partially because I don't see the "free market" ever becoming truly free.
Just curious here... you never answered my question, so I'll repeat it.
How "exactly" is letting supply and demand dictate prices and allocate goods and services a negative or unfair? What's the alternative to free trade that would be more "cultural" (as you put it)?
sorry...I was trying to respond to like 3 posts at once knew I'd leave something out. First, in the US we currently live in a Cultural Economy. Basically we buy and sell ideas through gigantic marketing programs (is a Lexus really 10k more useful than a Toyota?, are Nike's 100 dollars more useful than New Balance?), because, for the most part all these goods are essentially the same and for capitalism to continue to move forward they need to sell us ever more disposable goods at a faster and faster rate. If you've got 20 minutes check this out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8).
Getting back to your question supply and demand (or pure capitalism) only works at a fair level when everyone has transparent information on every single thing they are going to purchase. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would cap various company's ability to market their products? Put differently, my 10 month old son will recognize nearly every junk food, fast food, beer, toilet paper, cleaning product, and so on brand within the next two years. He will have ideas one which one's are better/worse and why based on their advertising. He will (hopefully) never have had a McDonald's french fry by that time, but he will know that it is the most delicious thing in the world and that consuming it will make him happy. That's not good. However, if we eradicate the marketing industry won't that cripple our economy? Don't most people go to college now to get a job whose primary purpose is to convince others to buy their company's goods/services? Very few of us actually build/sell "things" it's more about creating the perceived "experience" one will have after they've bought that good/service.
Furthermore, will we set every price back to zero and eradicate our social history that has through various machinations of power decided what good/service is worth more than others? Who decided that housewives don't get paid for their services? Should that continue? Will migrant workers in Alabama get paid what they are worth (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/09/ala ... migra.html)? How about women and children in Indonesia sewing our sneakers and clothes, building our computers, car parts, and so on?
You see when left to the "free market" people will be desperate to get paid anything just for the chance to live. Essentially real wages will plummet even further, and workers will be asked to do more with less. This is already happening around the world, and you want to expand it? How will this not benefit those who are already rich?
partially because I don't see the "free market" ever becoming truly free.
Just curious here... you never answered my question, so I'll repeat it.
How "exactly" is letting supply and demand dictate prices and allocate goods and services a negative or unfair? What's the alternative to free trade that would be more "cultural" (as you put it)?
sorry...I was trying to respond to like 3 posts at once knew I'd leave something out. First, in the US we currently live in a Cultural Economy. Basically we buy and sell ideas through gigantic marketing programs (is a Lexus really 10k more useful than a Toyota?, are Nike's 100 dollars more useful than New Balance?), because, for the most part all these goods are essentially the same and for capitalism to continue to move forward they need to sell us ever more disposable goods at a faster and faster rate. If you've got 20 minutes check this out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8).
Getting back to your question supply and demand (or pure capitalism) only works at a fair level when everyone has transparent information on every single thing they are going to purchase. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would cap various company's ability to market their products? Put differently, my 10 month old son will recognize nearly every junk food, fast food, beer, toilet paper, cleaning product, and so on brand within the next two years. He will have ideas one which one's are better/worse and why based on their advertising. He will (hopefully) never have had a McDonald's french fry by that time, but he will know that it is the most delicious thing in the world and that consuming it will make him happy. That's not good. However, if we eradicate the marketing industry won't that cripple our economy? Don't most people go to college now to get a job whose primary purpose is to convince others to buy their company's goods/services? Very few of us actually build/sell "things" it's more about creating the perceived "experience" one will have after they've bought that good/service.
Furthermore, will we set every price back to zero and eradicate our social history that has through various machinations of power decided what good/service is worth more than others? Who decided that housewives don't get paid for their services? Should that continue? Will migrant workers in Alabama get paid what they are worth (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/09/ala ... migra.html)? How about women and children in Indonesia sewing our sneakers and clothes, building our computers, car parts, and so on?
You see when left to the "free market" people will be desperate to get paid anything just for the chance to live. Essentially real wages will plummet even further, and workers will be asked to do more with less. This is already happening around the world, and you want to expand it? How will this not benefit those who are already rich?
yeah i have to agree for supply and demand to work there probably has to be a perfectly competitive market, however these don't exist in real life, just theory
partially because I don't see the "free market" ever becoming truly free.
Just curious here... you never answered my question, so I'll repeat it.
How "exactly" is letting supply and demand dictate prices and allocate goods and services a negative or unfair? What's the alternative to free trade that would be more "cultural" (as you put it)?
sorry...I was trying to respond to like 3 posts at once knew I'd leave something out. First, in the US we currently live in a Cultural Economy. Basically we buy and sell ideas through gigantic marketing programs (is a Lexus really 10k more useful than a Toyota?, are Nike's 100 dollars more useful than New Balance?), because, for the most part all these goods are essentially the same and for capitalism to continue to move forward they need to sell us ever more disposable goods at a faster and faster rate. If you've got 20 minutes check this out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8).
Getting back to your question supply and demand (or pure capitalism) only works at a fair level when everyone has transparent information on every single thing they are going to purchase. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would cap various company's ability to market their products? Put differently, my 10 month old son will recognize nearly every junk food, fast food, beer, toilet paper, cleaning product, and so on brand within the next two years. He will have ideas one which one's are better/worse and why based on their advertising. He will (hopefully) never have had a McDonald's french fry by that time, but he will know that it is the most delicious thing in the world and that consuming it will make him happy. That's not good. However, if we eradicate the marketing industry won't that cripple our economy? Don't most people go to college now to get a job whose primary purpose is to convince others to buy their company's goods/services? Very few of us actually build/sell "things" it's more about creating the perceived "experience" one will have after they've bought that good/service.
Furthermore, will we set every price back to zero and eradicate our social history that has through various machinations of power decided what good/service is worth more than others? Who decided that housewives don't get paid for their services? Should that continue? Will migrant workers in Alabama get paid what they are worth (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/09/ala ... migra.html)? How about women and children in Indonesia sewing our sneakers and clothes, building our computers, car parts, and so on?
You see when left to the "free market" people will be desperate to get paid anything just for the chance to live. Essentially real wages will plummet even further, and workers will be asked to do more with less. This is already happening around the world, and you want to expand it? How will this not benefit those who are already rich?
I appreciate your comments in your reply to my earlier post but think it would be good if you read Vinny Goomba’s response to the racism issue as he worded it better than I ever could.
There is one thing I feel compelled to comment on in this most recent post of yours. Your last paragraph states that when left to the “free market…real wages will plummet…” and that “this is already happening around the world”. I thought earlier in one of your posts it was stated the free market doesn’t exist. So, how can something that doesn’t exist be known to make things worse? We don’t have a free market now, we have a distorted corporatist/government interventionist market that is messing up the economy. Further distortion to the market will further mess up the economy. By removing the distortion, i.e allowing for a free market, real wages might plummet, but in turn so to will prices and the cost of living. Competition creates an opportunity for lower prices because someone will always be looking to make a profit by undercutting their competitors. Crony Capitalism/Corporatism prevents this through extenuating protectionisms enacted through regulations that prevents many smaller companies from being inventive in their attempts to compete.
The fact of the matter is, if corporations were not so heavily protected through regulations by the government other smaller entities would more appropriately be able to compete with them, potentially offering better products/services at a lower price for those with less disposable income. Corporations thrive on the masses and selling items to the masses. If prices get so out of hand and the masses are no longer able to buy up their shit, they will have to shift how they price things.
Before I begin... I must say... you really don't answer this question at all:
What's the alternative to free trade that would be more cultural (as you put it)?
So please do so in your response. I read and will respond to several paragraphs. The least you could do is answer the second portion of the original question posed now for the third time.
sorry...I was trying to respond to like 3 posts at once knew I'd leave something out. First, in the US we currently live in a Cultural Economy. Basically we buy and sell ideas through gigantic marketing programs (is a Lexus really 10k more useful than a Toyota?, are Nike's 100 dollars more useful than New Balance?), because, for the most part all these goods are essentially the same and for capitalism to continue to move forward they need to sell us ever more disposable goods at a faster and faster rate. If you've got 20 minutes check this out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8).
Sorry. I don't buy this at all. Clearly, Lexus must be worth 10k (or whatever the amount is) more or they would eventually take a loss, and if they continued to take a loss they would go out of business. Aside - I hate the Lexus Christmas commercials and have sworn off ever purchasing one because of them. I don't think Nike's are worth $100 more than New Balance in this world I live in. So, I can't comment there.
But, my premise is if the market doesn't demand the product (assuming costs are constant), it won't sell at 10k more than something else. Sure, there are elements that alter demand. I think there are certainly industrial make-ups like monopolostic competition where advertising matters more, but I don't see why that's a big deal. If you don't like ads, don't pay attention. I don't think people are inherently stupid enough to buy things they don't want repetitively.
Getting back to your question supply and demand (or pure capitalism) only works at a fair level when everyone has transparent information on every single thing they are going to purchase.
You say "only works at a fair level".... who decides fair? You? I'd rather have the market decide then you... or a government bureaucrat. Anyway, I think people have the necessary information to make purchases.
Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would cap various company's ability to market their products? Put differently, my 10 month old son will recognize nearly every junk food, fast food, beer, toilet paper, cleaning product, and so on brand within the next two years. He will have ideas one which one's are better/worse and why based on their advertising. He will (hopefully) never have had a McDonald's french fry by that time, but he will know that it is the most delicious thing in the world and that consuming it will make him happy. That's not good.
No offense, but you're all over the place with your arguments. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul would cap marketing at all.... I suppose you are since you're bringing that up. Why? I have no clue. Once again, I think we have a fundamental disagreement that human beings are innately sheep. I don't think they are, you seem to think they are. To clarify... Do I think people like McDonalds because of ads? No. Sure, ads may sway some to check a product or service (like Mcdonalds fries) out. But, people go back to McDonalds because it tastes good and is relatively inexpensive. Is it bad for you? Yes. But, it tastes good and is cheap... that's why people go back.... not the ads. Do I advocate McDonalds food? Nope. But, I'll continue to have it on occasion.
However, if we eradicate the marketing industry won't that cripple our economy? Don't most people go to college now to get a job whose primary purpose is to convince others to buy their company's goods/services? Very few of us actually build/sell "things" it's more about creating the perceived "experience" one will have after they've bought that good/service.
Once again, I'm not (nor is Ron Paul) advocating eradicating the marketing industry and I have no clue why you're bringing that up at all here. To me, it's not even slightly relevant or your not doing a good job of explaining why it is relevant. As for your latter point regarding jobs post-college in marketing, I can see what you're saying there. But, I don't completely agree. There are plenty of innovators, but certainly not enough. I don't think most people would consider themselves employed in the marketing industry
Furthermore, will we set every price back to zero and eradicate our social history that has through various machinations of power decided what good/service is worth more than others?
Huh? So, I guess what you're saying is marketing fools people into overvaluing products that aren't more valuable. Once again, I disagree. People make decisions based on their wants. They aren't sheep.
Will migrant workers in Alabama get paid what they are worth (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/09/ala ... migra.html)? How about women and children in Indonesia sewing our sneakers and clothes, building our computers, car parts, and so on?
They wouldn't take the job, if they had a higher paying alternative... would they? So, in that sense,... no ones' forcing them to take it. Moreover, what's the alternative? Please, don't continue to dodge the "what's the alternative?" question.
You see when left to the "free market" people will be desperate to get paid anything just for the chance to live.
I don't agree. Many people, even working for low wages overseas,.... are making higher incomes than their parents. In other words, (taking the global recession out of the equation) in many cases, their economic circumstances are improving. And even if they aren't... I will once again ask the question that continues to be unanswered.... what's the alternative?
Essentially real wages will plummet even further, and workers will be asked to do more with less. This is already happening around the world, and you want to expand it? How will this not benefit those who are already rich?
I'd argue the world has become more "socialistic".... and less "capitalistic" in a lot of ways. Government as a percentage of GDP has grown, and grown. Yet, to counter you... real wages according to you "are plummeting and will plummet even further".... and I'm assuming.. you want more government as the solution. Despite the obvious rise in government/gdp. I may be incorrect though, because you haven't offered an alternative to the market based system of allocating goods and services.
Anyone notice on the debate tallest candidate on left heading right...
strongest in appearance down to smallest perhaps less forceful appearing candidates on the right
of the TV screen
I hopefully some undecideds who watch a show for its differing view point see it. I don't particularly care for Maddow, it has nothing to do with her politics, i enjoy hearing the other side, it is her delivery. Her voice burns my brain. It is akin to hearing Ann Coulter speak...they both drive me bonkers...
she speaks the truth, I wouldn't necessarily call it a plug, but it is definitely the truth. I also don't think she should have used the GOP qualifier in referring to him...he is the ONLY candidate on either side
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Rachel Maddow is a cartoon, like the rest of her kind.
I don't care what Yogi Bear, Bugs Bunny, or Homer Simpson think, why should I care what she thinks?
can you point me somewhere to where she blatantly lies like hannity or o'reilly!?? ... i think it's unfair to throw all these pundits in the same pot and call them all the same thing ...
I hopefully some undecideds who watch a show for its differing view point see it. I don't particularly care for Maddow, it has nothing to do with her politics, i enjoy hearing the other side, it is her delivery. Her voice burns my brain. It is akin to hearing Ann Coulter speak...they both drive me bonkers...
she speaks the truth, I wouldn't necessarily call it a plug, but it is definitely the truth. I also don't think she should have used the GOP qualifier in referring to him...he is the ONLY candidate on either side
i would say it's a plug because she made a point of emphasizing it when she didn't have to and also when she mentions where he is in the iowa polling ...
one of the major talking points amongst the GOP is BO's "soft" stance on Iran ... so, although I do believe BO will continue to support the MIC ... he isn't out there campaigning or building a case for war like his GOP counterparts ... so, if we were to categorize likelihood of war with all the candidates ... only paul and BO would fall in the not likely category ...
I'll be real, I don't think Ron Paul had the debate he needed to have last night, which is upsetting. From my vantage point, Fox did what they wanted to do, which was paint him like a person who is defending Iran and their government. And he fell for it.
I wish he said something like more military support me than any other candidate and talked more about isolationism and how Iran's military desires, although he doesn't support them, is none of our business. And then brought it back to the horrible domestic economy. That's the type of candidate people want. They don't want more wars and want our troops home, but they also don't want a candidate defending countries like Iran (that tend to have a pretty unfavorable view). When he jumps in there, he seems to get lost in the weeds. Politically, it's not wise and fox baited him into it. My concern is... he continues to fall for it.
Got to say it was upsetting because I know he's capable of answering those attacking questions in a politically wise, yet still honorable to his position, manner.
Rachel Maddow is a cartoon, like the rest of her kind.
I don't care what Yogi Bear, Bugs Bunny, or Homer Simpson think, why should I care what she thinks?
can you point me somewhere to where she blatantly lies like hannity or o'reilly!?? ... i think it's unfair to throw all these pundits in the same pot and call them all the same thing ...
I'll be real, I don't think Ron Paul had the debate he needed to have last night, which is upsetting. From my vantage point, Fox did what they wanted to do, which was paint him like a person who is defending Iran and their government. And he fell for it.
I wish he said something like more military support me than any other candidate and talked more about isolationism and how Iran's military desires, although he doesn't support them, is none of our business. And then brought it back to the horrible domestic economy. That's the type of candidate people want. They don't want more wars and want our troops home, but they also don't want a candidate defending countries like Iran (that tend to have a pretty unfavorable view). When he jumps in there, he seems to get lost in the weeds. Politically, it's not wise and fox baited him into it. My concern is... he continues to fall for it.
Got to say it was upsetting because I know he's capable of answering those attacking questions in a politically wise, yet still honorable to his position, manner.
i missed the debate last nite but i mentioned this during the last one ... and if you've been paying attention to the primary reason why i support ron paul is because ultimately - the establishment needs to be taken on ... and so, it is no wonder that the establishment is going to fight back ...
i do find it kind of ironic that it is the right wing outlets that have been the most damaging to paul ...
I'll be real, I don't think Ron Paul had the debate he needed to have last night, which is upsetting. From my vantage point, Fox did what they wanted to do, which was paint him like a person who is defending Iran and their government. And he fell for it.
I wish he said something like more military support me than any other candidate and talked more about isolationism and how Iran's military desires, although he doesn't support them, is none of our business. And then brought it back to the horrible domestic economy. That's the type of candidate people want. They don't want more wars and want our troops home, but they also don't want a candidate defending countries like Iran (that tend to have a pretty unfavorable view). When he jumps in there, he seems to get lost in the weeds. Politically, it's not wise and fox baited him into it. My concern is... he continues to fall for it.
Got to say it was upsetting because I know he's capable of answering those attacking questions in a politically wise, yet still honorable to his position, manner.
i missed the debate last nite but i mentioned this during the last one ... and if you've been paying attention to the primary reason why i support ron paul is because ultimately - the establishment needs to be taken on ... and so, it is no wonder that the establishment is going to fight back ...
i do find it kind of ironic that it is the right wing outlets that have been the most damaging to paul ...
makes it all seem pretty transparent doesn't it?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
you think Hannity and the like will ever just simply admit it? I mean, it won't matter to most people anyway in the end, no one pays attention
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
you think Hannity and the like will ever just simply admit it? I mean, it won't matter to most people anyway in the end, no one pays attention
sort of like waiting for OJ to admit killing his ex-wife ...
I guess you are right...it will just be the known thing that people stop caring about...fantastic...I think I just died a little inside thinking about this
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Before I begin... I must say... you really don't answer this question at all:
What's the alternative to free trade that would be more cultural (as you put it)?
I did respond to it. I was basically saying that you are suggesting that free trade is based in supply and demand (presumably of goods), and I am saying that the time of a "free market" centered around industrial goods is long past. We now live in a market that is centered around the purchase and sale of culture - something that cannot easily be quantified into supply and demand because the worth of these goods, services, and ideas are based in social constructs of what it is worth. The "free market" cannot encapsulate it because the way you are trying to describe it (supply 'n demand) necessarily decontextualizes why something is demanded in a Cultural Economy. Cultural trade is what we do right now, it's not an alternative to the free market. So I was answering your question, but perhaps not clearly enough - sorry. As for an alternative I'll get to it in your later questions.
So please do so in your response. I read and will respond to several paragraphs. The least you could do is answer the second portion of the original question posed now for the third time.
sorry...I was trying to respond to like 3 posts at once knew I'd leave something out. First, in the US we currently live in a Cultural Economy. Basically we buy and sell ideas through gigantic marketing programs (is a Lexus really 10k more useful than a Toyota?, are Nike's 100 dollars more useful than New Balance?), because, for the most part all these goods are essentially the same and for capitalism to continue to move forward they need to sell us ever more disposable goods at a faster and faster rate. If you've got 20 minutes check this out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8).
Sorry. I don't buy this at all. Clearly, Lexus must be worth 10k (or whatever the amount is) more or they would eventually take a loss, and if they continued to take a loss they would go out of business. Aside - I hate the Lexus Christmas commercials and have sworn off ever purchasing one because of them. I don't think Nike's are worth $100 more than New Balance in this world I live in. So, I can't comment there.
But, my premise is if the market doesn't demand the product (assuming costs are constant), it won't sell at 10k more than something else. Sure, there are elements that alter demand. I think there are certainly industrial make-ups like monopolostic competition where advertising matters more, but I don't see why that's a big deal. If you don't like ads, don't pay attention. I don't think people are inherently stupid enough to buy things they don't want repetitively.
You think a Lexus with it's same frame, body, and so on as a Toyota won't sell if it's not worth 10k more? It's literally the same thing as a Toyota, but because the Lexus "brand" has been formulated to be worth more people are willing to pay. In a Cultural Economy (one that we live in) this happens b/c Lexus is "read" as being of a different class than a Toyota simply through advertising and the consensus of the people. In an industrial economy, people would care about how long something lasted, craftsmanship, and so on. We don't live in that type of economy anymore - so simple supply and demand doesn't accurately describe why people buy cell phones that break when dropped, a computer that will only be viable for 2-3 years, and so on. That's what the video outlines - in the 50s there was actually a science to how crappy a good could be that people would still pay for.
Getting back to your question supply and demand (or pure capitalism) only works at a fair level when everyone has transparent information on every single thing they are going to purchase.
You say "only works at a fair level".... who decides fair? You? I'd rather have the market decide then you... or a government bureaucrat. Anyway, I think people have the necessary information to make purchases.
People have the necessary information to make purchases? I disagree. A simple look at the food industry and how they've been able to alter the food pyramid, make commercials like the Meat Industry, Corn Industry, and so on have that make their foods out to be more nutritious than they are is evidence of this. Essentially, people have a bunch of information that they would have to go back to the source of just to understand why it was produced and to what ends.
Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would cap various company's ability to market their products? Put differently, my 10 month old son will recognize nearly every junk food, fast food, beer, toilet paper, cleaning product, and so on brand within the next two years. He will have ideas one which one's are better/worse and why based on their advertising. He will (hopefully) never have had a McDonald's french fry by that time, but he will know that it is the most delicious thing in the world and that consuming it will make him happy. That's not good.
No offense, but you're all over the place with your arguments. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul would cap marketing at all.... I suppose you are since you're bringing that up. Why? I have no clue. Once again, I think we have a fundamental disagreement that human beings are innately sheep. I don't think they are, you seem to think they are. To clarify... Do I think people like McDonalds because of ads? No. Sure, ads may sway some to check a product or service (like Mcdonalds fries) out. But, people go back to McDonalds because it tastes good and is relatively inexpensive. Is it bad for you? Yes. But, it tastes good and is cheap... that's why people go back.... not the ads. Do I advocate McDonalds food? Nope. But, I'll continue to have it on occasion.
You're taking my argument to the extreme. People are not innately sheep, but they are certainly influenced by advertisers. And children are certainly more influenced by commercials, because until the age of 12 most take them as "truth". Sadly advertisers have learned that getting kids at this age to like their brand will best set their consumption patterns in the future.
However, if we eradicate the marketing industry won't that cripple our economy? Don't most people go to college now to get a job whose primary purpose is to convince others to buy their company's goods/services? Very few of us actually build/sell "things" it's more about creating the perceived "experience" one will have after they've bought that good/service.
Once again, I'm not (nor is Ron Paul) advocating eradicating the marketing industry and I have no clue why you're bringing that up at all here. To me, it's not even slightly relevant or your not doing a good job of explaining why it is relevant. As for your latter point regarding jobs post-college in marketing, I can see what you're saying there. But, I don't completely agree. There are plenty of innovators, but certainly not enough. I don't think most people would consider themselves employed in the marketing industry
Marketing and Branding are the crux of our economy today. You are stuck trying to defend an economic policy that is outdated. Take me for example, not only do I teach, and research, but I'm supposed to do service to the community so that the school can use my efforts in order to brand my University as better than University X so that they can get more students to enroll. They don't actually care what it is that I'm doing so long as it sounds good. The same can be said about many other businesses. Most of what people are doing is helping to better brand their company.
Furthermore, will we set every price back to zero and eradicate our social history that has through various machinations of power decided what good/service is worth more than others?
Huh? So, I guess what you're saying is marketing fools people into overvaluing products that aren't more valuable. Once again, I disagree. People make decisions based on their wants. They aren't sheep.
Yes I am saying that marketing mixed with cultural norms fools people into overvaluing products that aren't valuable. This is what our current economy is about. Is going to college worth $25k, is a house worth $350k, a car worth $40k? Increasingly, the answer is no. But people bought those things, and keep buying those things, because it's part of realizing "the American Dream".
Who decided that housewives don't get paid for their services? Should that continue?
Who would pay housewives in your world? The government?
It would be nice if a government that often has people run on family values actually gave measures for people to value family. But that wasn't the point I was making. What I was saying is that who decided that paying women for their labor in the house was worth nothing? Isn't it worth something? But since you can't put it into your simple supply and demand thing it doesn't work.
Will migrant workers in Alabama get paid what they are worth (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/09/ala ... migra.html)? How about women and children in Indonesia sewing our sneakers and clothes, building our computers, car parts, and so on?
They wouldn't take the job, if they had a higher paying alternative... would they? So, in that sense,... no ones' forcing them to take it. Moreover, what's the alternative? Please, don't continue to dodge the "what's the alternative?" question.
Oftentimes these people DID have an alternative - subsistence farming or lives. But then Nike or Gap or some Golf Course decides to encroach on their land through whatever bullshit eminent domain rule they use, and destroy their land. So yeah they could choose not to work in the factory built on the only land they knew, but what discernable skills do they have in the supply and demand world? None. So they either work for Nike or turn into prostitutes. Some choice.
You see when left to the "free market" people will be desperate to get paid anything just for the chance to live.
I don't agree. Many people, even working for low wages overseas,.... are making higher incomes than their parents. In other words, (taking the global recession out of the equation) in many cases, their economic circumstances are improving. And even if they aren't... I will once again ask the question that continues to be unanswered.... what's the alternative? Once again the alternative to overseas is that we give the land back and let those people alone. Their economic circumstances are improving of course, because they didn't have or NEED money before.
Essentially real wages will plummet even further, and workers will be asked to do more with less. This is already happening around the world, and you want to expand it? How will this not benefit those who are already rich?
I'd argue the world has become more "socialistic".... and less "capitalistic" in a lot of ways. Government as a percentage of GDP has grown, and grown. Yet, to counter you... real wages according to you "are plummeting and will plummet even further".... and I'm assuming.. you want more government as the solution. Despite the obvious rise in government/gdp. I may be incorrect though, because you haven't offered an alternative to the market based system of allocating goods and services.
What evidence do you have of the world becoming more socialist? There's so much evidence to the contrary that I don't know where to begin other than to suggest you do some readings. I'd be happy to give you a list, but you clearly didn't even watch the 20 minute youtube post I tossed up - which is understandable - but I'm not going to waste time suggesting things if you won't do it. I'd suggest moving toward a more socialist treatment of people, and less for businesses is what we need to do. It's worked pretty well in the past, until rich people saw their power waning and wanted to wrestle it back.
Also, as I'm thinking about it Inlet, aren't some of you guys making the argument that people aren't voting for the great Ron Paul because he's not getting the airtime? I thought people had all the information they need, and access to it? If that's the case then why complain when he's disparaged on FOX or MSNBC or Comedy Central? Aren't people smart enough to vote for their man?
What's the alternative to free trade that would be more cultural (as you put it)? I know you say free-trade isn't free-trade. But, ummm... you don't offer an alternative. Or maybe it's buried somewhere and I can't see it.
I did respond to it. I was basically saying that you are suggesting that free trade is based in supply and demand (presumably of goods), and I am saying that the time of a "free market" centered around industrial goods is long past. We now live in a market that is centered around the purchase and sale of culture - something that cannot easily be quantified into supply and demand because the worth of these goods, services, and ideas are based in social constructs of what it is worth. The "free market" cannot encapsulate it because the way you are trying to describe it (supply 'n demand) necessarily decontextualizes why something is demanded in a Cultural Economy. Cultural trade is what we do right now, it's not an alternative to the free market. So I was answering your question, but perhaps not clearly enough - sorry. As for an alternative I'll get to it in your later questions.
I think you are putting words in my mouth. Free-trade could be defined as a situation in which prices are determined by supply and demand… AND… are the way resources are allocated. No offense, but you (in my opinion) simply dance around the question of “what’s the alternative”, especially in terms of resource allocation. Re-read your answer above you never once suggested an alternative. Your response it seems is “free-trade isn’t free trade”. My response back is it’s pretty damn close and what’s your alternative? And any additional item you add seems to point to a lack of knowledge (or maybe a dismissal) regarding market structure in economics. For instance, the supply and demand dynamics are different for perfect competition, oligopolies, monopolies and monopolistic competition. You seem to stick with perfectly competitive markets. Anyway, this point on market structure pretty much addresses all of your points. Feel free to read on each and the specifics, I don’t feel like typing too much more here.
You think a Lexus with it's same frame, body, and so on as a Toyota won't sell if it's not worth 10k more? It's literally the same thing as a Toyota, but because the Lexus "brand" has been formulated to be worth more people are willing to pay. In a Cultural Economy (one that we live in) this happens b/c Lexus is "read" as being of a different class than a Toyota simply through advertising and the consensus of the people. In an industrial economy, people would care about how long something lasted, craftsmanship, and so on. We don't live in that type of economy anymore - so simple supply and demand doesn't accurately describe why people buy cell phones that break when dropped, a computer that will only be viable for 2-3 years, and so on. That's what the video outlines - in the 50s there was actually a science to how crappy a good could be that people would still pay for.
See, you are simplifying beyond reality. To stick with your example and show it to be off, the truth is Lexus and Toyota are not exactly the same. Sometimes, the cars are straight up different. If that’s the case, typically the Lexus involves more expensive raw materials. When they are identical or very similar, there are large differences in amenities in features. As you probably know, people like amenities and features… especially those with extra capital. So, they buy it. Sure, the ads matter to distinguish products. That’s why I mentioned you should look into concepts like monopolistic competition and oligopoly where ads are more thoroughly used then perfect competition.
People have the necessary information to make purchases? I disagree. A simple look at the food industry and how they've been able to alter the food pyramid, make commercials like the Meat Industry, Corn Industry, and so on have that make their foods out to be more nutritious than they are is evidence of this. Essentially, people have a bunch of information that they would have to go back to the source of just to understand why it was produced and to what ends.
This is another example where you bypassed the question. I asked you “who determines fair: you? Or a government bureaucrat?” I’m curious of your answer that one because this gets at allocation of goods and services.
Getting to your point… I do think information is there, for the most part. Sure, there are circumstances where it’s not perfect information. But, in my opinion, the ability to see through problems with goods or services is probably improving. An example is the organic food market, which is taking off. People know hormones and whatnot may be harmful, so there’s certain products they are recommended to buy 'organic' now. That’s an “improvement” in information.
P.S. Meat and corn industry are probably perfectly competitive markets, so ads for corn aren’t for a specified corn producer, they are for the entire industry. Like I said, this industry is actually broken down further and knowledge about what meats, fruits, vegetables and dairy products health experts would recommend us to consume organically is becoming more evident… not less.
You're taking my argument to the extreme. People are not innately sheep, but they are certainly influenced by advertisers. And children are certainly more influenced by commercials, because until the age of 12 most take them as "truth". Sadly advertisers have learned that getting kids at this age to like their brand will best set their consumption patterns in the future.
I never said people aren’t influenced by advertisers. I just don’t think they buy strictly based on advertising like sheep. I also think there’s nothing wrong with advertisers advertising their products to any generation. I see lots of violations to the child only approach. When I watch a female oriented show with my wife, we see tons of female ads. When I watch football, I see ads for beer and trucks. When I watch Barney with my daughter, I see ads for toys. It’s called target marketing and I don’t think it would be wise for a truck producer to set their commercial time to follow Barney or Sesame Street.
Marketing and Branding are the crux of our economy today. You are stuck trying to defend an economic policy that is outdated. Take me for example, not only do I teach, and research, but I'm supposed to do service to the community so that the school can use my efforts in order to brand my University as better than University X so that they can get more students to enroll. They don't actually care what it is that I'm doing so long as it sounds good. The same can be said about many other businesses. Most of what people are doing is helping to better brand their company.
Marketing is important to certain industrial make-ups and less important to others. It depends on where the industry or firm lies on the HHI (or in terms of market concentration) how much they need to use advertising. A monopoly would not really need to engage in advertising. I haven’t seen a ton of Google or Microsoft commercials, for example (although they have the capital to put out more commercials than most), they arguably fall more to that end. As I already mentioned, firms towards the perfectly competitive end never ad for their particular company… instead it’s industry wide ads. So, the firms that engage in this most are oligopolies or monopolistic competitors… That’s why I’m saying everything you’re saying regarding free trade is already accounted for in various forms of economics.
As for branding… I think that’s been important forever. In fact, I think it’s actually a good thing that your University (or firms) think community service “betters their brand”. To me, that’s a good sign. And to me, that means that community service (which is not advertising) must affect preferences for goods/services or even schools.
Yes I am saying that marketing mixed with cultural norms fools people into overvaluing products that aren't valuable. This is what our current economy is about. Is going to college worth $25k, is a house worth $350k, a car worth $40k? Increasingly, the answer is no. But people bought those things, and keep buying those things, because it's part of realizing "the American Dream".
So, you’re saying products aren’t valuable at all? Hmmm..
My thinking goes like this: Joe may value a rock. He may need it for something, like it, whatever. I may think the rock did a good job of covering a real small hole, but is ugly and is a nuisance otherwise… because of this I would be willing to get rid of it. If Joe offers to buy the rock from me for $100, and I sell it to him… did I sell him a useless product? I’d say no. He needed it or wanted it for some reason.
Further, to your examples of education, housing, cars… I agree that they may not always be worth it. But, I don’t see how this has to do with free-trade. I mean these types of purchases have always existed. Moreover, I don’t see how I can say what’s best for someone else if they want it. For example, what happens to the person who does think $25k for college is worth it and graduates to be highly successful? Or the couple who buy the $350k home and pay it off within 10 years? Some people certainly engage in purchases they shouldn’t have. But, there’s only one way for them (and society) to learn it was a bad idea… don’t bail them out after they engaged in the bad idea. Instead, let them learn from it so they never do it again. Moral hazard exists and it’s bad.
It would be nice if a government that often has people run on family values actually gave measures for people to value family. But that wasn't the point I was making. What I was saying is that who decided that paying women for their labor in the house was worth nothing? Isn't it worth something? But since you can't put it into your simple supply and demand thing it doesn't work.
So, you want government to pay stay-at-home moms? Seriously?
Further, I completely disagree that women's labor in the house is worth nothing. Unfortunately, it seems to me that you think the only value in life is “monetary”. I disagree. This is the perfect example of the term “opportunity cost”. Look it up. Clearly, Moms (or Dads) who stay at home place a value on that. My wife stays home. We value that. It’s worth something to us. Opportunity costis an incredibly important part of economics and the concept does fit into the supply and demand model.
Oftentimes these people DID have an alternative - subsistence farming or lives. But then Nike or Gap or some Golf Course decides to encroach on their land through whatever bullshit eminent domain rule they use, and destroy their land. So yeah they could choose not to work in the factory built on the only land they knew, but what discernable skills do they have in the supply and demand world? None. So they either work for Nike or turn into prostitutes. Some choice.
ha ha… fair-minded much? I’m not necessarily condoning all practices used by Nike or whatever company. But, what I do respond is they make a choice to work for these companies. You can’t (or shouldn’t) ever be able to force someone to work. I don’t necessarily agree that companies (at least the majority) forced themselves on to peoples lands. I think they set up shop and the people weren’t making much from whatever they were doing before (be it farming or other), so they decided to work for the company. They gained skills from manufacturing, just like Americans did many moons ago.
Once again the alternative to overseas is that we give the land back and let those people alone. Their economic circumstances are improving of course, because they didn't have or NEED money before.
Well, “we” didn’t take it and “we” can’t give it back. Like I said before, they in most cases are making much better livings then their parents and their parents- parents.
Also, I find it hysterical that you are acting as though these people are worse off now. They many not be where we’d like them to be, but they are better off. As if they were better off when they farmed rice and tried to barter it for a meat product or any other good or service they could get their hands on. It’s silly.
What evidence do you have of the world becoming more socialist? There's so much evidence to the contrary that I don't know where to begin other than to suggest you do some readings. I'd be happy to give you a list, but you clearly didn't even watch the 20 minute youtube post I tossed up - which is understandable - but I'm not going to waste time suggesting things if you won't do it. I'd suggest moving toward a more socialist treatment of people, and less for businesses is what we need to do. It's worked pretty well in the past, until rich people saw their power waning and wanted to wrestle it back.
The evidence I would put forth is Government Spending/GDP, which has been increasing. In other words, government as a percent of the economy pretty much at large has been increasing.
Free trade with balanced world-wide trade, would actually be free-trade. But then you would first have to ask the corporate facist to let go of all their holds on resources around the world and let every individual country manage properly their own resources in a sustainable manner. Which we have already seen agreements around the world are a mess plus deteriorating and so that isnt happening quickly.
I can see where the Vatican is coming from with one global bank. (EEKS! )
Also, as I'm thinking about it Inlet, aren't some of you guys making the argument that people aren't voting for the great Ron Paul because he's not getting the airtime? I thought people had all the information they need, and access to it? If that's the case then why complain when he's disparaged on FOX or MSNBC or Comedy Central? Aren't people smart enough to vote for their man?
Fair point to some here, not sure to me though. Let me address it.
Like I've said, I think for the most part "consumers" are "fairly" well educated when they make a purchase. Sure, ads and other aspects can potentially influence the decision sometimes. But, in general, I think it's rare that ads "dictate" a purchase. In my opinion, the may "sway" or lead one to "try" something, which could bring them back... but, most often ads are used to differentiate products and build brand recognition.
For politics, I'd say the average "citizen" is not as well educated on a candidate as the average consumer on their product. Main reason is that they don't necessarily care about the candidate and think the process is pretty meaningless; they don't necessarily see how it affects them directly. Maybe the average "voter", rather than "citizen" is closer to average "consumer". But, in the end, I see there to be a distinction between politics and consumption, with consumption tending to have more credible information and politics less (think flip-flopping).
Regardless of the above, I don't think I (personally) have ever clamored for Ron Paul to get more air time. Feel free to look at past posts. To be fair, some of the reason he doesn't get as much airtime is because he's not a Bachmann type who interjects or a lead candidate who gets attacked and gets to retort for 30 additional seconds.
I did, however, say that I thought Fox wanted to bait Ron Paul with a question on Iran. And if you read that post, I basically said Ron Paul should've known it was coming and done a better job answering it. In truth, I was angry after that more at Ron Paul than Fox. I knew Fox isn't his fan, he should too and be more prepared or more "political" in his answer... he doesn't have to mislead, he can be straight with everyone, but do so with more knowledge of his audience.
I believe there is a little bit of hell that is colder than average right now
Whether he wins the election or not, I am so glad that more Americans are starting to see through the typical GOP neo-con candidates. It may not be enough this time around, but hopefully in the future Paul's message will continue to help shape policy...especially foreign
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
just read paul's position on energy ... :? ... if the issues of corruption didn't supersede everything else ... it would be hard pressed to vote for this guy ...
just read paul's position on energy ... :? ... if the issues of corruption didn't supersede everything else ... it would be hard pressed to vote for this guy ...
Hypothetically speaking..
Let's say he gets elected. Let's say, as president, he changes his party support to Libertarian. America now has a third party president.. I think this opens the doorways on America's view of the two party system.. If people can start to understand the bullshit, maybe they will realize there are other ways.. Who knows. It's a step.
Let's say he gets elected. Let's say, as president, he changes his party support to Libertarian. America now has a third party president.. I think this opens the doorways on America's view of the two party system.. If people can start to understand the bullshit, maybe they will realize there are other ways.. Who knows. It's a step.
he won't change his party affiliation ...
either way tho - i've already committed in saying ron paul is who i would vote for ... my only point in my previous post was to see if his die hard supporters could justify his energy policies ... which i suspect they will not ...
Comments
Getting back to your question supply and demand (or pure capitalism) only works at a fair level when everyone has transparent information on every single thing they are going to purchase. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would cap various company's ability to market their products? Put differently, my 10 month old son will recognize nearly every junk food, fast food, beer, toilet paper, cleaning product, and so on brand within the next two years. He will have ideas one which one's are better/worse and why based on their advertising. He will (hopefully) never have had a McDonald's french fry by that time, but he will know that it is the most delicious thing in the world and that consuming it will make him happy. That's not good. However, if we eradicate the marketing industry won't that cripple our economy? Don't most people go to college now to get a job whose primary purpose is to convince others to buy their company's goods/services? Very few of us actually build/sell "things" it's more about creating the perceived "experience" one will have after they've bought that good/service.
Furthermore, will we set every price back to zero and eradicate our social history that has through various machinations of power decided what good/service is worth more than others? Who decided that housewives don't get paid for their services? Should that continue? Will migrant workers in Alabama get paid what they are worth (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/09/ala ... migra.html)? How about women and children in Indonesia sewing our sneakers and clothes, building our computers, car parts, and so on?
You see when left to the "free market" people will be desperate to get paid anything just for the chance to live. Essentially real wages will plummet even further, and workers will be asked to do more with less. This is already happening around the world, and you want to expand it? How will this not benefit those who are already rich?
yeah i have to agree for supply and demand to work there probably has to be a perfectly competitive market, however these don't exist in real life, just theory
I appreciate your comments in your reply to my earlier post but think it would be good if you read Vinny Goomba’s response to the racism issue as he worded it better than I ever could.
There is one thing I feel compelled to comment on in this most recent post of yours. Your last paragraph states that when left to the “free market…real wages will plummet…” and that “this is already happening around the world”. I thought earlier in one of your posts it was stated the free market doesn’t exist. So, how can something that doesn’t exist be known to make things worse? We don’t have a free market now, we have a distorted corporatist/government interventionist market that is messing up the economy. Further distortion to the market will further mess up the economy. By removing the distortion, i.e allowing for a free market, real wages might plummet, but in turn so to will prices and the cost of living. Competition creates an opportunity for lower prices because someone will always be looking to make a profit by undercutting their competitors. Crony Capitalism/Corporatism prevents this through extenuating protectionisms enacted through regulations that prevents many smaller companies from being inventive in their attempts to compete.
The fact of the matter is, if corporations were not so heavily protected through regulations by the government other smaller entities would more appropriately be able to compete with them, potentially offering better products/services at a lower price for those with less disposable income. Corporations thrive on the masses and selling items to the masses. If prices get so out of hand and the masses are no longer able to buy up their shit, they will have to shift how they price things.
What's the alternative to free trade that would be more cultural (as you put it)?
So please do so in your response. I read and will respond to several paragraphs. The least you could do is answer the second portion of the original question posed now for the third time.
Sorry. I don't buy this at all. Clearly, Lexus must be worth 10k (or whatever the amount is) more or they would eventually take a loss, and if they continued to take a loss they would go out of business. Aside - I hate the Lexus Christmas commercials and have sworn off ever purchasing one because of them. I don't think Nike's are worth $100 more than New Balance in this world I live in. So, I can't comment there.
But, my premise is if the market doesn't demand the product (assuming costs are constant), it won't sell at 10k more than something else. Sure, there are elements that alter demand. I think there are certainly industrial make-ups like monopolostic competition where advertising matters more, but I don't see why that's a big deal. If you don't like ads, don't pay attention. I don't think people are inherently stupid enough to buy things they don't want repetitively.
You say "only works at a fair level".... who decides fair? You? I'd rather have the market decide then you... or a government bureaucrat. Anyway, I think people have the necessary information to make purchases.
No offense, but you're all over the place with your arguments. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul would cap marketing at all.... I suppose you are since you're bringing that up. Why? I have no clue. Once again, I think we have a fundamental disagreement that human beings are innately sheep. I don't think they are, you seem to think they are. To clarify... Do I think people like McDonalds because of ads? No. Sure, ads may sway some to check a product or service (like Mcdonalds fries) out. But, people go back to McDonalds because it tastes good and is relatively inexpensive. Is it bad for you? Yes. But, it tastes good and is cheap... that's why people go back.... not the ads. Do I advocate McDonalds food? Nope. But, I'll continue to have it on occasion.
Once again, I'm not (nor is Ron Paul) advocating eradicating the marketing industry and I have no clue why you're bringing that up at all here. To me, it's not even slightly relevant or your not doing a good job of explaining why it is relevant. As for your latter point regarding jobs post-college in marketing, I can see what you're saying there. But, I don't completely agree. There are plenty of innovators, but certainly not enough. I don't think most people would consider themselves employed in the marketing industry
Huh? So, I guess what you're saying is marketing fools people into overvaluing products that aren't more valuable. Once again, I disagree. People make decisions based on their wants. They aren't sheep.
Who would pay housewives in your world? The government?
They wouldn't take the job, if they had a higher paying alternative... would they? So, in that sense,... no ones' forcing them to take it. Moreover, what's the alternative? Please, don't continue to dodge the "what's the alternative?" question.
I don't agree. Many people, even working for low wages overseas,.... are making higher incomes than their parents. In other words, (taking the global recession out of the equation) in many cases, their economic circumstances are improving. And even if they aren't... I will once again ask the question that continues to be unanswered.... what's the alternative?
I'd argue the world has become more "socialistic".... and less "capitalistic" in a lot of ways. Government as a percentage of GDP has grown, and grown. Yet, to counter you... real wages according to you "are plummeting and will plummet even further".... and I'm assuming.. you want more government as the solution. Despite the obvious rise in government/gdp. I may be incorrect though, because you haven't offered an alternative to the market based system of allocating goods and services.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
strongest in appearance down to smallest perhaps less forceful appearing candidates on the right
of the TV screen
perhaps subliminal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTHrbYll ... re=related
Rachel Maddow is a cartoon, like the rest of her kind.
I don't care what Yogi Bear, Bugs Bunny, or Homer Simpson think, why should I care what she thinks?
I hopefully some undecideds who watch a show for its differing view point see it. I don't particularly care for Maddow, it has nothing to do with her politics, i enjoy hearing the other side, it is her delivery. Her voice burns my brain. It is akin to hearing Ann Coulter speak...they both drive me bonkers...
she speaks the truth, I wouldn't necessarily call it a plug, but it is definitely the truth. I also don't think she should have used the GOP qualifier in referring to him...he is the ONLY candidate on either side
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
can you point me somewhere to where she blatantly lies like hannity or o'reilly!?? ... i think it's unfair to throw all these pundits in the same pot and call them all the same thing ...
i would say it's a plug because she made a point of emphasizing it when she didn't have to and also when she mentions where he is in the iowa polling ...
one of the major talking points amongst the GOP is BO's "soft" stance on Iran ... so, although I do believe BO will continue to support the MIC ... he isn't out there campaigning or building a case for war like his GOP counterparts ... so, if we were to categorize likelihood of war with all the candidates ... only paul and BO would fall in the not likely category ...
I wish he said something like more military support me than any other candidate and talked more about isolationism and how Iran's military desires, although he doesn't support them, is none of our business. And then brought it back to the horrible domestic economy. That's the type of candidate people want. They don't want more wars and want our troops home, but they also don't want a candidate defending countries like Iran (that tend to have a pretty unfavorable view). When he jumps in there, he seems to get lost in the weeds. Politically, it's not wise and fox baited him into it. My concern is... he continues to fall for it.
Got to say it was upsetting because I know he's capable of answering those attacking questions in a politically wise, yet still honorable to his position, manner.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I think it's fair.
i missed the debate last nite but i mentioned this during the last one ... and if you've been paying attention to the primary reason why i support ron paul is because ultimately - the establishment needs to be taken on ... and so, it is no wonder that the establishment is going to fight back ...
i do find it kind of ironic that it is the right wing outlets that have been the most damaging to paul ...
makes it all seem pretty transparent doesn't it?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
we've been saying it all along ...
you think Hannity and the like will ever just simply admit it? I mean, it won't matter to most people anyway in the end, no one pays attention
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
sort of like waiting for OJ to admit killing his ex-wife ...
I guess you are right...it will just be the known thing that people stop caring about...fantastic...I think I just died a little inside thinking about this
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It's the primary.
What evidence do you have of the world becoming more socialist? There's so much evidence to the contrary that I don't know where to begin other than to suggest you do some readings. I'd be happy to give you a list, but you clearly didn't even watch the 20 minute youtube post I tossed up - which is understandable - but I'm not going to waste time suggesting things if you won't do it. I'd suggest moving toward a more socialist treatment of people, and less for businesses is what we need to do. It's worked pretty well in the past, until rich people saw their power waning and wanted to wrestle it back.
What's the alternative to free trade that would be more cultural (as you put it)? I know you say free-trade isn't free-trade. But, ummm... you don't offer an alternative. Or maybe it's buried somewhere and I can't see it.
I think you are putting words in my mouth. Free-trade could be defined as a situation in which prices are determined by supply and demand… AND… are the way resources are allocated. No offense, but you (in my opinion) simply dance around the question of “what’s the alternative”, especially in terms of resource allocation. Re-read your answer above you never once suggested an alternative. Your response it seems is “free-trade isn’t free trade”. My response back is it’s pretty damn close and what’s your alternative? And any additional item you add seems to point to a lack of knowledge (or maybe a dismissal) regarding market structure in economics. For instance, the supply and demand dynamics are different for perfect competition, oligopolies, monopolies and monopolistic competition. You seem to stick with perfectly competitive markets. Anyway, this point on market structure pretty much addresses all of your points. Feel free to read on each and the specifics, I don’t feel like typing too much more here.
See, you are simplifying beyond reality. To stick with your example and show it to be off, the truth is Lexus and Toyota are not exactly the same. Sometimes, the cars are straight up different. If that’s the case, typically the Lexus involves more expensive raw materials. When they are identical or very similar, there are large differences in amenities in features. As you probably know, people like amenities and features… especially those with extra capital. So, they buy it. Sure, the ads matter to distinguish products. That’s why I mentioned you should look into concepts like monopolistic competition and oligopoly where ads are more thoroughly used then perfect competition.
This is another example where you bypassed the question. I asked you “who determines fair: you? Or a government bureaucrat?” I’m curious of your answer that one because this gets at allocation of goods and services.
Getting to your point… I do think information is there, for the most part. Sure, there are circumstances where it’s not perfect information. But, in my opinion, the ability to see through problems with goods or services is probably improving. An example is the organic food market, which is taking off. People know hormones and whatnot may be harmful, so there’s certain products they are recommended to buy 'organic' now. That’s an “improvement” in information.
P.S. Meat and corn industry are probably perfectly competitive markets, so ads for corn aren’t for a specified corn producer, they are for the entire industry. Like I said, this industry is actually broken down further and knowledge about what meats, fruits, vegetables and dairy products health experts would recommend us to consume organically is becoming more evident… not less.
I never said people aren’t influenced by advertisers. I just don’t think they buy strictly based on advertising like sheep. I also think there’s nothing wrong with advertisers advertising their products to any generation. I see lots of violations to the child only approach. When I watch a female oriented show with my wife, we see tons of female ads. When I watch football, I see ads for beer and trucks. When I watch Barney with my daughter, I see ads for toys. It’s called target marketing and I don’t think it would be wise for a truck producer to set their commercial time to follow Barney or Sesame Street.
Marketing is important to certain industrial make-ups and less important to others. It depends on where the industry or firm lies on the HHI (or in terms of market concentration) how much they need to use advertising. A monopoly would not really need to engage in advertising. I haven’t seen a ton of Google or Microsoft commercials, for example (although they have the capital to put out more commercials than most), they arguably fall more to that end. As I already mentioned, firms towards the perfectly competitive end never ad for their particular company… instead it’s industry wide ads. So, the firms that engage in this most are oligopolies or monopolistic competitors… That’s why I’m saying everything you’re saying regarding free trade is already accounted for in various forms of economics.
As for branding… I think that’s been important forever. In fact, I think it’s actually a good thing that your University (or firms) think community service “betters their brand”. To me, that’s a good sign. And to me, that means that community service (which is not advertising) must affect preferences for goods/services or even schools.
So, you’re saying products aren’t valuable at all? Hmmm..
My thinking goes like this: Joe may value a rock. He may need it for something, like it, whatever. I may think the rock did a good job of covering a real small hole, but is ugly and is a nuisance otherwise… because of this I would be willing to get rid of it. If Joe offers to buy the rock from me for $100, and I sell it to him… did I sell him a useless product? I’d say no. He needed it or wanted it for some reason.
Further, to your examples of education, housing, cars… I agree that they may not always be worth it. But, I don’t see how this has to do with free-trade. I mean these types of purchases have always existed. Moreover, I don’t see how I can say what’s best for someone else if they want it. For example, what happens to the person who does think $25k for college is worth it and graduates to be highly successful? Or the couple who buy the $350k home and pay it off within 10 years? Some people certainly engage in purchases they shouldn’t have. But, there’s only one way for them (and society) to learn it was a bad idea… don’t bail them out after they engaged in the bad idea. Instead, let them learn from it so they never do it again. Moral hazard exists and it’s bad.
So, you want government to pay stay-at-home moms? Seriously?
Further, I completely disagree that women's labor in the house is worth nothing. Unfortunately, it seems to me that you think the only value in life is “monetary”. I disagree. This is the perfect example of the term “opportunity cost”. Look it up. Clearly, Moms (or Dads) who stay at home place a value on that. My wife stays home. We value that. It’s worth something to us. Opportunity costis an incredibly important part of economics and the concept does fit into the supply and demand model.
ha ha… fair-minded much? I’m not necessarily condoning all practices used by Nike or whatever company. But, what I do respond is they make a choice to work for these companies. You can’t (or shouldn’t) ever be able to force someone to work. I don’t necessarily agree that companies (at least the majority) forced themselves on to peoples lands. I think they set up shop and the people weren’t making much from whatever they were doing before (be it farming or other), so they decided to work for the company. They gained skills from manufacturing, just like Americans did many moons ago.
Well, “we” didn’t take it and “we” can’t give it back. Like I said before, they in most cases are making much better livings then their parents and their parents- parents.
Also, I find it hysterical that you are acting as though these people are worse off now. They many not be where we’d like them to be, but they are better off. As if they were better off when they farmed rice and tried to barter it for a meat product or any other good or service they could get their hands on. It’s silly.
The evidence I would put forth is Government Spending/GDP, which has been increasing. In other words, government as a percent of the economy pretty much at large has been increasing.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I can see where the Vatican is coming from with one global bank. (EEKS!
Fair point to some here, not sure to me though. Let me address it.
Like I've said, I think for the most part "consumers" are "fairly" well educated when they make a purchase. Sure, ads and other aspects can potentially influence the decision sometimes. But, in general, I think it's rare that ads "dictate" a purchase. In my opinion, the may "sway" or lead one to "try" something, which could bring them back... but, most often ads are used to differentiate products and build brand recognition.
For politics, I'd say the average "citizen" is not as well educated on a candidate as the average consumer on their product. Main reason is that they don't necessarily care about the candidate and think the process is pretty meaningless; they don't necessarily see how it affects them directly. Maybe the average "voter", rather than "citizen" is closer to average "consumer". But, in the end, I see there to be a distinction between politics and consumption, with consumption tending to have more credible information and politics less (think flip-flopping).
Regardless of the above, I don't think I (personally) have ever clamored for Ron Paul to get more air time. Feel free to look at past posts. To be fair, some of the reason he doesn't get as much airtime is because he's not a Bachmann type who interjects or a lead candidate who gets attacked and gets to retort for 30 additional seconds.
I did, however, say that I thought Fox wanted to bait Ron Paul with a question on Iran. And if you read that post, I basically said Ron Paul should've known it was coming and done a better job answering it. In truth, I was angry after that more at Ron Paul than Fox. I knew Fox isn't his fan, he should too and be more prepared or more "political" in his answer... he doesn't have to mislead, he can be straight with everyone, but do so with more knowledge of his audience.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Paul 23%
Romney 20%
Gingrich 14%
Godfather,
I believe there is a little bit of hell that is colder than average right now
Whether he wins the election or not, I am so glad that more Americans are starting to see through the typical GOP neo-con candidates. It may not be enough this time around, but hopefully in the future Paul's message will continue to help shape policy...especially foreign
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Let's say he gets elected. Let's say, as president, he changes his party support to Libertarian. America now has a third party president.. I think this opens the doorways on America's view of the two party system.. If people can start to understand the bullshit, maybe they will realize there are other ways.. Who knows. It's a step.
he won't change his party affiliation ...
either way tho - i've already committed in saying ron paul is who i would vote for ... my only point in my previous post was to see if his die hard supporters could justify his energy policies ... which i suspect they will not ...