Ah, but a major part of any well-reasoned analysis of Option A includes considering the potential problems of replacing it with Options B, C, and D. Capitalism isn’t perfect, of course, but it’s not as imperfect as any alternative which has been tried on a large scale[sup][/sup] in human history. It may be necessary to accept the flaws in the current system because the flaws in any replacement system will as bad or worse.
[sup][/sup]Necessary caveat, in case you wanted to mention successful communes of two or three hundred people. That’s fine, but scaling that up to include several million people would be a disaster.
Personally I advocate a little from column A and a little from column B. For example in the Netherlands they have managed to incorporate strong socialist policies within a capitalistic framework and found a lot of success doing it. It’s not capitalism I’m opposed to, it’s the American breed of it. Particularly under conservative administrations where business is free from even reasonable restrictions like this crap with the FCC permitting more mega media corporations to amalgamate, or the EPA supporting weakening of the Clean Air Act. It seems to me there is a middle ground between laissez faire and Maoism and Bush’s America isn’t it.
I believe that sucess is trading present prosperity for future problems, and is possible even then only under stable and favorable economic coditions.
http://angry-economist.russnelson.com/media-concentration.html
A fairly convincing explanation that it will not actually reduce competition in media.
This is a highly complicated issue, and the Clean Air Act is in no way affected.
At issue is the fact that years ago the government told power companies that they had to put in place a massive (and vastly expensive) environmental restructuring program to make it much cleaner if they built a new power plant (or uparded one). This did not work. First of all, it was patently onvious that the companies could not easily come up with 300 million *per plant* to make upgrades, so they put in a grandfather clause such that no plant had to do it on existing hardware unless they upgraded. As result, nobody upgraded unless absolutely neccessary, with the end result that they got dirtier as efficiency eroded. Getting 5 percent less efficient over the plant's lifespan means far more coal or oil being burned. Nobody upgraded because they could simply pass the expense on, and it would have cost vast sums of money that even a major corporation would think twice about.
What Bush did was to say that from now on, you can upgrade while only making a partial investment on the environmental upgrade stuff. And its working: there are already plants getting more efficient. And since they can implement some pollution controls without being forced to put them many more in, the cost is much more reasonable.
This has nothing to do with the Clean Air Act. the actual amended regulation was appended to some piece of odd legislature enacted years back.
In hurry, will explain further later if you like.
Bush’s America is no different from Clinton’s. Your perception of it has changed. And I find it highly insulting to act as if the President owned America. We are free people, thankyouverymuch.
pervert;
(I feel so odd having an intellectual discussion with a nickname like that btw … no offense intended just commenting)
In the widget example if we extend this logic I would be willing to pay for anything that gave me a net profit at the end of the transaction. So according to you I would buyt it even for $9.99 cause I gain a $0.01 … if I extend this principle of paying any price that nets me any profit at all I won’t have much of a claim to be using my limited resources effectively (capital in this case). I don’t think many businesses given the option of paying $10 for a widget, knowing it costed $1 to manufacture, would choose to pay the $10 when alternative 2 sets price at $2 (cost + reasonable profit).
Re: the 500% output to %200 labour costs it was out of thin air - neither of us can claim to have this number - the only point significant is that equal output will require less input (or increased output will cost less than a proportionate increase in input). I actually used 500% to 200% because in calculations it allowed the 5 day work week to be reduced to a 2 day workweek and I wanted to stay consistent in my examples.
Extend it? Sounds like you’re stomping all over it. I don’ty know of any company that will sell literally anything for literally any profit. Surely a 1-cent profit isn’t worth the time you put into wholesaling this widget, unless you’re talking millions and millions of widgets and make the profit on volume (i.e. as a gumball manufacturer might).
As for the potential customers deciding whether or not to pay $10 or $2, the $8 difference could be the deciding factor in and of itself, with no real attention paid to how the manufacturer makes his profits. A businessman who told his suppliers that he would only pay them a “reasonable” markup over their costs would quickly be out of business, because the suppliers will just ignore him and sell to customers who want the products and don’t really care about the problems of the supplier.
It may even be desirable to pay $10 instead of $2 if the $10 supplier is well-established and proven reliable and can deliver defect-free products on time, while the $2 supplier has a shaky or unproven record. Truth be told, if a supplier can to me offering an $8 discount, I’d be kinda suspicious that he was trying to palm defective or illegal goods on me.
Well, when you make up the numbers, it’s easy to get the results you want.
No offense taken at all. I’m quite proud of my ability to twist things into unusual shapes 
Ideas that is. What did you think I meant? :dubious:
I think you are missing the point. I was suggesting that the only criterion to be considered when I purchasd widgets is how much profit will I make. If all other things are equal (and they never are as Bryan Ekers pointed out), then I will buy my widgets from whoever has the lowest price.
And assuming that everyone involved is doing the same thing, then that is the mechanism which creates wealth. You see, I extend this concept of wealth building to individual transactions as well as transactions between companies. Wealth is created every time I buy something for less than it is worth to me.
I don’t understand this mechanism well enough to tie it to the free nature of the market yet, but let me sleep on it and I’ll relate this argument to the OP tomorrow.
Meanwhile…
In addition, if I trust that my market for widget using gadgets will be large and stable enough, and I learn that widgets can be made for $1, I might decide to invest in a widget factory of my own.
You see how this implied competition might lead to lower prices? You want to maintain quality and lower prices to the point that you are better than ANY competition. Not just those companies currently producing widgets, but those who might in the future.
And I am not assuming any forknowledge on the part of the widget suppliers. Any company that does not anticipate this, or that does not react to it quickly enough will go out of business. That, of course, will allow his competion to snap up some widget making equipment at bankrupcy prices 