>>On 10 May 2012 07:36:01 -0500, nothermark <notherm...@not.here> wrote:

>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 10:23:46 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:

>>>>On 5/8/2012 6:30 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> Your problem is that you cannot see a market without government
>>>>>>>> intervention.  In fact, you have gotten so used to government
>>>>>>>> intervention that you believe that such intervention is the natural
>>>>>>>> state of affairs.

>>>>>>>> In a free market the only place for government involvement it to prevent
>>>>>>>> crime - real crime, not some sort of regulatory nonsense - crime like
>>>>>>>> theft (taking your money and not providing product) or gross fraud (most
>>>>>>>> of what passes for anti-fraud law is really an excuse to relieve people
>>>>>>>> of the responsibility to do their own due diligence).

>>>>>>>> For a couple small scale examples of free markets, look at garage sales
>>>>>>>> and auctions.  In both cases people offer a product and other people try
>>>>>>>> to obtain that product.  The sellers ask a price and the buyers
>>>>>>>> negotiate that price - those negotiations are made with both the seller
>>>>>>>> and the other buyers.  In the end both buyers and sellers leave
>>>>>>>> satisfied - a price has been agreed upon that causes both sides to get
>>>>>>>> what they want - or no sale happens.  No force, no coercion, just free
>>>>>>>> trade.

>>>>>>>> Now, before you say that will only work on the small scale of yard
>>>>>>>> sales, you are wrong - it works everywhere on whatever scale you can
>>>>>>>> choose.  You don't notice the auction going on when you go into Walmart,
>>>>>>>> but you look at the camping equipment, check the quality, compare the
>>>>>>>> price, and then make your bid (you either buy it, or you don't).  If
>>>>>>>> Walmart has priced it too high, you keep your money and look elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>    If the price is low, they sell a lot of them, and realize they could
>>>>>>>> ask more, so they raise the price.

>>>>> Sorry, I missed this last time.

>>>>> For the most part there is a big difference between garage sales and
>>>>> Walmart.  Garage sales are extracting some value from "stuff" so any
>>>>> money is profit.  Walmart, or any other retail business, needs to set
>>>>> prices high enough to cover their costs plus make a profit but low
>>>>> enough to get my business in preference to the competition.  Your
>>>>> auction idea is only part of the mix.  One of the reasons the old
>>>>> Montgomery Wards went belly up was their distribution costs got so far
>>>>> out of line that they could not sell cheap enough to compete.  There
>>>>> are many more examples of that.

>>>>Again your lack of understanding about how markets work makes it
>>>>impossible for you to comprehend the discussion.  The market aspect of
>>>>businesses like Walmart is absolutely no different from the market
>>>>aspect of a yard sale.  Buyers and sellers seek a sale based on VALUE -
>>>>and remember that value is ALWAYS subjective so when expenses go up,
>>>>that figures into the auction - but only to the seller, the buyer still
>>>>must determine value for himself.  Just because some businesses cannot
>>>>compete does not change that equation at all.  When Wards sells a widget
>>>>for $100 that you can get at Walmart for $75, people will make their
>>>>auction choice and place their bid at Walmart.  Wards then has a choice,
>>>>find a way to add more value (customer service for example) or find a
>>>>way to reduce the price, or go out of business.  Every one of those
>>>>options is simply a part of the economic auction.

>>>>And, of course, if an item becomes too expensive for the value it
>>>>provides, people will quit buying it completely.  That is the market in
>>>>action - no one is guaranteed that whatever it is they are selling,
>>>>whether it be widgets or labor, that they will find a buyer.  And the
>>>>higher the costs (or more accurately the lower the value), the fewer
>>>>buyers they will find.  That is exactly the way free markets are
>>>>supposed to work.

>>>One of us is confused, that much I am sure of.  

>>>Garage sales are all profit.  The investment is written off unless
>>>they are perpetual flea market type things.

>>>There is a limit to the elasticity of the market.  A can of corn is
>>>fixed in my mind at 5 for $1.  That is what it sold for when I was
>>>working my way through school.  If I want to eat now I cannot match
>>>that price but that is all I see that it is worth.  Now i'm stuck with
>>>paying $1 at Walmart or more somewhere else or going hungry.  Yeah, I
>>>can plant my own but the nickle bag of seed now is $1.29 and I will
>>>starve waiting for it to grow.  The net result is I will buy the corn
>>>or it's equivalent whether or not I am willing to pay the price. Needs
>>>must.

>>>Now if you want to go to luxury goods we have a different issue.
>>>Luxury generally understood to be things we can live without.

>>>>>>>> Every day, every transaction is part of the auction - unless the
>>>>>>>> government gets involved and changes the rules.  Your problem is that
>>>>>>>> you are scared to death of the freedom that comes with a market economy,
>>>>>>>> and you want to be protected from yourself, so you want the government
>>>>>>>> to step in and regulate everything.

>>>>> You are misreading me.  I am quite content to let the market set
>>>>> pricing.

>>>>No, you aren't.  You refuse to let the market set the price for labor.

>>>Not totally true.  I point out that there are fallacies in the idea
>>>that we can expect to pay little and charge a lot.  

>>>Henry Ford figured it out when he increased worker pay and decreased
>>>automobile cost to where his workers could buy the product they
>>>produced.  OTOH Alexander Winton believed that motor cars should be
>>>hand built and anybody who wanted one should come up with the money.
>>>When is the last time you saw a WInton?

>>>>> The protections I want from the government are along the lines of
>>>>> assuring the product is what the box says it is and, in the case of
>>>>> food and medicine that it is prepared and packaged in a clean
>>>>> environment with reasonably pure materials.  Individuals have no way
>>>>> of telling that on one hand but the potential for damage is great on
>>>>> the other.

>>>>Once more, your absolute dependence on a nanny government rears its ugly
>>>>head.  Do you really believe that the government is the only possible
>>>>way to obtain protection in the marketplace?  Have you ever heard of
>>>>Consumer Reports?  Underwriters Laboratory?  Civil courts?  Insurance
>>>>companies?  The government is not only NOT the only way to get
>>>>protection, it is not even the best - not by a long shot.

>>>Matter of fact is that we have a long history of minimal government
>>>involvement in pure food and drugs and it is a very sorry story.  Put
>>>the cocaine in the Coke bottle?  One way to keep customers, while they
>>>last.

>>>FWIW, insurance companies would not touch food and drug purity without
>>>laws to assure them unless they set up in independent seal of approval
>>>type thing.  Consumer reports would be a joke.  Underwriters Labs work
>>>for the Insurance business.  With no laws there would be no Court
>>>cases to pursue.    

>>>>>>>> You want to be lazy and never have
>>>>>>>> to do the work of protecting yourself - and (of course) you are so
>>>>>>>> arrogant that you believe that most people are incapable of protecting
>>>>>>>> themselves - so you demand that the government relieve them of any
>>>>>>>> responsibility for their own decisions.

>>>>> It's not a question of laziness or arrogance.  Few people have he
>>>>> knowledge or facilities to test every chemical compound they buy to
>>>>> make sure it is what the box says it is.  That is why the people
>>>>> delegate the chore to the government and supposedly fund them to do
>>>>> it.

>>>>Anyone too incompetent to look in consumer reports or do some research
>>>>on the internet, deserves the results they end up with.  But far more
>>>>importantly, a free market system will result in real competition with
>>>>the side effect that companies will promote their adherence to good
>>>>business practices.  This is somewhat like eBay where people proudly
>>>>brag about their 1 millionth customer and 97% satisfaction rating.  In a
>>>>market without government involvement, companies will advertise that
>>>>they have the Consumers Insurance seal of quality proving that they are
>>>>a good place to do business.

>>>You really do not get it.  Without laws Consumer Reports would not
>>>exist.  Manufacturers would be free to change the formula as they saw
>>>fit so good bye to consistency of product.  The Good Housekeeping Seal
>>>might come back if it was not scammed too often.  OTOH with no law
>>>anybody could put it on their box.  

>>>Ebay has turned into a bot dominated screw job hardly worth bothering
>>>with.  That's assuming what one is buying is not junk bought with a
>>>"no guarantee, no return" clause.  Even that stuff one is bidding
>>>against a bot to run up the price.  

>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I am quite willing to accept the job of watching my
>>>>>>>> own back, and am quite willing to accept the consequences for failing to
>>>>>>>> do a good job of it.

>>>>> I do not know if you are really that talented, that arrogant, that
>>>>> naive, or that stupid.  You pick.

>>>>You don't need to be very talented to do a little market research, and
>>>>understand how markets work.

>>>I do not think you really understand markets.  At least I cannot see
>>>how your version could be better.  

>>>>>>>> But far more importantly, I believe that the vast
>>>>>>>> majority of people are capable of doing the same thing, and those who
>>>>>>>> aren't are not my problem - their families, friends, neighbors,
>>>>>>>> churches, civic organizations and other people who know them personally
>>>>>>>> can take on that task - or just leave them to learn the hard way.

>>>>> I think most of them profoundly disagree with you.  I hear a lot more
>>>>> folks complaining that about the lack of oversight than I do about
>>>>> wanting to do their own.  Few folks want to need to test for poison in
>>>>> their baby formula.  It would seem that if my numbers are anywhere
>>>>> near correct then in any semblance of a representative government that
>>>>> would become a government function.

>>>>Your position here is that because people have been brainwashed into
>>>>believing a bad system is the only choice they have, that we should
>>>>continue using that bad system.

>>>No.  My position is folks have been screwed enough that they want it
>>>stopped.  Aside from the harm done most folks want a reasonable level
>>>of security and stability in their lives so they can spend less time
>>>staying alive and more time enjoying life.  

>>>>>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>>>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear and help
>>>>>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.

>>>>> No, the profound disagreement is over begging.  If they depend on me
>>>>> they have to beg from me.  If they get help from the government it is
>>>>> an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.

>>>>That might be the stupidest thing you wrote in this entire post.  No one
>>>>is ENTITLED to have the government GIVE things to them.  The simple fact
>>>>that they got stuff in the past is no reason to believe that they should
>>>>get it in the future.  If you think they deserve help, provide it, just
>>>>leave me out of your schemes.

>>>If you want out then move.  Either one is part of a society or they
>>>are not.  You want the benefits without the costs.  

>>>>>> A level playing field is a communist myth - no two people have the same
>>>>>> intellect, skills, talents, or contacts.  Any efforts to legislate
>>>>>> equality is doomed to end in equal failure.

>>>>> Wrong focus.  A level playing field is quite possible in the business
>>>>> world.  Ability and talent are how well one plays the game not what
>>>>> the game is.  It is quite possible to define the game.  The problem we
>>>>> are dealing with now is that the rules are not the same for all the
>>>>> players.  That can, and should, be fixed.

>>>>The rules are not the same for everyone because of government
>>>>interference.  Get the government out of the game, and the playing field
>>>>has no choice but to be level.

>>>Do you ever read history?   If you tell me yes I have to wonder what
>>>because it is fulll of folks who unflattened the playing field.
>>--------------------------------

>>Mark, you either need to get back on your meds or put down your
>>shovel.  Probably both.

>>mike

>I have been waiting to respond to anything requiring much thought when
>I am more or less off them.  That's why I owe Bruce a reply or two.
>OTOH the ideas are correct as far as I can tell.  I might word them
>better.  One thing that is coming out is that despite the difference
>in rhetoric Bruce and I are not that far apart.