if this were so, it'd mean the optimal strategy in capitalism would be to gain a monopoly over inelastic goods and charge the maximum anyone could afford. How could you call that scenario "fair"? Obviously, the definition of fair cannot simply mean "what market forces would allow".
the idea is that in a truly free market some smaller venture could arise and sell a product that undercuts the competition
in reality what happens is the mega-corp buys them out for more money than they could make selling discount products in their lifetime, or does shaddy illegal shit to frick with their business until they are forced to close, usually this second option is done with government assistance
if the anti-trust laws actually worked instead being a complete waste of time, this could never happen
not to sound like a commie, but in a truly free market, how is a smaller venture realistically meant to take on a mega-corp (or the equivalent) that already has a monopoly on inelastic goods? Surely they'd crush any upstarts challenging their dominance of the market. Even in a scenario where government regulations, shady illegal shit or hell force itself doesn't exist, how would a monopoly lose it's stranglehold on a inelastic good that is finite? It's a strange thing to ask, but even under ideal conditions, how do free market forces produce ethical outcomes in a universe of finite resources? Not even equitable to all, just not "the first to the finish line dominates everyone forever".
not to sound like a commie, but in a truly free market, how is a smaller venture realistically meant to take on a mega-corp (or the equivalent) that already has a monopoly on inelastic goods? Surely they'd crush any upstarts challenging their dominance of the market. Even in a scenario where government regulations, shady illegal shit or hell force itself doesn't exist, how would a monopoly lose it's stranglehold on a inelastic good that is finite? It's a strange thing to ask, but even under ideal conditions, how do free market forces produce ethical outcomes in a universe of finite resources? Not even equitable to all, just not "the first to the finish line dominates everyone forever".
Don't even need to do shady illegal shit, a larger company will naturally be able to sell things cheaper due to scale.
They can buy en masse, bulk buying is usually cheaper.
They can get a higher priority from their suppliers due to their large purchases.
They can afford to hire analysts and purchase systems to maximize profit.
etc.
And of course, they can afford to hire better lawyers to stall/hand over a pittance of the profit when they do actually do shady shit.
Elasticity is a spectrum and at some point for demand it will be profitable for others or substitutions, there are no perfectly inelastic goods or services.
not to sound like a commie, but in a truly free market, how is a smaller venture realistically meant to take on a mega-corp (or the equivalent) that already has a monopoly on inelastic goods? Surely they'd crush any upstarts challenging their dominance of the market. Even in a scenario where government regulations, shady illegal shit or hell force itself doesn't exist, how would a monopoly lose it's stranglehold on a inelastic good that is finite? It's a strange thing to ask, but even under ideal conditions, how do free market forces produce ethical outcomes in a universe of finite resources? Not even equitable to all, just not "the first to the finish line dominates everyone forever".
If you have an unfair monopoly then new ventures should be able to break the monopoly at a certain point of "unfairness". E.g. there's a price for water from a utility where it makes more sense to physically ship water, use less water, or to dig a well.
The price is set by the seller, if someone is willing to pay it then it’s a fair price
8 months ago
Anonymous
>The price is set by the seller
I disagree. >if someone is willing to pay it then it’s a fair price
You seem to disagree.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The seller sets the price, the buyer decides whether or not to buy. This is how all transactions work. Even auctions have a minimum price set by the seller.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Repeating it doesn't make it more true.
8 months ago
Anonymous
It’s okay that you can’t refute it
8 months ago
Anonymous
It's refuted by anyone who's sold anything ever.
The one who sets the price is the bigger entity or the least desperate.
The fact that you can disagree with the price just means your assertion that "any price is a fair price" is also moronic.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Any price that both parties agree on is a fair price. It's no one's fault but your own that you either can't stop pretending you didn't infer that initially or you really don't get it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Any price that both parties agree on is a fair price
Also not true. One party can take advantage of the others desperation to buy something at a far lower price.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Fair doesn’t mean “gives everyone involved warm fuzzy feefees”
8 months ago
Anonymous
>it's a fair price even though one side has been taken advantage of
ok lol
Lick the boot a little more.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Do you not understand what “fair” means in economic terms? >whining about libertarianism in a basic discussion about price mechanism
Lol
8 months ago
Anonymous
Irrelevant. >whining
You're the only morons who won't stop sperging out about theoretical economics that actually have no sway on reality.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>the price mechanism has no sway on reality
Of course, your theoretical economy where we trade smiles for rainbows is far more practical
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes monopolies/communists are bad.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Name one scenario where the buyer sets the initial price (reminder that auctions have minimums set by the seller)
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Name one scenario where the buyer sets the initial price
Pawn shops. >b-but you can walk away
So? They set the initial price. The fact you disagreed with it just means your assertion that "any price is a fair price" is moronic.
Libertarianism is moronic, and only morons who want to be rich but never will be follow it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Nope, sellers walk into a pawn shop with a minimum number and don’t complete the transaction if the minimum isn’t met.
8 months ago
Anonymous
That's only true in your head. In reality the pawn shop sets the price and you take it or leave it, if you leave it then we're back to my "your assertion is moronic" statement. >t-they can walk away
Called it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Nope, the seller walks in with a minimum (initial) price and does not complete the transaction if the buyer refuses to pay it. Likewise, the pawn shop is not a willing buyer if the seller’s minimum isn’t a price they’re willing to pay. If they can’t find any buyer after visiting every pawn shop in town, their minimum isn’t a “fair” price in market terms.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>the seller walks in with a minimum (initial) price
Doesn't actually happen. However, even if it did it's still the shop owner setting the price, if you're desperate enough your minimum is irrelevant.
When people are desperate for money they don't put a price on the item, they throw items at the wall until their requirement is met. >s-same thing!
No it isn't.
Try living in reality some time.
>the price mechanism has no sway on reality
Of course, your theoretical economy where we trade smiles for rainbows is far more practical
>m-my economic theories are the correct one!
Yeah, your theoretical economics has no sway on reality. This thread's just proof of it, you make moronic assertions and ignore the reality of the situation.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Good luck on your midterms Braedyn
8 months ago
Anonymous
Your schizophrenia doesn't make you correct.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I’m not the one crying because the price mechanism exists
8 months ago
Anonymous
I read through the entire chain and it's pretty clear that you're an annoying pedantic b***h who everyone avoids in real life because they're a big weenie dweeb.
Tobacco is fricking gross so anyone willing to eat Tomacco is probably some low-tier dreg. A buck a pop is an easy way to hook them in then jack up the price
He did. Fun fact, the cow at the end of the episode which breaks through the wall and yells "Tomacco" was the cow Ralph tipped. He got hooked off of eating Ralph and Wiggum's leftover tomacco butts. The withdrawal gave him the strength to get back up.
>When I can’t afford a Manhattan apartment and amazing health insurance with my 10 hour a week barista job, that’s like… uh… fascism. Or libertarianism.
a fair price is whatever someone is willing to pay.
if this were so, it'd mean the optimal strategy in capitalism would be to gain a monopoly over inelastic goods and charge the maximum anyone could afford. How could you call that scenario "fair"? Obviously, the definition of fair cannot simply mean "what market forces would allow".
the idea is that in a truly free market some smaller venture could arise and sell a product that undercuts the competition
in reality what happens is the mega-corp buys them out for more money than they could make selling discount products in their lifetime, or does shaddy illegal shit to frick with their business until they are forced to close, usually this second option is done with government assistance
if the anti-trust laws actually worked instead being a complete waste of time, this could never happen
not to sound like a commie, but in a truly free market, how is a smaller venture realistically meant to take on a mega-corp (or the equivalent) that already has a monopoly on inelastic goods? Surely they'd crush any upstarts challenging their dominance of the market. Even in a scenario where government regulations, shady illegal shit or hell force itself doesn't exist, how would a monopoly lose it's stranglehold on a inelastic good that is finite? It's a strange thing to ask, but even under ideal conditions, how do free market forces produce ethical outcomes in a universe of finite resources? Not even equitable to all, just not "the first to the finish line dominates everyone forever".
By gassing the israelites and resetting everything to a blank slate so the little guy has a chance again
Don't even need to do shady illegal shit, a larger company will naturally be able to sell things cheaper due to scale.
They can buy en masse, bulk buying is usually cheaper.
They can get a higher priority from their suppliers due to their large purchases.
They can afford to hire analysts and purchase systems to maximize profit.
etc.
And of course, they can afford to hire better lawyers to stall/hand over a pittance of the profit when they do actually do shady shit.
Elasticity is a spectrum and at some point for demand it will be profitable for others or substitutions, there are no perfectly inelastic goods or services.
If you have an unfair monopoly then new ventures should be able to break the monopoly at a certain point of "unfairness". E.g. there's a price for water from a utility where it makes more sense to physically ship water, use less water, or to dig a well.
You just described the US healthcare system lmao.
Like the housing market?
I'm willing to pay $1 for your house. You now have to give it to me because it's a fair price by your standards.
The seller sets the price, the presence or absence of a buyer determines whether someone is willing to pay that price.
That's not what you said. You said any price someone is willing to pay is a fair price.
My price is $1, get out.
I’m not the anon you originally responded to
Change "you" to "he" then.
The price is set by the seller, if someone is willing to pay it then it’s a fair price
>The price is set by the seller
I disagree.
>if someone is willing to pay it then it’s a fair price
You seem to disagree.
The seller sets the price, the buyer decides whether or not to buy. This is how all transactions work. Even auctions have a minimum price set by the seller.
Repeating it doesn't make it more true.
It’s okay that you can’t refute it
It's refuted by anyone who's sold anything ever.
The one who sets the price is the bigger entity or the least desperate.
The fact that you can disagree with the price just means your assertion that "any price is a fair price" is also moronic.
Any price that both parties agree on is a fair price. It's no one's fault but your own that you either can't stop pretending you didn't infer that initially or you really don't get it.
>Any price that both parties agree on is a fair price
Also not true. One party can take advantage of the others desperation to buy something at a far lower price.
Fair doesn’t mean “gives everyone involved warm fuzzy feefees”
>it's a fair price even though one side has been taken advantage of
ok lol
Lick the boot a little more.
Do you not understand what “fair” means in economic terms?
>whining about libertarianism in a basic discussion about price mechanism
Lol
Irrelevant.
>whining
You're the only morons who won't stop sperging out about theoretical economics that actually have no sway on reality.
>the price mechanism has no sway on reality
Of course, your theoretical economy where we trade smiles for rainbows is far more practical
Yes monopolies/communists are bad.
Name one scenario where the buyer sets the initial price (reminder that auctions have minimums set by the seller)
>Name one scenario where the buyer sets the initial price
Pawn shops.
>b-but you can walk away
So? They set the initial price. The fact you disagreed with it just means your assertion that "any price is a fair price" is moronic.
Libertarianism is moronic, and only morons who want to be rich but never will be follow it.
Nope, sellers walk into a pawn shop with a minimum number and don’t complete the transaction if the minimum isn’t met.
That's only true in your head. In reality the pawn shop sets the price and you take it or leave it, if you leave it then we're back to my "your assertion is moronic" statement.
>t-they can walk away
Called it.
Nope, the seller walks in with a minimum (initial) price and does not complete the transaction if the buyer refuses to pay it. Likewise, the pawn shop is not a willing buyer if the seller’s minimum isn’t a price they’re willing to pay. If they can’t find any buyer after visiting every pawn shop in town, their minimum isn’t a “fair” price in market terms.
>the seller walks in with a minimum (initial) price
Doesn't actually happen. However, even if it did it's still the shop owner setting the price, if you're desperate enough your minimum is irrelevant.
When people are desperate for money they don't put a price on the item, they throw items at the wall until their requirement is met.
>s-same thing!
No it isn't.
Try living in reality some time.
>m-my economic theories are the correct one!
Yeah, your theoretical economics has no sway on reality. This thread's just proof of it, you make moronic assertions and ignore the reality of the situation.
Good luck on your midterms Braedyn
Your schizophrenia doesn't make you correct.
I’m not the one crying because the price mechanism exists
I read through the entire chain and it's pretty clear that you're an annoying pedantic b***h who everyone avoids in real life because they're a big weenie dweeb.
Don’t samegay, it’s embarrassing
Obviously it was too low or he'd still be growing them.
Probably. It seems like a lot more nicotine than a couple of cigarettes, and cigarettes are worth like $0.50 each.
just 10 years ago cigarettes were half as expensive as they are now
glad I gave them up but damn
here you could get a pack of 20 for like 3.80€. Now theyre 12€
sneedacco
Depends.
Is one sneed per chuck a fair price?
The cursed episode
Tobacco is fricking gross so anyone willing to eat Tomacco is probably some low-tier dreg. A buck a pop is an easy way to hook them in then jack up the price
Excuse me, Mr.Farmer Man
Did Ralph ever get to tip over his first cow?
He did. Fun fact, the cow at the end of the episode which breaks through the wall and yells "Tomacco" was the cow Ralph tipped. He got hooked off of eating Ralph and Wiggum's leftover tomacco butts. The withdrawal gave him the strength to get back up.
Sneed lore is deeper than i thought. Bravo Groening
A dollar in 2000 is worth closer to $2 now
He shoulda sold it to Sneed’s Feed and Seed
>When I can’t afford a Manhattan apartment and amazing health insurance with my 10 hour a week barista job, that’s like… uh… fascism. Or libertarianism.
$.01/mg of nicotine is actually a decent price today.
Are you people really stupid or is it just an act so you can feel some kind of emotion?
It’s just an ai bot derailing sneed threads. It happens often.
>everything I don't like is a bot
Sneedacco
OHHH i get it now, it would have formerly been called chuck's feed and seed
yeah, now it's gonna be called Bart's Fart and Shart