Dumping.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A problem for who? Not me! A lot more people *shop* at wal-mart than work there (or for their suppliers).

[/ QUOTE ]

When in doubt, change the argument!

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I changing? I'm merely asking who this is a problem for.

[ QUOTE ]
The "problem" is not the low prices. It is that the prices get jacked up to higher levels once the competing firm exits the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see *that* as a problem either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then say high prices for consumers is not a problem rather than taking the easy route and saying that the only problem is "low prices".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A problem for who? Not me! A lot more people *shop* at wal-mart than work there (or for their suppliers).

[/ QUOTE ]

When in doubt, change the argument!

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I changing? I'm merely asking who this is a problem for.

[ QUOTE ]
The "problem" is not the low prices. It is that the prices get jacked up to higher levels once the competing firm exits the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see *that* as a problem either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then say high prices for consumers is not a problem rather than taking the easy route and saying that the only problem is "low prices".

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Are you talking to me?

[ianlippert]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the money that gets saved by consumers gets spent in other areas, creating different jobs. Jobs that are more productive towards meeting consumer demands.

[Rev. Good Will]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Usually the dumper has a protected home market, and dumps their product to foreign markets. They just undercut as long as they need to, as even while taking a slight loss in the foreign market, the money gained home market > money lost in foreign market.

So in some cases, they can undercut forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in this case, the people living in the unregulated market gain at the expense of those in the regulated market. Sounds like an argument *for* AC to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

...No, not at all.

The company in the unregulated market cannot enter the regulated market, where the local company in the regulated market have no foreign competition. The company in the regulated market can enter the unregulated market and sell at a slight loss until the it knocks out the competition, than it is just business as usual. The undercutting done by the company from the regulated market is sustainable because the money lost in the unregulated market is less than the money made in the regulated market where they have no competition.

So how do the people in the unregulated market gain?

[Brainwalter]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're conflating being forced by circumstances (WOW I need some food, better produce something in order to procure it!) with being forced by a person (Work in my cotton field or I'll whip you) and muddying the issue.

[LinusKS]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're not getting is that ACists reject the concept that people owe any kind of moral obligation one to another. (Except for one.)

(According to ACists) if someone lacks arms, that's his problem.

The one and only obligation people have (according to ACists) is to respect property rights.

Therefore, an economy that forces the poor to choose between starvation and slavery does not involve the use of 'force' (according to ACers).

But a poor person stealing bread - does. According to ACers.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, an economy that forces the poor to choose between starvation and slavery does not involve the use of 'force' (according to ACers).


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't choose slavery. You might want to try looking up the term before you use it.

[LinusKS]

I thought you were leveling me before, but apparently not, since slavish devotion to semantics is characteristic of ACism.

Either way, you're right. Everybody always has a choice. For example, if someone points a gun to your head and tells you to hand over your money, you can always 'choose' to be shot instead.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you were leveling me before, but apparently not, since slavish devotion to semantics is characteristic of ACism.

Either way, you're right. Everybody always has a choice. For example, if someone points a gun to your head and tells you to hand over your money, you can always 'choose' to be shot instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see the difference? Are you leveling us? There is a PERSON, a MORAL AGENT, imposing his will on us. This is clearly different than "I'm hungry and will die if I don't eat". No one is imposing anything on that person. Is there anyone responsible? Nature!

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A problem for who? Not me! A lot more people *shop* at wal-mart than work there (or for their suppliers).

[/ QUOTE ]

This just in: not everything in world about you.