Dumping.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Now how is it exactly that ACism will solve problems of road and transportation networks? Or public safety? Or national defense?


[/ QUOTE ]

How did this thread get derailed into AC? If you guys want to talk about walmart or private roads or whatever, take it to another thread. I was guilty of talking about walmart too, but I think we should get this back on track.

Can someone clarify dumping for me? For example is it dumping if the US government subsidizes wheat farmers, who then dump their wares into a 3rd world market because they arent making profits locally?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Tom - you're right. People are moral agents. Why is it the only morality you're willing to recognize is the rights of the rich to exploit the poor?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is not the only morality I am willing to recongize. Nice strawman.

[ QUOTE ]

And how is it you can't recognize that society is created by people?

[/ QUOTE ]
You caught me. I was trying to contend that society was made of trees.

What are you trying to get at in this nonsense? Can you try making a point?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specious argument. Not all money trickles down. The entire problem is that you guys don't seem to realize that multiple equilibria are all possible, and in some there are a lot of of people who have a lot of money and many people who have almost none. It is these I'd like to avoid, and the fact that people "voluntarily" kick things in this direction is no argument that it ought not be avoided.

[xorbie]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Based on this new post, is it safe to say you no longer support your original statement? And that maybe perhaps *gasp* we can agree on something? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Wal-Mart has, in this case, actually created conditions which "force" people to sell lower. If not, they go out of business. In order to do that, they end up having to pay less. Wages go down in an area. Prices are low, but nobody actually has the money to spend. The money Wal-Mart makes doesn't "trickle" into the community - all the excess profit generally leaves. THAT is the problem.

[TomCollins]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Based on this new post, is it safe to say you no longer support your original statement? And that maybe perhaps *gasp* we can agree on something? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Wal-Mart has, in this case, actually created conditions which "force" people to sell lower. If not, they go out of business. In order to do that, they end up having to pay less. Wages go down in an area. Prices are low, but nobody actually has the money to spend. The money Wal-Mart makes doesn't "trickle" into the community - all the excess profit generally leaves. THAT is the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a company that can't lower costs of productions and goes out of business is a bad thing? I say good riddance.

There are far more consumers than employees of just about any good out there.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

So a company that can't lower costs of productions and goes out of business is a bad thing? I say good riddance.

There are far more consumers than employees of just about any good out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the market was actually in perfect competition, maybe. It's not.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So a company that can't lower costs of productions and goes out of business is a bad thing? I say good riddance.

There are far more consumers than employees of just about any good out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the market was actually in perfect competition, maybe. It's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it actually matter if its perfect competition or not? How is my inability to sell bread for under $20 a loaf to Wal-Mart a tragedy? Perhaps I should be doing something better with my time than trying to make bread.

[xorbie]

Tom,

If a small town community has a functioning economy, who cares if they are selling bread for $20 a loaf? It's not as though prior to Wal-Mart and other huge corporations prices were absurdly high.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Tom,

If a small town community has a functioning economy, who cares if they are selling bread for $20 a loaf? It's not as though prior to Wal-Mart and other huge corporations prices were absurdly high.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you define "functioning economy"? If people don't care about paying $20 a loaf, you don't have to worry much when Wal-mart moves in.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tom,

If a small town community has a functioning economy, who cares if they are selling bread for $20 a loaf? It's not as though prior to Wal-Mart and other huge corporations prices were absurdly high.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you define "functioning economy"? If people don't care about paying $20 a loaf, you don't have to worry much when Wal-mart moves in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously people would prefer paying less than paying more. What they don't forsee is the negative externalities.

I KNOW I NEED TO PUT THIS IN CAPITAL LETTERS: I do not think government should step in and prevent Wal-Mart from stepping up shop, I just think it's clear that Wal-Mart has negative effects on local economies and that I hope people stop allowing it to move in and remove them from where they are.