BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

Jay wrote:

Free trade increases the standard of living because prices fall. When you have a protectionist economy you throw up tariffs to protect favored industries. So let's say we go back a hundred years and throw up a tariff on automobiles to save Detroit. We set the base cost of a vehicle at $30,000 new and tack on X amount to the cost of a Honda Civic. Chevy then prices their Cobalt at $25,000 to undercut the Honda and gain market share. Ford does the same with their Focus. So now you have two car options at a cost well above the current sticker price. Who wins? Both the car manufacturer and their union labor. Who loses? Honda, Toyota and You. You are now paying higher prices for less desirable vehicles. Over time, the impetus to innovate disappears and quality declines because you're stuck buying from them anyway, so who cares? Does this sound familiar? Because it's already what destroyed GM and Ford. Foreign companies built manufacturing plants here to get around our tariffs and they've destroyed the original players. The only people still advocating for protectionism are unions.

Jay wrote:

I seriously can't believe that I have to argue that prices tend to fall over time in established industries. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever had on this forum.

Supply / Demand.
Supply up, demand down, cost down.
Supply down, demand down, cost flat or decreasing.
Supply up, demand up, cost flat or increasing.
Supply down, demand up, cost up.

Literally macro 101.

So prices fall over time, regardless of whether or not free market policies are enacted? Or prices fall over time only when free market policies are enacted? Or does this mean that the free market makes established industries continue?

Seeing as the U.S. has had a blend of protectionist and free market economies over the last 50 years, and according to you the CPI shows the overall cost of goods has declined over that period, can't you make the argument that the free market has little to no effect on the cost of goods?

Do you understand why I am asking for an explanation now?  I also have experience in manufacturing both commodities and specialty goods.  I am using my experience to provide insight.  You're giving arcane examples and trying to use economic theory to explain something that doesn't happen IRL.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Free trade increases the standard of living because prices fall. When you have a protectionist economy you throw up tariffs to protect favored industries. So let's say we go back a hundred years and throw up a tariff on automobiles to save Detroit. We set the base cost of a vehicle at $30,000 new and tack on X amount to the cost of a Honda Civic. Chevy then prices their Cobalt at $25,000 to undercut the Honda and gain market share. Ford does the same with their Focus. So now you have two car options at a cost well above the current sticker price. Who wins? Both the car manufacturer and their union labor. Who loses? Honda, Toyota and You. You are now paying higher prices for less desirable vehicles. Over time, the impetus to innovate disappears and quality declines because you're stuck buying from them anyway, so who cares? Does this sound familiar? Because it's already what destroyed GM and Ford. Foreign companies built manufacturing plants here to get around our tariffs and they've destroyed the original players. The only people still advocating for protectionism are unions.

Jay wrote:

I seriously can't believe that I have to argue that prices tend to fall over time in established industries. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever had on this forum.

Supply / Demand.
Supply up, demand down, cost down.
Supply down, demand down, cost flat or decreasing.
Supply up, demand up, cost flat or increasing.
Supply down, demand up, cost up.

Literally macro 101.

So prices fall over time, regardless of whether or not free market policies are enacted? Or prices fall over time only when free market policies are enacted?

Seeing as the U.S. has had a blend of protectionist and free market economies over the last 50 years, and according to you the CPI shows the overall cost of goods has declined over that period, can't you make the argument that the free market has little to no effect on the cost of goods?

Do you understand why I am asking for an explanation now?

Price decreases are dependent on there being sufficient competition within the industry. Protectionism decreases competition and thus keeps prices high. There's no impetus for price reduction without said competition.

Last edited by Jay (2015-07-14 17:03:44)

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Free trade increases the standard of living because prices fall. When you have a protectionist economy you throw up tariffs to protect favored industries. So let's say we go back a hundred years and throw up a tariff on automobiles to save Detroit. We set the base cost of a vehicle at $30,000 new and tack on X amount to the cost of a Honda Civic. Chevy then prices their Cobalt at $25,000 to undercut the Honda and gain market share. Ford does the same with their Focus. So now you have two car options at a cost well above the current sticker price. Who wins? Both the car manufacturer and their union labor. Who loses? Honda, Toyota and You. You are now paying higher prices for less desirable vehicles. Over time, the impetus to innovate disappears and quality declines because you're stuck buying from them anyway, so who cares? Does this sound familiar? Because it's already what destroyed GM and Ford. Foreign companies built manufacturing plants here to get around our tariffs and they've destroyed the original players. The only people still advocating for protectionism are unions.

Jay wrote:

I seriously can't believe that I have to argue that prices tend to fall over time in established industries. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever had on this forum.

Supply / Demand.
Supply up, demand down, cost down.
Supply down, demand down, cost flat or decreasing.
Supply up, demand up, cost flat or increasing.
Supply down, demand up, cost up.

Literally macro 101.

So prices fall over time, regardless of whether or not free market policies are enacted? Or prices fall over time only when free market policies are enacted?  Or

Can we also say protectionism creates barriers to entry for new competition, whereas a free market removes and/or accelerates entry for new competition

Seeing as the U.S. has had a blend of protectionist and free market economies over the last 50 years, and according to you the CPI shows the overall cost of goods has declined over that period, can't you make the argument that the free market has little to no effect on the cost of goods?

Do you understand why I am asking for an explanation now?

Price decreases are dependent on there being sufficient competition within the industry. Protectionism decreases competition and thus keeps prices high. There's no impetus for price reduction without said competition.

So then by that logic any industry with protectionism shouldn't see price decreases and any industry without should see price decreases right?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Free trade increases the standard of living because prices fall. When you have a protectionist economy you throw up tariffs to protect favored industries. So let's say we go back a hundred years and throw up a tariff on automobiles to save Detroit. We set the base cost of a vehicle at $30,000 new and tack on X amount to the cost of a Honda Civic. Chevy then prices their Cobalt at $25,000 to undercut the Honda and gain market share. Ford does the same with their Focus. So now you have two car options at a cost well above the current sticker price. Who wins? Both the car manufacturer and their union labor. Who loses? Honda, Toyota and You. You are now paying higher prices for less desirable vehicles. Over time, the impetus to innovate disappears and quality declines because you're stuck buying from them anyway, so who cares? Does this sound familiar? Because it's already what destroyed GM and Ford. Foreign companies built manufacturing plants here to get around our tariffs and they've destroyed the original players. The only people still advocating for protectionism are unions.

So prices fall over time, regardless of whether or not free market policies are enacted? Or prices fall over time only when free market policies are enacted?

Seeing as the U.S. has had a blend of protectionist and free market economies over the last 50 years, and according to you the CPI shows the overall cost of goods has declined over that period, can't you make the argument that the free market has little to no effect on the cost of goods?

Do you understand why I am asking for an explanation now?

Price decreases are dependent on there being sufficient competition within the industry. Protectionism decreases competition and thus keeps prices high. There's no impetus for price reduction without said competition.

So then by that logic any industry with protectionism shouldn't see price decreases and any industry without should see price decreases right?

Not necessarily. There may be enough native industries to force prices lower over time. More than likely they will form a cartel with the governments blessing in order to keep prices up. A prime example is the NYC taxi industry. There are many companies that own taxi medallions, but prices are set by a taxi commission and are universal. They keep (kept, thanks Uber) out competition by limiting the number of medallions in circulation and cracking down on unauthorized taxis (the commission has their own police force for this). This is all done under the banners of protecting citizens from unlicensed drivers, who are presumably more dangerous, and making it so the drivers make enough money to live. In reality, it generates so much profit for the taxi companies that before Uber arrived, medallions were selling for $1.5 million+.

There's plenty of other examples too:

How many ISPs do you have access to? I have access to Verizon, Cablevision, Direct TV and Dish Network. Most of the northeast just has Comcast and the satellite companies.

How many companies can you purchase electricity from? I can purchase from exactly one. I also happen to have the highest utility rates in the entire country.

How many companies can you purchase water from? One for me.

How many companies can you purchase natural gas from? One for me.

How many companies can you purchase health insurance from? Trick question, all their policies are dictated by HHS

Anyway, you get my point

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Price decreases are dependent on there being sufficient competition within the industry. Protectionism decreases competition and thus keeps prices high. There's no impetus for price reduction without said competition.

So then by that logic any industry with protectionism shouldn't see price decreases and any industry without should see price decreases right?

just look at prices of cars in australia. good example of protectionism of motor dealerships when people can't do any parallel importing.

there are other methods of protectionism than strictly tarrifs or caps. design rules, licensing, regulations etc.

Cybargs, I mean this in the nicest way possible - that comment adding nothing of value to this conversation, but I guess it demonstrates that you know what protectionism is?

Jay wrote:

Mac, the philosophy you adhere to claims that you should submit to your intellectual and cultural superiors who, due to their superior intellect, are better able to make decisions for you than you yourself are capable of. I'm an engineer with an IQ that qualifies me for MENSA if I wanted to join (zero desire to join that wankfest). You disagree with me on the regular, yes? Why would you want to submit to my whims and social experiments? How could you possibly know better than I?

Frankly, libertarianism boils down to the belief that people are smart enough to make their own decisions and run their own lives. Everything else is just window dressing and rhetoric.

You went to a naval college on government aid. You can do math but your school wasn't a high society center of learning. Reading about Hegel in history books doesn't make you anyone's intellectual and cultural superior.

Supply/Demand works to reduce prices in any kind of economy, including communism, through efficiencies, economies of scale etc.

Competition works to reduce prices in a free market, this is what Jay is probably thinking of.

Honestly, its schoolboy misunderstandings like this which show Jay doesn't even understand the words he's saying or the arguments he's copy/pasting.

America does not operate a free market and never has. If it ever does and it works (I doubt both) then maybe people like Jay will be able to lecture the rest of the world.

My IQ puts me in the top 1% of university graduates - this was back in the day when the intellectual top 10% of the population went to university.

Now bow down and accept my half-baked opinions.

Free markets also mean a company can pollute the fuck out of an environment then close shop and fuck over their "customers", then move on to another industry.  The whole idea is to create a system of checks and balances whereby the people and industries don't get screwed over.  The government is supposed to be a tool of the people in virtually any non-authoritarian system.  It's somewhat synonymous to labor unions: something to even the playing field between two groups with unbalanced power.  This is my point - it's not the systems that are failing or succeeding - it's the execution and injection of human nature that corrupts.  This goes for any system - pressure flows to the weakest part of the system. 

Free markets mean that generically, anyone with enough concentrated capital can enter an industry with an obscene cost-based barrier to entry and control the market absolutely.  Surely, the creation of a watchdog (like government regulatory agencies) that have absolute control over industry will lead to corruption.  So will the lack of a watchdog entity because most companies operate on near term profit-motive goals.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Free markets also mean a company can pollute the fuck out of an environment then close shop and fuck over their "customers", then move on to another industry.  The whole idea is to create a system of checks and balances whereby the people and industries don't get screwed over.  The government is supposed to be a tool of the people in virtually any non-authoritarian system.  It's somewhat synonymous to labor unions: something to even the playing field between two groups with unbalanced power.  This is my point - it's not the systems that are failing or succeeding - it's the execution and injection of human nature that corrupts.  This goes for any system - pressure flows to the weakest part of the system. 

Free markets mean that generically, anyone with enough concentrated capital can enter an industry with an obscene cost-based barrier to entry and control the market absolutely.  Surely, the creation of a watchdog (like government regulatory agencies) that have absolute control over industry will lead to corruption.  So will the lack of a watchdog entity because most companies operate on near term profit-motive goals.

nobody can control the market absolutely ken. there is always someone somewhere that will outcompete you with newer tech or innovation. restricting people unnecessarily through regulation (like uber and taxis) pushes prices up. it's just a simple example of regulations that does nothing to benefit the consumer nor society, but only the the taxi companies.

Tarrifs have never ever helped drive prices down. the ENTIRE premise of a tarrif is to drive prices up to FORCE OUT any outside competitor. that's the entire point of their existence ken.

it's complete bollocks that free trade has 'hurt' people's lives. goods are A LOT cheaper because of it. prices for EVERYTHING bar land has been falling especially when accounting for newer added technology. if the american workforce can't compete with someone from overseas it's got more to do with lack of skill and competitiveness.

German and Japanese wages aren't cheap yet their factories are still able to churn out quality products.

Last edited by Cybargs (2015-07-14 18:45:18)

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

Mac, the philosophy you adhere to claims that you should submit to your intellectual and cultural superiors who, due to their superior intellect, are better able to make decisions for you than you yourself are capable of. I'm an engineer with an IQ that qualifies me for MENSA if I wanted to join (zero desire to join that wankfest). You disagree with me on the regular, yes? Why would you want to submit to my whims and social experiments? How could you possibly know better than I?

Frankly, libertarianism boils down to the belief that people are smart enough to make their own decisions and run their own lives. Everything else is just window dressing and rhetoric.

You went to a naval college on government aid. You can do math but your school wasn't a high society center of learning. Reading about Hegel in history books doesn't make you anyone's intellectual and cultural superior.

this is music to my ears, jay. does that mean you admit defeat in every argument you've had with me, or dilbert, or Ken, for instance, because we are vastly better educated than you? bow down to the hierarchy, worm.

also, there's a correlation between people who join MENSA and people who went to shitty colleges. it provides the certificate of validation that their crappy state college or university of Phoenix never could. how many Yale dons do you think discuss their MENSA scores?

Last edited by uziq (2015-07-15 01:21:09)

uziq wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

Mac, the philosophy you adhere to claims that you should submit to your intellectual and cultural superiors who, due to their superior intellect, are better able to make decisions for you than you yourself are capable of. I'm an engineer with an IQ that qualifies me for MENSA if I wanted to join (zero desire to join that wankfest). You disagree with me on the regular, yes? Why would you want to submit to my whims and social experiments? How could you possibly know better than I?

Frankly, libertarianism boils down to the belief that people are smart enough to make their own decisions and run their own lives. Everything else is just window dressing and rhetoric.

You went to a naval college on government aid. You can do math but your school wasn't a high society center of learning. Reading about Hegel in history books doesn't make you anyone's intellectual and cultural superior.

this is music to my ears, jay. does that mean you admit defeat in every argument you've had with me, or dilbert, or Ken, for instance, because we are vastly better educated than you? bow down to the hierarchy, worm.

also, there's a correlation between people who join MENSA and people who went to shitty colleges. it provides the certificate of validation that their crappy state college or university of Phoenix never could. how many Yale dons do you think discuss their MENSA scores?

Oh please. Your tie pin doesn't mean anything. Not a soul on this side of the Atlantic has heard of Royal Holloway. You might as well have gone to Rutgers with Mac.