I doubt it.  Today, a single person couldn't live solely on minimum wage.
[/quote] There would be an adjustment period. I am not saying it would happen over night. But if we dropped out min wage we would end up about where we started. It would be like back in the day when you could buy coke for $0.10 though. There would be some deflation to say the least.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10098.msg94919#msg94919 date=1105489152]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94880#msg94880 date=1105469205]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94877#msg94877 date=1105466391]
Lack of a minimum wage drives up numbres of people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children.
[/quote] No. I thought we talked about this already... but maybe that was another forum. If we were to take away the price floor right now, the market would drop down to its equilibrium levels assuming they are lower and there would be a certain ammount of deflation and then we would end up where we started but with more valuble currency.
[/quote]

I doubt it. Today, a single person couldn't live solely on minimum wage.
[/quote]
I'm living solely on minimum wage but I'm probably going to lose my power in a week or two. :/

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10098.msg94919#msg94919 date=1105489152]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94880#msg94880 date=1105469205]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94877#msg94877 date=1105466391]
Lack of a minimum wage drives up numbres of people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children.
[/quote] No. I thought we talked about this already... but maybe that was another forum. If we were to take away the price floor right now, the market would drop down to its equilibrium levels assuming they are lower and there would be a certain ammount of deflation and then we would end up where we started but with more valuble currency.
[/quote]

I doubt it.  Today, a single person couldn't live solely on minimum wage.
[/quote]
Depends on where you live really.  In San Antonio if you can  get a roommate and work 40hours a week you cuold probablly just about squeeze by on min wage.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94880#msg94880 date=1105469205]
No. I thought we talked about this already... but maybe that was another forum. If we were to take away the price floor right now, the market would drop down to its equilibrium levels assuming they are lower and there would be a certain ammount of deflation and then we would end up where we started but with more valuble currency. All miniumum wage does is takes value away from our currency. Plus I doubt the family would be just living happily and not be on welfare if the parents of the 10 kids in the family are only making minimum wage.
[/quote]

This is one part to it. The other solution would be to add maximum wages in addition to minimum wages. By doing that you would put a lid on it and ensure that levels do not run away freely. The problem with the free market is that it's never free. People always collude, and the wrecks it. Look at the highest income and lowest income and tell me if the difference is motivated?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94939#msg94939 date=1105498889]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10098.msg94919#msg94919 date=1105489152]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94880#msg94880 date=1105469205]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94877#msg94877 date=1105466391]
Lack of a minimum wage drives up numbres of people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children.
[/quote] No. I thought we talked about this already... but maybe that was another forum. If we were to take away the price floor right now, the market would drop down to its equilibrium levels assuming they are lower and there would be a certain ammount of deflation and then we would end up where we started but with more valuble currency.
[/quote]

I doubt it.  Today, a single person couldn't live solely on minimum wage.
[/quote] There would be an adjustment period. I am not saying it would happen over night. But if we dropped out min wage we would end up about where we started. It would be like back in the day when you could buy coke for $0.10 though. There would be some deflation to say the least.
[/quote]

I still doubt it.  If minimum wage is such an inflation, then why it a person working full-time at minimum wage is still below the poverty line at just under $11,000 a year?  That doesn't make sense.  And it's not some nice linear equation where if minimum wage goes up $2 then Company A can only hire 3 people instead of 5.  What do you say to the CEO who is making $11 million?  Couldn't he sacrifice a few bucks to keep those people?

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10098.msg94948#msg94948 date=1105506435]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10098.msg94919#msg94919 date=1105489152]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg94880#msg94880 date=1105469205]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg94877#msg94877 date=1105466391]
Lack of a minimum wage drives up numbres of people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children.
[/quote] No. I thought we talked about this already... but maybe that was another forum. If we were to take away the price floor right now, the market would drop down to its equilibrium levels assuming they are lower and there would be a certain ammount of deflation and then we would end up where we started but with more valuble currency.
[/quote]

I doubt it.  Today, a single person couldn't live solely on minimum wage.
[/quote]
Depends on where you live really.  In San Antonio if you can  get a roommate and work 40hours a week you cuold probablly just about squeeze by on min wage.
[/quote]

Now add to that equation a child (e.g.  single-parent 1 child).  But I understand.  It depends on where you live and where I live (California) it's really bad.

(MyndFyre edit: combined two posts.  Please do not double-post.)

[quote]The other solution would be to add maximum wages [/quote]
What would be the point of studying to be a doctor for 8+ years if there is a price ceiling, and this is communism's flaw.

[quote]Now add to that equation a child [/quote]
Maybe the child needs to be taken away if the parent is that irresponsible.

The thing about a minimmum wage is, it drives the other wages up. The scientists/doctors/engineers are not going to be making the same money as the person bagging the groceries. When the baggers pay goes up it would drive some one elses pay up a bit eventually and then that would drive someone elses pay up. Now I am not saying that raising min wage by a doller is going to raise the rate of a doctor by a doller, but when minimum wage it is not just those making minimum wage whos pay goes up a little.


Also, about your last statment forged: I mentioned in another forum that I would not be completely against tubes getting tied for the people that have several kids they can't afford. I also said that we need a red latter A tatooed on everyone with aids, sort of like in the scarlet letter (but the a would be just below the waste line), but it would let people know that the person has aids. These ideas are controverisial and would never happen, but I think they might solve some problems (maybe create others though).

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95043#msg95043 date=1105584323]
I also said that we need a red latter A tatooed on everyone with aids, sort of like in the scarlet letter (but the a would be just below the waste line), but it would let people know that the person has aids. These ideas are controverisial and would never happen, but I think they might solve some problems (maybe create others though).
[/quote]
Ah, interesting, I'm for it, but there are flaws with it. For starters, controversial doesn't scratch the surface of it, you would be setting apart a group of people for something that might not be their fault (a child born of aids infected parents). Tatoos can also be removed, if I was infected and felt insulted enough, I would have it removed. Lastly, if you contract aids though sex, it is your own fault. You should know your partner, if you enjoy just sleeping around you're running the risk of contracting STDs. Maybe knowing your partner isn't enough, you could have them tested. Point is, tatooing a letter to aids infected persons is not the solution.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95043#msg95043 date=1105584323]
The thing about a minimmum wage is, it drives the other wages up. The scientists/doctors/engineers are not going to be making the same money as the person bagging the groceries. When the baggers pay goes up it would drive some one elses pay up a bit eventually and then that would drive someone elses pay up. Now I am not saying that raising min wage by a doller is going to raise the rate of a doctor by a doller, but when minimum wage it is not just those making minimum wage whos pay goes up a little.
[/quote]

Do you have any evidence to support this?  The thing about minimum wage is it drives up the cost of jobs that are typically low-paying and thereby reduces the amount of those jobs.  Why they can't distribute wages accordingly (i.e. the $10 million CEO giving up some money to pay for an extra work) is beyond me but seems to be largely because of greed.

Greed makes the world go round silly.  It is the cause of almost every human action.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95043#msg95043 date=1105584323]
Also, about your last statment forged: I mentioned in another forum that I would not be completely against tubes getting tied for the people that have several kids they can't afford. I also said that we need a red latter A tatooed on everyone with aids, sort of like in the scarlet letter (but the a would be just below the waste line), but it would let people know that the person has aids. These ideas are controverisial and would never happen, but I think they might solve some problems (maybe create others though).
[/quote]
Why not just put arm bands with the [u]letter[/u] on the people with aids. Then we could just start halling them to camps and slaughter them. I mean finding out that they just got a disease that is going to kill them isn't enough is it?
And we could start having post birth abortions for people who can't afford their kids because they don't get paid enough to live.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95043#msg95043 date=1105584323]
The thing about a minimmum wage is, it drives the other wages up. The scientists/doctors/engineers are not going to be making the same money as the person bagging the groceries. When the baggers pay goes up it would drive some one elses pay up a bit eventually and then that would drive someone elses pay up. Now I am not saying that raising min wage by a doller is going to raise the rate of a doctor by a doller, but when minimum wage it is not just those making minimum wage whos pay goes up a little.
[/quote]

Minimum wages, as has been agreed on this forum, are already too low though. The problem isn't that the minimum wages are too high, it's all the other wages. You need to reduce the spread from minimum to maximum, which could only be accomplished by a ceiling. Or, if you like to simplify it, by applying 110% taxes to anything above a certain level. That way you don't have to call it a ceiling, it'll just become one anyway.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10098.msg95054#msg95054 date=1105587428]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95043#msg95043 date=1105584323]
The thing about a minimmum wage is, it drives the other wages up. The scientists/doctors/engineers are not going to be making the same money as the person bagging the groceries. When the baggers pay goes up it would drive some one elses pay up a bit eventually and then that would drive someone elses pay up. Now I am not saying that raising min wage by a doller is going to raise the rate of a doctor by a doller, but when minimum wage it is not just those making minimum wage whos pay goes up a little.
[/quote]

Do you have any evidence to support this?  The thing about minimum wage is it drives up the cost of jobs that are typically low-paying and thereby reduces the amount of those jobs.  Why they can't distribute wages accordingly (i.e. the $10 million CEO giving up some money to pay for an extra work) is beyond me but seems to be largely because of greed.
[/quote] Evidence? This is common sense.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95089#msg95089 date=1105641006]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10098.msg95054#msg95054 date=1105587428]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95043#msg95043 date=1105584323]
The thing about a minimmum wage is, it drives the other wages up. The scientists/doctors/engineers are not going to be making the same money as the person bagging the groceries. When the baggers pay goes up it would drive some one elses pay up a bit eventually and then that would drive someone elses pay up. Now I am not saying that raising min wage by a doller is going to raise the rate of a doctor by a doller, but when minimum wage it is not just those making minimum wage whos pay goes up a little.
[/quote]

Do you have any evidence to support this?  The thing about minimum wage is it drives up the cost of jobs that are typically low-paying and thereby reduces the amount of those jobs.  Why they can't distribute wages accordingly (i.e. the $10 million CEO giving up some money to pay for an extra work) is beyond me but seems to be largely because of greed.
[/quote] Evidence? This is common sense.
[/quote]

Well, last time I checked, my wage didn't go up because minimum wage went up.  Maybe if I was making minimum wage then it would have gone up but it didn't.  If anything, minimum wage will drive someone else wage down or some people will be layed off who are making lower wages (extreme case).

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10098.msg95112#msg95112 date=1105653627]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95089#msg95089 date=1105641006]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10098.msg95054#msg95054 date=1105587428]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95043#msg95043 date=1105584323]
The thing about a minimmum wage is, it drives the other wages up. The scientists/doctors/engineers are not going to be making the same money as the person bagging the groceries. When the baggers pay goes up it would drive some one elses pay up a bit eventually and then that would drive someone elses pay up. Now I am not saying that raising min wage by a doller is going to raise the rate of a doctor by a doller, but when minimum wage it is not just those making minimum wage whos pay goes up a little.
[/quote]

Do you have any evidence to support this?  The thing about minimum wage is it drives up the cost of jobs that are typically low-paying and thereby reduces the amount of those jobs.  Why they can't distribute wages accordingly (i.e. the $10 million CEO giving up some money to pay for an extra work) is beyond me but seems to be largely because of greed.
[/quote] Evidence? This is common sense.
[/quote]

Well, last time I checked, my wage didn't go up because minimum wage went up.  Maybe if I was making minimum wage then it would have gone up but it didn't.  If anything, minimum wage will drive someone else wage down or some people will be layed off who are making lower wages (extreme case).
[/quote] Your wage will not go up immediatly, this is a gradual over time thing. There has to be an adjustment period because nothing happens instantly. My wage will go up because our minimum wage went up over here. I will not see any more money because I will move before it happens in an estimated 6 months, but it is going to happen my manager says.

Well, if you desire a certain minimum wages that are required for a person to live on, you need to put those in terms that are related to costs and inflation. This means that other wages must not be allowed to go up as much as the minimum wages or inflation will kill your effect. Wage ceiling!

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10098.msg95229#msg95229 date=1105732948]
Well, if you desire a certain minimum wages that are required for a person to live on, you need to put those in terms that are related to costs and inflation. This means that other wages must not be allowed to go up as much as the minimum wages or inflation will kill your effect. Wage ceiling!
[/quote] ewww. Can't we just leave it alone? Do not try to fix what is no broken. I think they never should have created a minimum wage, and I am in support of none, but at this point trying to remove it wuld be political suicide and if you did you would have this devestating adjustment period.

From what I was taught in economics minimum wage is set so people don't compete for a job by offering to take less.  This could be bad, and fuck everyone over.

Not neccessarily. Think of a worker as a company selling a service. Without price floors or ceilings the market is going to move towards equilibrium.

I don't think that holds true when you have lots of companies requiring unskilled staff (McDonald's, meatpacking companies...) and lots of disorganised (by which I mean not unionised), unskilled people willing to work for very little.

If they are unskilled and do not do much work then getting payed 2 bucks an hour might be the equilibrium for their ammount of work.

Well, great. Doesn't matter that they can't afford food and health insurance, as long as the equilibrium is ok.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg95338#msg95338 date=1105820850]
I don't think that holds true when you have lots of companies requiring unskilled staff (McDonald's, meatpacking companies...) and lots of disorganised (by which I mean not unionised), unskilled people willing to work for very little.
[/quote]
Unskilled staff? If you had untrained workers in meatpacking plants there wouldbe outbreaks of Ecoli everywhere... but I guess that's kind of off topic.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95380#msg95380 date=1105842204]
If they are unskilled and do not do much work then getting payed 2 bucks an hour might be the equilibrium for their ammount of work.
[/quote]
People with the kind of jobs that y'all are talking about usually do a lot more work than people sitting at desks in the A.C. all day long. You really think someone who busts their ass all day long for one person or a group of small people to get rich really deserves a pay cut?

I never said the deserve a paycut, but the market will reach equilibrium. Its all about what people are willing to work for. If the company is having trouble finding employees that will work for 4 dollers an hour they can raise the pay to 5 dollers an hour to get more until they have just the right number of workers. There are also other issues like if you pay more the quality of work might be better too. But it all has to do with what kind of job it is, obviously you can pay less for people bagging groceries because a teen can do it, and also the teen can work for less because he does not have to live off of his money. If he can get more at taco bell then he can get more at taco bell, but it is going to all even out. What really complicates it is when you think about the illegal immigrants who really cant work at most places and do get forced to work for pitiful wages illegally, but speaking from an everything  is legal aspect it is all going to even out.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=10098.msg95424#msg95424 date=1105899210]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg95338#msg95338 date=1105820850]
I don't think that holds true when you have lots of companies requiring unskilled staff (McDonald's, meatpacking companies...) and lots of disorganised (by which I mean not unionised), unskilled people willing to work for very little.
[/quote]
Unskilled staff? If you had untrained workers in meatpacking plants there wouldbe outbreaks of Ecoli everywhere... but I guess that's kind of off topic.
[/quote]
There would be, but by "unskilled" I think Arta means that, for example, people who don't require training outside of the normal training required for a job.  Example: you probably don't need a college degree to get a job at a meat packing plant, or to hold the "Slow" sign at a construction site.

The value of a job is inversely proportional to the number of people who can adequately perform that job.  That's why computer programming and network maintenance salaries have gone down in the last few years: everybody and their brother is getting the certifications/degrees because they saw that the jobs used to pay handsomely well.  Now an MCSE or CNA/CNE is a dime a dozen.  The next big thing was Cisco technician, but now even they are becoming less valuable.

People that don't require training outside of the normal training of a job is any and all jobs.
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95431#msg95431 date=1105903498]
I never said the deserve a paycut, but the market will reach equilibrium. Its all about what people are willing to work for. If the company is having trouble finding employees that will work for 4 dollers an hour they can raise the pay to 5 dollers an hour to get more until they have just the right number of workers. There are also other issues like if you pay more the quality of work might be better too. But it all has to do with what kind of job it is, obviously you can pay less for people bagging groceries because a teen can do it, and also the teen can work for less because he does not have to live off of his money. If he can get more at taco bell then he can get more at taco bell, but it is going to all even out. What really complicates it is when you think about the illegal immigrants who really cant work at most places and do get forced to work for pitiful wages illegally, but speaking from an everything is legal aspect it is all going to even out.
[/quote]
So while people wait for this equilibrium to happen most will become homeless and not have money to feed and clothe their families. Most of these people already don't have health insurance so that's not a factor that they will miss out on. But it would be very American to just drop minimum wage completely and enslave people to the system a little more.

muert0... no. I said earlier that to touch the minimum wage would create a nasty correction period. There should have never been minimum wage to begin with. People will not become homeless either, if they are not getting paid for their work they can stop working at that firm and persue other careers.

Also muert0, I am sure that many of the people on minimum wage are on welfare if they have to support a family, which was also said earlier in this thread, so no they will not become homeless. If the person wants to loose his job and pocket some more cash he can always try to get himself fired and reap state/fed unemployment compensation too, but that is just a side note (some people really do that so I thought I would point it out).

One more thing, a lot of people do not have health insurance because they are not willing to pay for it when they can infact afford it according to a lot of numbers I have seen.

The problem is that people aren't actually needed enough to motivate their existence. You may already have enough meatpackers for your plant, and you don't need to hire that extra guy.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95457#msg95457 date=1105917427]
muert0... no. I said earlier that to touch the minimum wage would create a nasty correction period. There should have never been minimum wage to begin with. People will not become homeless either, if they are not getting paid for their work they can stop working at that firm and persue other careers.

Also muert0, I am sure that many of the people on minimum wage are on welfare if they have to support a family, which was also said earlier in this thread, so no they will not become homeless. If the person wants to loose his job and pocket some more cash he can always try to get himself fired and reap state/fed unemployment compensation too, but that is just a side note (some people really do that so I thought I would point it out).

One more thing, a lot of people do not have health insurance because they are not willing to pay for it when they can infact afford it according to a lot of numbers I have seen.
[/quote]

What do you think happens while they are looking for a new job now and aren't making money to pay their bills. You think they will just get to sit in the places that they can't pay for and just wait for this equilibrim that you speak of. If so your head is full of nonsense.

Do you know how long the process is to get unemployment. This whole process wouldn't do anything but put the country in even more debt. And minimum wage was put into play because people were being taken advantage of and it would just open that back up.

Show me some of these numbers that you have seen. A plan that a person that makes lets say 5.50 an hour and works 40 hours a week and never takes a day off can afford and pay rent, utilities and food. Don't even think about clothes or anything extra because there's no way you can fit that into play. And a decent plan too.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=10098.msg95462#msg95462 date=1105918682]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95457#msg95457 date=1105917427]
muert0... no. I said earlier that to touch the minimum wage would create a nasty correction period. There should have never been minimum wage to begin with. People will not become homeless either, if they are not getting paid for their work they can stop working at that firm and persue other careers.

Also muert0, I am sure that many of the people on minimum wage are on welfare if they have to support a family, which was also said earlier in this thread, so no they will not become homeless. If the person wants to loose his job and pocket some more cash he can always try to get himself fired and reap state/fed unemployment compensation too, but that is just a side note (some people really do that so I thought I would point it out).

One more thing, a lot of people do not have health insurance because they are not willing to pay for it when they can infact afford it according to a lot of numbers I have seen.
[/quote]

What do you think happens while they are looking for a new job now and aren't making money to pay their bills. You think they will just get to sit in the places that they can't pay for and just wait for this equilibrim that you speak of. If so your head is full of nonsense.
[quote] Like I said before, there is something called welfare, especially if the person has a family. Also, like I said THERE WILL BE AN ADJUSTMENT PERIOD IF IT WERE SUDDENLY DROPPED. If there had been no minimum wage we would be sitting in equilibrium at this point in time.
[quote]
Do you know how long the process is to get unemployment. This whole process wouldn't do anything but put the country in even more debt. And minimum wage was put into play because people were being taken advantage of and it would just open that back up.
[/quote] Muerto, people are not going to be willing to work for p-nuts if they are doing a lot of work. Also how many times have I said there will be an adjustment period but I am talking about in normal circumstances if we are sitting in an environment with no minimum wage. If there were no minimum wage to begin with there would be no massive sudden drop in wages, it would also not be in the company's best interest to drop wages down to nothing all at once.
[quote]
Show me some of these numbers that you have seen. A plan that a person that makes lets say 5.50 an hour and works 40 hours a week and never takes a day off can afford and pay rent, utilities and food. Don't even think about clothes or anything extra because there's no way you can fit that into play. And a decent plan too.
[/quote] Most of the people in the country are not living on minimum wage, so most of the people in the country can afford insurance.[/quote][/quote]

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=10098.msg95462#msg95462 date=1105918682]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10098.msg95457#msg95457 date=1105917427]
muert0... no. I said earlier that to touch the minimum wage would create a nasty correction period. There should have never been minimum wage to begin with. People will not become homeless either, if they are not getting paid for their work they can stop working at that firm and persue other careers.

Also muert0, I am sure that many of the people on minimum wage are on welfare if they have to support a family, which was also said earlier in this thread, so no they will not become homeless. If the person wants to loose his job and pocket some more cash he can always try to get himself fired and reap state/fed unemployment compensation too, but that is just a side note (some people really do that so I thought I would point it out).

One more thing, a lot of people do not have health insurance because they are not willing to pay for it when they can infact afford it according to a lot of numbers I have seen.
[/quote]

What do you think happens while they are looking for a new job now and aren't making money to pay their bills. You think they will just get to sit in the places that they can't pay for and just wait for this equilibrim that you speak of. If so your head is full of nonsense.

Do you know how long the process is to get unemployment. This whole process wouldn't do anything but put the country in even more debt. And minimum wage was put into play because people were being taken advantage of and it would just open that back up.

Show me some of these numbers that you have seen. A plan that a person that makes lets say 5.50 an hour and works 40 hours a week and never takes a day off can afford and pay rent, utilities and food. Don't even think about clothes or anything extra because there's no way you can fit that into play. And a decent plan too.
[/quote]

There's always spots open in the armed forces.

Yeah I'm about to start talking to the USMC but I don't think people should have to resort to that just to live.

They pay for you to study what you want to so when your service is up you can get a good civilian job. They take care of their own, this girl in my PE class - her brother is in the Navy and they bought him a car and everything.

Just the small disadvantage of being sent to kill people.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg95604#msg95604 date=1106036058]
Just the small disadvantage of being sent to kill people.
[/quote]

And that of being sent to die.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=10098.msg95607#msg95607 date=1106038856]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10098.msg95604#msg95604 date=1106036058]
Just the small disadvantage of being sent to kill people.
[/quote]

And that of being sent to die.
[/quote]

And being away from family.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=10098.msg95562#msg95562 date=1106009060]
They pay for you to study what you want to so when your service is up you can get a good civilian job. They take care of their own, this girl in my PE class - her brother is in the Navy and they bought him a car and everything.
[/quote]

Haha, bull.

Edit:  Oh wait, which navy?  Not the US Navy, they are not buying anyone cars.  I can see the Army doing it, if you're an armorred personnel carrier driver, or tank driver, they have just the vehicle for you!

That's what she said. :\

My grandparents have been pushing for me to go to the Air Force academy since I was old enough to realize what they do.

Grok, the Army enjoys all those luxories. After all what does the Army stand for anyway? Aren't Really Marines Yet.