Idiots need yet another economics lesson re: free markets

[BannedFromDU]

reformist2 (5,939 posts)

It's not exactly a "free market," if you're panicked or pressured into action.

Actually, the very definition of freedom is that I am free to act in ignorance of or indifference to your problems, dumb****.

The notion of a consumer going to the store to buy "widgets" might be the standard example used in economic textbooks,

Wrong already. The "store" has nothing to do with it - the free market is what is known as an institution - a set of rules for the orderly allocation of goods and services. The store is not the institution. It is merely a place for you to transact.


 which is very effective at conveying the message that "free markets" are good for both consumer and producer.

They are inherently good. Subject to costs and constraints, you may elect to participate, or not.

If you don't want widgets at that price, don't buy them! The price will drop to a level that producers and consumers alike will find to be fair.

Wrong again, you waste of skin. If the prevailing price, given your particular circumstances and those of sellers, is less
than your reservation price, you will buy. Otherwise you will not. The price is set in a constantly evolving manner, dependent upon
a menu of items too numerous to list. And which would be pointless to list, since you are a stupid ****wit.


But when you try to find real-life examples of widgets, you find that very little of the money we spend falls into that category. Because, you see, there's a fatal flaw in the foundation of free-market economics, a tragic oversight - most of the money we spend these days is not on discretionary items like shoes or cups of coffee or iPhones - widgets, if you will. No, most of the money we spend is on necessities such as housing, education, health care.

There are no necessities, idiot, just intense wants. There is no free market distinction between things you claim you need
and things you claim you want.

Can you say no to renting an apartment?

Yes.

 Yeah, if you want to be homeless.

See Amber.

 Can you really say no to the price of a college education?

Yes.

Yeah, if you want to have zero job prospects.

Most of you study subjects that inherently have no job prospects.

Can you really say no to health care?

Every time you idiots light a cigarette or ram a donut in your mouths, you say no.

Yeah, if you want to play Russian roulette with your life.

Said the member of a website that encourages free asslove.

So, if you can't really say "no" to any of these things, is it still really a free market,

Yes, it is. You are mistaking the institution's purpose.


 or does the producer/provider actually have the upper hand?

There is no such construct as "upper hand" in the analysis of free markets. There is the notion that market failure can lead to the expropriation of surplus relative to that which would exist in a truly competitive market. For example, let's say for the sake of discussion
that, oh, a government insists on holding a monopoly over something like...oh...education (I know, that's silly, right?). By eliminating
competition, the government can set prices that it deems "fair" and "just." This is precisely the market failure you lament. Gee, isn't it
a good thing the government doesn't want a monopoly over education?


If so, the price level for all these modern-day necessities will end up being higher than the average consumer can logically afford. Which is on its face unfair. Wrong, even. Something that should be corrected by force of law.

There are no necessities, liberal asshole. Government solutions for healthcare and education may seem ideal to YOU, because you will never see a bill for either, but for those of us who are employed, the cost of keeping your stupid ass happy and healthy has become prohibitive. Your solution to the institution of free markets is to have someone else pay your way. What a stupid, worthless, gutless, faggy way to live.

The problem is that DUmmies are too stupid to understand anything as originally conceived or intended.

[Carl]

Just another convoluted way of demanding stuff be given to them,no questions asked.
Useless pieces of shit that deserve to rot in a ditch.

[JohnnyReb]

Using DUmmie logic, if I wait long enough, I can get a new pickup truck for a dollar.

I guess Obama and crowd didn't put enough dealerships out of business.

[BannedFromDU]

Using DUmmie logic, if I wait long enough, I can get a new pickup truck for a dollar.

      No. The DUmmy logic is that if you think you need a new pickup truck, then the price for pickup trucks is, by fiat, too high, and
the government must become involved in allocating a pickup truck at a price that you deem fair. As luck would have it, the price you deem
fair makes that truck fit into your budget constraint perfectly alongside all of the other things you "need."

     Which is why DUmmies are so flipping stupid.

[Wineslob]

If so, the price level for all these modern-day necessities will end up being higher than the average consumer can logically afford. Which is on its face unfair. Wrong, even. Something that should be corrected by force of law.

This sounds like the quote. "we'll sell it at a loss, but make it up in volume".




 

[jukin]

Come on people thist line of sound economic policy is working great in VZ and was the gold standard for the USSR.

[Ralph Wiggum]

This sounds like the quote. "we'll sell it at a loss, but make it up in volume".




 

Don't know how to imbed this, but here is the link to an amusing SNL parody commercial:

http://screen.yahoo.com/first-citywide-change-bank-1-000000088.html

http://screen.yahoo.com/first-citywide-change-bank-2-000000534.html

(edit - the second link explains how they "make money" by making change. 

[Dori]

No, most of the money we spend is on necessities such as housing, education, health care.

Ah geez dummy, you can't even get the necessities of life straight. Lets ask some poor peasant in the third world what they are, I bet they'll know.