Your efficiency argument is inefficient.
Ridiculous. In the real world, my argument demonstrated the invalidity of J603's claim. I suggest you get back to what you're good at: whining about people making claims about you that you don't agree with. |
|
|
|
Once again, the poster boy for those who don't listen speaks.
1. If you're just plain bad and slow at your job, nobody is advocating any type of wage. But if you do your job well at, say fast food, for 40 hours a week, you deserve a decent wage. Such a job may not require a degree, but that doesn't mean it isn't work.
2. As for your arguments about raising the cost of burgers, that's dependent on how the business is structured, and there are businesses which pay a decent wage, make better burgers than the competition, and charge less. If you can't compete with those businesses, maybe you shouldn't be in business.
1. Why does working 40 hours a week mean you get a good wage? McDonald's work is easy. It doesn't require a degree because a monkey could do most fast food jobs. Apparently monkeys can even work in higher class restaurants. Because 40 hours a week (plus getting ready for work and commuting to work) consumes most of your time. Pretty simple. 2. What fast food place is cheaper than McDonald's but higher quality, while paying more than any other place? Obviously no place exists, or McDonald's would not be such a dominant force in fast food. Even if this place did exist, they have a very inefficient business model.
Glad you asked. http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2009/01/28/in-n-out-burger-vs-mcdonalds-guess-who-won/https://www.google.com/search?q=in-n-out&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=hF0KUuHbI-G2igK6wYCQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1144&bih=1006A cheeseburger, fries and soda costs just over $5. Starting pay is $11. They're serving more customers at 3:30 in the afternoon than most fast food restaurants are serving at 12:20 in the afternoon. At lunchtime, I will count about fourteen employees working in an In-n-Out. They never freeze any ingredients. They have no microwaves or freezers or heatlamps. Potatoes are sliced from whole potatoes at each store. They have the freshest fast food you'll ever eat. |
|
|
|
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/08/perfect-optical-lens/The device “allows unprecedented control of light,” he said, with immediate applications in 3-D photolithography (micro- or nano-scale printing with light), optical switching (turning light circuits on and off) and imaging. The researchers are also exploring strange physical effects that Veselago argued would be possible with a negatively refracting flat lens, including negative radiation pressure — pulling objects by shining light on them. Isnt 3d photolithography used in making cpu's? Could this effect moores law? Affect, not effect. Sorry. |
|
|
|
oil why dont you give an example where the supply /demand curve has not behaved the way that Dumbfriut has described.. Lets hear this vast list of natural resources that under go irreversible transformation upon consumption, there must be volumes filled with all of the resources man has squandered into oblivion..  Liberal arts school, left wing, naturalist who happens to hate the largest part of nature.. Mankind, believes that governments are necessary and that force must be used to maintain order? Do you understand how rising prices encourages more efficient, more effective, and technologically superior harvesting methods, and encourages new harvesters to enter the market? |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be nice if it worked like that in the real world? It doesn't. Do you understand that? Please, you have to look at real world examples, not textbook theories.
Sure thing. Peak copper... Copper falls outside the domain of our dialog. Why are you bringing up copper? Once again, it appears you're suffering from reading comprehension. Maybe you should start back at the beginning of our conversation? Are you being serious right now? Does anyone else think my response wasn't appropriate to what he was asking? You have been hitting the nail on the head with every post. FirstAscent has been blowing my mind with is flawed logic, but it doesnt surprise me. All of the world has been conditioned to believe markets and profit motives are evil and are at the root of social injustice and inequality. The very thing that is merit based and allocates scare resources to the people who people who will make the best use them for the common good is demonized. Freedom, free markets , the rejection of force as a means to manipulate people, voluntarism, honest money, that is what is needed. FirstAsent was undoubtedly educated at a liberal arts college. I love his personal attacks in regards to your understanding of economics, when he cant see why copper would have anything to do with an example of the market adapting and changing to supply conditions.. Some tree huger who believes that man is a vile creature who will destroy his own existence if not for EPA. I see you're bringing up copper as well. Why? Copper has nothing to do with my statement regarding how the supply and demand curve doesn't effectively describe certain markets. Absolute fail, even when I repeated my original post. |
|
|
|
Let's go back to my original and concise post, where I have bolded the already obvious components of it: Are you serious? You can't figure this one out on your own? Free market forces guarantee picking the lowest hanging fruit until near the point of exhaustion. But the real problem is where free market zealots can't distinguish between natural resources which undergo irreversible transformation upon consumption and products which are manufactured from sustainable resources. One behaves according to the econ 101 supply and demand curve, and the other does not.
Here's some advice: stop treating your favorite libertarian playbook as if it were your bible, and start learning about the dynamics of resources and consumption.
|
|
|
|
Please, you have to look at real world examples, not textbook theories.
Peak copper... Copper falls outside the domain of our dialog. This couldn't be anymore cut and dry. You wanted examples where the free market handled scarce resources without using them to exhaustion. I gave you two examples, and you pretend it's not relevant to the discussion. You're either trolling me, stupid, or you're not very good at English. Take your pick. trying to have a discussion with that person is infuriating. all he knows how to do is herring and strawman but hes REALLY REALLY good at it. he will make a herring argument that is related in some ways and not in others, and he will subtly steer the conversation in the direction of the non relevant aspects of his herring argument, taking careful action to insure that the focus of the conversation is changed often enough to ensure that no one claim is ever proved. he then proceeds to correctly point out that you never provided enough evidence to prove any particular claim, and claim that he won because of this. he will show the claims that he did prove, which arnt ever relevant to what was supposed to be the focus of the discussion. if you try to point out that the things that he proved dont refute what they were supposed to have refuted, than you just go back to the beginning and run through another loop of what i just described in this paragraph. it is possible to debate against this but you have to be VERY careful not to allow him to sideline the conversation. you have to be extremely diligent to stay on track reminding with every post what it is that he is supposed to be proving. he will bring up irrelevant things and you have to prove that they are irreverent but you cant allow the conversation to branch out again, he will try to use the discussion of the relevance to redefine the thesis, then bring up something else irrelevant to this new thesis that you have to prove is irrelevant and he will redefine the thesis again. personally i just recommend ignoring him unless you think there is value in practicing at debating against people who are really good at using dishonest tactics to "win" what they see as a competition. I was very clear and concise in my first post. One merely needs to stop being an idiot for the minute in which it is read. In fact, I even counted on non-idiocy while one reads it, so the conversation could proceed efficiently from there. I expected too much. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be nice if it worked like that in the real world? It doesn't. Do you understand that? Please, you have to look at real world examples, not textbook theories.
Sure thing. Peak copper... Copper falls outside the domain of our dialog. Why are you bringing up copper? Once again, it appears you're suffering from reading comprehension. Maybe you should start back at the beginning of our conversation? Are you being serious right now? I'm being serious. Try reading what I've been saying. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time and mine arguing with what you think I've been saying. Ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be nice if it worked like that in the real world? It doesn't. Do you understand that? Please, you have to look at real world examples, not textbook theories.
Sure thing. Peak copper... Copper falls outside the domain of our dialog. Why are you bringing up copper? Once again, it appears you're suffering from reading comprehension. Maybe you should start back at the beginning of our conversation? |
|
|
|
Notice your usage of the word 'approaches' twice. In the first case, the resource is getting to zero. In the second case, any demand above zero is enough demand to purchase the last quantity of the resource.
*groan* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsymptoteThe demand on the resource reduces long before you're looking at the very last ounce of the resource in question. Wouldn't it be nice if it worked like that in the real world? It doesn't. Do you understand that? Please, you have to look at real world examples, not textbook theories. |
|
|
|
Point out where I said that.
Why would they look for alternatives when the money is in the resource that is going up in price? And why is that price going up? Because there is demand out there.
When the price goes through the roof, new suppliers are willing to enter into the business of harvesting.
It doesn't matter that people are willing to enter into the business of harvesting if there aren't resources to be harvested. Ergo, the resource has been harvested to exhaustion. You just admitted it right there. The reason the resource gets harvested to exhaustion is precisely because of the high price. When a lot of money can be made from the sale of just a couple units, a great deal of effort, energy and technology is applied to harvesting the last remnants of the resource. As the amount of the resource approaches zero, the price goes up, and the demand approaches zero. The resource is in this way never used to exaustion.
Notice your usage of the word 'approaches' twice. In the first case, the resource is getting to zero. In the second case, any demand above zero is enough demand to purchase the last quantity of the resource. Ultimately, your ultimate failure in understanding the dynamics here is your desire to apply the classic supply and demand curve to two entirely different scenarios. In the case we have been discussing, the free market is a destructive force. |
|
|
|
Just space it out a little? I think I can handle that.
Why do you need the horizontal lines above and below? If you can change it, do it. Get rid of the lines, put some whitespace below the logo, and align it to the left. |
|
|
|
Maybe you failed reading comprehension 101? Wow.
Read the post again.
I could say the same... You're saying that the demand will go up as the price goes up, and production will ramp up until the resource is exhausted. Ridiculous. Learn to read. Point out where I said that. Again. That's not how the real world works.
Your conclusion is based on a false premise. Prices go up because it's difficult to expand production. The higher prices are, this indicates that expanding supply is difficult.
How does that counter anything I said? As the resource dwindles away, there are by definition less suppliers. (Because there is less of the resource to get.)
You can't just keep expanding production because the price is high. Since they can't expand production, they look for alternatives, or find ways to recover the resource.
Again, you don't really get it. 'Tis sad. When the price goes through the roof, new suppliers are willing to enter into the business of harvesting. There is also less demand.
Why is there less demand? We're working on the premise that the price is going up. Hellloooo? Anyone home? The price is going up due to demand. If the price wasn't going up, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Suppliers don't increase (directly from nature), demand doesn't stay the same, and the resource isn't used to exhaustion. It hasn't happened, isn't happening, and wont ever happen in a free market.
It's happening every damn day. |
|
|
|
When the price goes up, guess what the harvesters do? They are incentivized to up the energy, effort, and technology to continue harvesting. And it's funny that you mention that "As the price goes up" as a reason for entrepreneurs to find alternatives. Why would they look for alternatives when the money is in the resource that is going up in price? And why is that price going up? Because there is demand out there.
What the f.. I don't even... Where do I begin? The price isn't "in the resource". People didn't wake up one day and say, "Shit, I'm missing $5.00! Oh, the price of fishnets in Kenya went up. That's where that money went." No. Prices don't pull demand with them, in fact that's exactly the opposite of what the supply and demand curve shows. If the price of gasoline goes to $100.00/gal people don't say, "Look how valuable that is! I better buy more!" They reduce their consumption, and entrepreneurs look for alternatives that cost $99.99/gal or less, or they drill for oil in places that is profitable at those high rates. So what happens? The resource is harvested until it's gone! All gone! No dude, that's not how the real world works. Name one single privately owned resource that was harvested to complete annihilation by a private business. Maybe you failed reading comprehension 101? Wow. Read the post again. |
|
|
|
|
Pretty good except for the jarring placement of the logo. How about some whitespace between it and the content below? And how about some better alignment to the left side for the logo?
|
|
|
|
We can't move forward until we establish the limits of your knowledge. Please answer the question: So then you don't fully understand how the supply and demand curve breaks down for resources which undergo an irreversible transformation upon consumption then. Correct?
Limits of my knowledge, that's a laugher. The supply and demand curve does not "break down". You haven't explained or demonstrated that assertion. The price of the resource goes up as it is used. As the price goes up, it incentivizes entrepreneurs to find alternatives, recover said resource, or find new supplies of said resource. When the price goes up, guess what the harvesters do? They are incentivized to up the energy, effort, and technology to continue harvesting. And it's funny that you mention that "As the price goes up" as a reason for entrepreneurs to find alternatives. Why would they look for alternatives when the money is in the resource that is going up in price? And why is that price going up? Because there is demand out there. So what happens? The resource is harvested until it's gone! All gone! And remember that it undergoes an irreversible transformation upon consumption. So it's really gone from the world forever. Furthermore, guess what? That resource might have been attached to something else that takes collateral damage upon harvesting. So that something else is gone too. Forever. Nothing "breaks".
Uhh, no. Something does indeed break. |
|
|
|
So then you don't fully understand how the supply and demand curve breaks down for resources which undergo an irreversible transformation upon consumption then. Correct?
You're begging the question, "How is your system any better?" It's fine to look at a scarce resource and say, "This resource is scarce.", but you a haven't made the case that;
1.) It should be used less.
2.) Reducing its use by coercion is actually possible.
3.) It can be used in a better way.
4.) You're qualified to make such a judgement.
edit:
5.) That you can't do it in a Capitalist society.
We can't move forward until we establish the limits of your knowledge. Please answer the question: So then you don't fully understand how the supply and demand curve breaks down for resources which undergo an irreversible transformation upon consumption then. Correct? |
|
|
|
Ya. And? You don't think I've answered your question, but I have...
So then you don't fully understand how the supply and demand curve breaks down for resources which undergo an irreversible transformation upon consumption then. Correct? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
