Dumping.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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 ]

Who owes you survival?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great, I totally agree with you. We are now in agreement that any activity that a group or organization engages in that reduces the standard of living of the working class is immoral?

So you would also be a proponent of reduced corporate taxation, less support of unions, removal of bloated government programs that destroy wealth through taxation? I never knew you guys were closet ACists [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Walmart doesnt cause low wages, it is the effect of a weak economic situation that walmart is able to get labour at $7/hr. Walmart didnt force this situation on people and this situation isnt a state of nature. This situation is created by governments using physical force to create an economy that benefits specific groups of people over others. Walmart doesnt use force because there is nothing physical about it. Force is defined as a physical act, at worst walmart is engaged in agressive barter.

[tolbiny]

[ 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 ]

Company A cannot undercut everyone forever, they have to to turn a profit before their capital supply runs out, and that profit must be more than the regular profit they would make from normal competitive pricing in the market. By enacting "predatory" pricing company A has effectively increased its costs for all units sold after they raise the prices again, so in reality they have simply encouraged (not discouraged) competition since factory owner C can now gain all of A's market share just by producing at the normal $10 per unit price which A can no longer match.

[Rev. Good Will]

[ 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 ]

Company A cannot undercut everyone forever, they have to to turn a profit before their capital supply runs out, and that profit must be more than the regular profit they would make from normal competitive pricing in the market. By enacting "predatory" pricing company A has effectively increased its costs for all units sold after they raise the prices again, so in reality they have simply encouraged (not discouraged) competition since factory owner C can now gain all of A's market share just by producing at the normal $10 per unit price which A can no longer match.

[/ 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.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
We are now in agreement that any activity that a group or organization engages in that reduces the standard of living of the working class is immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this some kind of reverse straw man? Where did I say anything about the working class or morality?

The only relevance I can see, is that morality, or arguments or concepts of morality are an important form of social power.

[ QUOTE ]

Walmart doesnt cause low wages, it is the effect of a weak economic situation that walmart is able to get labour at $7/hr.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know how weak the economic situation is. Those that own the majority of real wealth have been getting much richer in relation to those that own very little. If the pie is getting bigger why are so many in massive debt? It would seem that those at the top of the system have been able to stuff their pockets whilst those below them seem to be approaching a situation of massive negative wealth (debt). If you are in the top 1% the economic situation is far from "weak."

The ability to get rich whilst forcing your employees into accepting worse and worse conditions seem to suggest that those at the top of the system are gaining in social power as those below them weaken in social power.

The trend upwards in social power of the top echelons corresponds with a weakening of all the forms of social power you mention: Unions, socialised health care/education etc. Coincidence? of course not.

[pvn]

[ 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).

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

Sure. Everyone is forced to produce or die. But as you point out, it isn't the employer doing the forcing. In which case, I have to wonder why you're taking aim at the employer if you just admitted he's doing nothing wrong?

If you elimnate the employer, is the employee's situation better or worse?

[TomCollins]

[ 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! 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.

For example, take a look at the cost of flying in and out of certain airports that the airline has a near monopoly on (Cincinnati for example). Competitors come in, Delta drops the price to next to nothing, competitors leave, Delta jacks price right back up.

Someone wanted an example- here is one.

Of course, this, like everything, will be blamed on government interference by you.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.