Dumping.
 

Why are some people against dumping? How is it unfair competiiton?
If person B sells ham at 10 dollars, and I sell my ham at 5 dollars , make the other guy go broke then sell my ham at 15 dollars I will atract competition. I dont see how the price of my ham will stay at 15 dollars on the long run, am I overlooking something obvious?

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why are some people against dumping? How is it unfair competiiton?
If person B sells ham at 10 dollars, and I sell my ham at 5 dollars , make the other guy go broke then sell my ham at 15 dollars I will atract competition. I dont see how the price of my ham will stay at 15 dollars on the long run, am I overlooking something obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

The threat of dumping creates a barrier to entry. The $15 "should" attract competition, but competitors will be reluctant to enter when they know you will match or beat any price they offer.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why are some people against dumping? How is it unfair competiiton?
If person B sells ham at 10 dollars, and I sell my ham at 5 dollars , make the other guy go broke then sell my ham at 15 dollars I will atract competition. I dont see how the price of my ham will stay at 15 dollars on the long run, am I overlooking something obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the real world, developing a product costs a lot more than getting a pig and slaughtering it. If it costs millions or even billions of dollars to develop something, and there is a great likelyhood that someone will undercut my prices, why would I enter such a market?

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are some people against dumping? How is it unfair competiiton?
If person B sells ham at 10 dollars, and I sell my ham at 5 dollars , make the other guy go broke then sell my ham at 15 dollars I will atract competition. I dont see how the price of my ham will stay at 15 dollars on the long run, am I overlooking something obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the real world, developing a product costs a lot more than getting a pig and slaughtering it. If it costs millions or even billions of dollars to develop something, and there is a great likelyhood that someone will undercut my prices, why would I enter such a market?

[/ QUOTE ]

You would do it if you thought your manufacturing technique would be lower average cost than the existing market players. It would not be hard to get venture capital to develop and support your enterprise if it really was better. Liquidity in the capital markets helps this process along tremendously.

Even if you can't compete so well on average cost, you can attempt to differentiate your product so long as the product isn't too commoditized.

The only products where predatory pricing (selling at below average cost) *might* be a concern are highly commoditized products with a pre-existing highly efficient manufacturer.

Does anyone know of examples of predatory pricing?

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are some people against dumping? How is it unfair competiiton?
If person B sells ham at 10 dollars, and I sell my ham at 5 dollars , make the other guy go broke then sell my ham at 15 dollars I will atract competition. I dont see how the price of my ham will stay at 15 dollars on the long run, am I overlooking something obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the real world, developing a product costs a lot more than getting a pig and slaughtering it. If it costs millions or even billions of dollars to develop something, and there is a great likelyhood that someone will undercut my prices, why would I enter such a market?

[/ QUOTE ]

because I can buy the stuff of person B at a very low cost because it will go on auction?

Re: Dumping.
 

BCPVC had a very good post a few weeks ago that outlined five or six solid reasons why predatary pricing is not an effective means of competition for the bigger, established businesses. I'll try to find it, I should probably put it in the faq, it's really good.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are some people against dumping? How is it unfair competiiton?
If person B sells ham at 10 dollars, and I sell my ham at 5 dollars , make the other guy go broke then sell my ham at 15 dollars I will atract competition. I dont see how the price of my ham will stay at 15 dollars on the long run, am I overlooking something obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the real world, developing a product costs a lot more than getting a pig and slaughtering it. If it costs millions or even billions of dollars to develop something, and there is a great likelyhood that someone will undercut my prices, why would I enter such a market?

[/ QUOTE ]

because I can buy the stuff of person B at a very low cost because it will go on auction?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Why would someone invest millions of dollars into developing a product that a well-established competitor will simply drop the price of their product and prevent me from making any money? What does this have to do with auctions?

Re: Dumping.
 

When B goes broke, the factories will still be there, those facotries will go on auction. Thereby if C buys that factory he will be in condition to compete with me , in spite of me deciding to lower my prices.
Do you have any example where a company used predatory pricing and then the raised the prices affecting the consumers?

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
When B goes broke, the factories will still be there, those facotries will go on auction. Thereby if C buys that factory he will be in condition to compete with me , in spite of me deciding to lower my prices.
Do you have any example where a company used predatory pricing and then the raised the prices affecting the consumers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would C buy the factories if you're just going to undercut him? Obviously the factory is capable of producing ham at $10 and not lower, otherwise B wouldn't be out of business.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When B goes broke, the factories will still be there, those facotries will go on auction. Thereby if C buys that factory he will be in condition to compete with me , in spite of me deciding to lower my prices.
Do you have any example where a company used predatory pricing and then the raised the prices affecting the consumers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would C buy the factories if you're just going to undercut him? Obviously the factory is capable of producing ham at $10 and not lower, otherwise B wouldn't be out of business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, is someone actually arguing that there's a problem with the less efficient competitor being put out of business?

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When B goes broke, the factories will still be there, those facotries will go on auction. Thereby if C buys that factory he will be in condition to compete with me , in spite of me deciding to lower my prices.
Do you have any example where a company used predatory pricing and then the raised the prices affecting the consumers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would C buy the factories if you're just going to undercut him? Obviously the factory is capable of producing ham at $10 and not lower, otherwise B wouldn't be out of business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, is someone actually arguing that there's a problem with the less efficient competitor being put out of business?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said it was a problem, Mr. Inferences? Do you disagree that it discourages competition, though?

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When B goes broke, the factories will still be there, those facotries will go on auction. Thereby if C buys that factory he will be in condition to compete with me , in spite of me deciding to lower my prices.
Do you have any example where a company used predatory pricing and then the raised the prices affecting the consumers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would C buy the factories if you're just going to undercut him? Obviously the factory is capable of producing ham at $10 and not lower, otherwise B wouldn't be out of business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, is someone actually arguing that there's a problem with the less efficient competitor being put out of business?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said it was a problem, Mr. Inferences? Do you disagree that it discourages competition, though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Less efficient competitors going out of business is competition, they're not having a tickle fight.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know of examples of predatory pricing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wal-Mart, obv. They're hawking super-low prices right now just so they can establish their monopoly, and then, once they've outcompeted every retail store into oblivion, then they will gouge prices to the moon and your shaving cream will cost $20 a can and the Walton brats will go MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know of examples of predatory pricing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wal-Mart, obv. They're hawking super-low prices right now just so they can establish their monopoly, and then, once they've outcompeted every retail store into oblivion, then they will gouge prices to the moon and your shaving cream will cost $20 a can and the Walton brats will go MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the bigger problem with Wal-Mart is that it forces producers to lower prices, but I'm sure you knew that.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know of examples of predatory pricing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wal-Mart, obv. They're hawking super-low prices right now just so they can establish their monopoly, and then, once they've outcompeted every retail store into oblivion, then they will gouge prices to the moon and your shaving cream will cost $20 a can and the Walton brats will go MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. It's funny (or tragic) how many people actually think this is the case. Walmart (AFAIK) has never used predatory pricing because their costs are so much lower than everyone elses. Also funny is that so many people misunderstand how walmart achieves their supremely low costs, it's not by squeezing their suppliers (although they do do this), it's because they have phenomenally low administrative costs. They have one HQ location, their executives share hotel rooms at cheap hotels when they travel around. What horrific capitalist excess!

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know of examples of predatory pricing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wal-Mart, obv. They're hawking super-low prices right now just so they can establish their monopoly, and then, once they've outcompeted every retail store into oblivion, then they will gouge prices to the moon and your shaving cream will cost $20 a can and the Walton brats will go MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the bigger problem with Wal-Mart is that it forces producers to lower prices, but I'm sure you knew that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Telling it's distibuters that they have to lower prices or they won't deal with them isn't force.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually the bigger problem with Wal-Mart is that it forces producers to lower prices, but I'm sure you knew that.

[/ QUOTE ]

forces?

So when Walmart causes TV manufacturers to sell their TVs at cost so Walmart can sell them on to the consumers at lower prices than anyone else it's a problem? How about when the government tries to force perfect competition on those TV manufacturers causing them to sell at cost so that the consumer gets maximum surplus?

So it's great when the government does it at the point of a gun but a problem when Walmart does it using pure awesome?

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know of examples of predatory pricing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wal-Mart, obv. They're hawking super-low prices right now just so they can establish their monopoly, and then, once they've outcompeted every retail store into oblivion, then they will gouge prices to the moon and your shaving cream will cost $20 a can and the Walton brats will go MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the bigger problem with Wal-Mart is that it forces producers to lower prices, but I'm sure you knew that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Telling it's distibuters that they have to lower prices or they won't deal with them isn't force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shake it's difficult for me to have conversations with you when all you care about is some absurd notion of freedom/rights/force.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]

lol. It's funny (or tragic) how many people actually think this is the case. Walmart (AFAIK) has never used predatory pricing because their costs are so much lower than everyone elses. Also funny is that so many people misunderstand how walmart achieves their supremely low costs, it's not by squeezing their suppliers (although they do do this), it's because they have phenomenally low administrative costs. They have one HQ location, their executives share hotel rooms at cheap hotels when they travel around. What horrific capitalist excess!

[/ QUOTE ]

They also save a lot of money by not meeting environmental standards, cutting people to part time so they don't get benefits, forcing people to work off the clock and using state money to pay employee benefits.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually the bigger problem with Wal-Mart is that it forces producers to lower prices, but I'm sure you knew that.

[/ QUOTE ]

forces?

So when Walmart causes TV manufacturers to sell their TVs at cost so Walmart can sell them on to the consumers at lower prices than anyone else it's a problem? How about when the government tries to force perfect competition on those TV manufacturers causing them to sell at cost so that the consumer gets maximum surplus?

So it's great when the government does it at the point of a gun but a problem when Walmart does it using pure awesome?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you really zeroed in on the part of my post where I talked about government and guns and hammered that hypocrisy in.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

lol. It's funny (or tragic) how many people actually think this is the case. Walmart (AFAIK) has never used predatory pricing because their costs are so much lower than everyone elses. Also funny is that so many people misunderstand how walmart achieves their supremely low costs, it's not by squeezing their suppliers (although they do do this), it's because they have phenomenally low administrative costs. They have one HQ location, their executives share hotel rooms at cheap hotels when they travel around. What horrific capitalist excess!

[/ QUOTE ]

They also save a lot of money by not meeting environmental standards, cutting people to part time so they don't get benefits, forcing people to work off the clock and using state money to pay employee benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just Shake who thinks that you're use of the word "force" is way off. Nobody is forcing those people to work at Walmart. They can do anything else they like.

Also, have you considered that by offering such low price goods they reduce the cost of living for everyone in that area? Higher salaries are not actually needed.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually the bigger problem with Wal-Mart is that it forces producers to lower prices, but I'm sure you knew that.

[/ QUOTE ]

forces?

So when Walmart causes TV manufacturers to sell their TVs at cost so Walmart can sell them on to the consumers at lower prices than anyone else it's a problem? How about when the government tries to force perfect competition on those TV manufacturers causing them to sell at cost so that the consumer gets maximum surplus?

So it's great when the government does it at the point of a gun but a problem when Walmart does it using pure awesome?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you really zeroed in on the part of my post where I talked about government and guns and hammered that hypocrisy in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mea Culpa. I did make a nice big strawman there. My main point stands though, Walmart does not use force on it's suppliers. All they have done is negotiate really well.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know of examples of predatory pricing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wal-Mart, obv. They're hawking super-low prices right now just so they can establish their monopoly, and then, once they've outcompeted every retail store into oblivion, then they will gouge prices to the moon and your shaving cream will cost $20 a can and the Walton brats will go MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the bigger problem with Wal-Mart is that it forces producers to lower prices, but I'm sure you knew that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Telling it's distibuters that they have to lower prices or they won't deal with them isn't force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shake it's difficult for me to have conversations with you when all you care about is some absurd notion of freedom/rights/force.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes of course. Your defintion of force is apparently limitations on voluntary association and I'M the one with absurd notions. It's not force by defintion. But Ad hominems are much funner.

Re: Dumping.
 

woah... aren't dumping and predatory pricing different? My understanding of dumping was, for a typical example, a Chinese company making several widgets, unable to sell them all in Asian market, so all widgets are transported to US and dumped at very low price.

Predatory pricing is selling at below variable cost to eliminate your competitor.

So is dumping just the international trade version of predatory pricing?

Also, here is an interesting concept: predatory buying. My antitrust prof i remember came out of the blue and gave us a final question on this concept: http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/article-...verbidding.html

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually the bigger problem with Wal-Mart is that it forces producers to lower prices, but I'm sure you knew that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Telling it's distibuters that they have to lower prices or they won't deal with them isn't force.

[/ QUOTE ]
Shake it's difficult for me to have conversations with you when all you care about is some absurd notion of freedom/rights/force.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that absurd. Capitalists get blamed for "forcing" (read: coercing through active threat) people to do things, but it's simply not the case.

The single greatest form of coercion against human beings is not greedy businesses. It is nature. Human beings are brought into this world with heavy consumptive needs. They must constantly consume air, food, water, shelter, security and any other number of needs and wants, or they will die. It's unfortunate, but that's how we were made.

Re: Dumping.
 

Do you guys honestly not think I can force someone to do something without a gun? Really? Is this not some sort of elaborate joke?

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
woah... aren't dumping and predatory pricing different? My understanding of dumping was, for a typical example, a Chinese company making several widgets, unable to sell them all in Asian market, so all widgets are transported to US and dumped at very low price.

Predatory pricing is selling at below variable cost to eliminate your competitor.

So is dumping just the international trade version of predatory pricing?

Also, here is an interesting concept: predatory buying. My antitrust prof i remember came out of the blue and gave us a final question on this concept: http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/article-...verbidding.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought val had just mis-labelled the thread "dumping" when he meant "predatory pricing"... His OP sounded more like the latter.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know of examples of predatory pricing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wal-Mart, obv. They're hawking super-low prices right now just so they can establish their monopoly, and then, once they've outcompeted every retail store into oblivion, then they will gouge prices to the moon and your shaving cream will cost $20 a can and the Walton brats will go MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the bigger problem with Wal-Mart is that it forces producers to lower prices, but I'm sure you knew that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Telling it's distibuters that they have to lower prices or they won't deal with them isn't force.

[/ QUOTE ]

The word "force" isn't the problem with his statement. The word "problem" is.

Why are lower prices a problem? And regardless of what word you want to use to describe how WMT goes about achieving this reduction, what's objectionable about it?

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys honestly not think I can force someone to do something without a gun? Really? Is this not some sort of elaborate joke?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cause does not equal fault.

Let us say that all the jobs in city X require their employees to have arms (because, well, they're useful and necessary for most lines of work). Person A is an average joe living in city X. Person B is a rather mean fellow who sneaks up on Person A one night and injects him with a nasty chemical that gives him gangrene in his arms. Person A's arms are promptly amputated, and he is now armless.

Unfortunately, Person A still needs a job. Person C is the only person in town who is hiring armless people, because it happens to be unnecessary for that particular business. Unfortunately, the jobs is hard and pays little. Person A takes the job and wishes he could make more, but doesn't really have many bargaining chips given his limited options.

I fail to see, however, how Person C should be held accountable for Person A's bad financial position in life. Does Person C rightfully owe something to Person A? If "need" is adequate reason to justify redistributing resources from the wealthy to the needy, Person C might not have bothered creating the business in the first place. then Person C never forced A to work for him; it was a choice of Person A, given a greatly increased limitation of options.

The coercion came from Person B, who is the only person who damaged Person A's property. Person C just happens to be the only option Person A has left.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys honestly not think I can force someone to do something without a gun? Really? Is this not some sort of elaborate joke?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why don't you tell us what you think force is. If you act like a douchebag and I say you can't be my friend if you treat me like that, am I "forcing" you to do anything? if you're selling pancakes for $500 and I say I won't eat at your resturant unless you lower prices am I "forcing" you to do anything? You still have the right to selll pancakes at $500, no?

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know of examples of predatory pricing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wal-Mart, obv. They're hawking super-low prices right now just so they can establish their monopoly, and then, once they've outcompeted every retail store into oblivion, then they will gouge prices to the moon and your shaving cream will cost $20 a can and the Walton brats will go MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the bigger problem with Wal-Mart is that it forces producers to lower prices, but I'm sure you knew that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Telling it's distibuters that they have to lower prices or they won't deal with them isn't force.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a problem either. Oh noes, lower costs of production! More efficient business practices!

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys honestly not think I can force someone to do something without a gun? Really? Is this not some sort of elaborate joke?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why don't you tell us what you think force is. If you act like a douchebag and I say you can't be my friend if you treat me like that, am I "forcing" you to do anything? if you're selling pancakes for $500 and I say I won't eat at your resturant unless you lower prices am I "forcing" you to do anything? You still have the right to selll pancakes at $500, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I have no food or property and no means of getting them whatsoever, am I "forced" to do work in order to get money, regardless of how crappy it is? Or is my "choice" to starve to death sufficient in this moral fairy land?

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]

It's not a problem either. Oh noes, lower costs of production! More efficient business practices!


[/ QUOTE ]

If by lower costs of production you mean firing a ton of people and lowering salaries so that real wages end up going down even though prices drop then yeah. And it's a problem.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys honestly not think I can force someone to do something without a gun? Really? Is this not some sort of elaborate joke?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why don't you tell us what you think force is. If you act like a douchebag and I say you can't be my friend if you treat me like that, am I "forcing" you to do anything? if you're selling pancakes for $500 and I say I won't eat at your resturant unless you lower prices am I "forcing" you to do anything? You still have the right to selll pancakes at $500, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I have no food or property and no means of getting them whatsoever, am I "forced" to do work in order to get money, regardless of how crappy it is? Or is my "choice" to starve to death sufficient in this moral fairy land?

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're not going to answer any of my questions, just going to ask your own then throw in an insult at the end? Can't say I'm suprised.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]

So you're not going to answer any of my questions, just going to ask your own then throw in an insult at the end? Can't say I'm suprised.


[/ QUOTE ]

Given that you didn't answer my question, I felt it necessary to be more specific. In reply to your question, obviously no.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you're not going to answer any of my questions, just going to ask your own then throw in an insult at the end? Can't say I'm suprised.


[/ QUOTE ]

Given that you didn't answer my question, I felt it necessary to be more specific. In reply to your question, obviously no.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you really not mean this question to be rhetorical?-
[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys honestly not think I can force someone to do something without a gun? Really? Is this not some sort of elaborate joke?


[/ QUOTE ]
If you really want an answer, no. Force to me pretty much is any action against a person that is not consensual. I find the idea that Wal-Mart is "forcing" people ludicrus because their producers have a choice. They can either deal with Wal-Mart under wal-mart's terms, or they can just not deal with them. They don't have some right to do business with Wal-Mart. Niether does Wal-Mart have some right to there business. Voluntary contracts between the two theoretically match the participants percieved worth of the other participant's business.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you really want an answer, no. Force to me pretty much is any action against a person that is not consensual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. I assume changing your mind on this is probably out of the question so I'll just try to avoid you in the future. The fact that you speak of "volunatary" conracts when one party is about to starve to death is just a bit ridiculous. Rather ironic given the importance of Locke to natural rights theory.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ugh. I assume changing your mind on this is probably out of the question

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. I'd like to think that if I'm open minded enough to accept something so counter-intuitive to what I've been told all my life (AC) that I'm open minded to change my mind if I'm shown wrong. Take a shot.
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you speak of "volunatary" conracts when one party is about to starve to death is just a bit ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wal Mart's distributers are starving to death? Now who's being ridiculous. You can help them out if you want.

Re: Dumping.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ugh. I assume changing your mind on this is probably out of the question

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. I'd like to think that if I'm open minded enough to accept something so counter-intuitive to what I've been told all my life (AC) that I'm open minded to change my mind if I'm shown wrong. Take a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've taken my shot.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you speak of "volunatary" conracts when one party is about to starve to death is just a bit ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wal Mart's distributers are starving to death? Now who's being ridiculous. You can help them out if you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a clear reference to the example I just gave: someone starving to death who needs to work for money. To say that they aren't "forced" to do a really crappy job is ridiculous.

edit: You can say the employer himself isn't forcing the person, but they are forced. This is fact.

Re: Dumping.
 

Its not about force, its about power. Force is just one way of obtaining power but it is not the only way.

By power, I mean the ability to control/influence the behavior of another being.

If by social arrangement (pred pricing or whatever) one party can put another party in a situation where they are given the options comply or die, this is the same net result of someone having a gun put to there head and having the choice comply or die.

Naked force is actually a piss poor form of social power. Ability to control or manage social arrangements is far superior.