Economy The Downside Of Minimum Wage

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I understand your argument. It's just awful. It's alright. It's not a big deal.

You tried to make a point with monopolies and I asked you for examples to support your point but that was too hard for you. It's alright.

What is my argument?

 

[Horse Style]

What is my argument?

You tried to challenge free market capitalism by addressing externalities and saying that because of externalities, it shows market failure. I countered by saying the externality you pointed out (pollution) is being correction by free market capitalism through new markets aimed at minimizing pollution and making less harmful products.

True, but how do see that fitting into the discussion? It doesn't seem to address the concepts of externalities or market failure.

If your main argument is in favor of free market capitalism, you should by extension be in favour of keeping markets efficient. A market failure signals an inefficient market. You identified one example of a market failure here:



...but you don't seem to understand that there are other kinds as well.

Then you tried to say monopolies signal a failure. I asked for some real life examples of natural monopolies and you decided "oh shit, I better just claim he doesn't know what he's talking about and making useless posts like 'durrr, what's my argument'" instead of actually addressing his points.



It's alright. I get it. You came to your boyfriend defense and now you're desperately pulling the same diverting tactics as him.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

You tried to challenge free market capitalism by addressing externalities and saying that because of externalities, it shows market failure. I countered by saying the externality you pointed out (pollution) is being correction by free market capitalism through new markets aimed at minimizing pollution and making less harmful products.

That's not what the correction of an externality looks like. I don't think you understand what an externality is (possibly because you don't understand what makes free markets desirable).

This is why you can't possibly understand my argument, or yours

Then you tried to say monopolies signal a failure. I asked for some real life examples of natural monopolies and you decided "oh shit, I better just claim he doesn't know what he's talking about and making useless posts like 'durrr, what's my argument'" instead of actually addressing his points.



It's alright. I get it. You came to your boyfriend defense and now you're desperately pulling the same diverting tactics as him.

Real-life examples don't matter if you don't understand the concept they're used to illustrate.

 

[Horse Style]

That's not what the correction of an externality looks like. I don't think you understand what an externality is (possibly because you don't understand what makes free markets desirable).

This is why you can't possibly understand my argument, or yours



Real-life examples don't matter if you don't understand the concept they're used to illustrate.

Says the guy who doesn't counter any arguments, explain his own or explain why the opposing argument is flawed. Just simple "uhh, you don't understand".

Keep deluding yourself, bud.



It's also hilarious you think externalities are only negative.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Mega corporations love minimum wage. They may you slightly over minimum with no room for growth.

 

[panamaican]

Did you forget my main argument is in favor of free-market capitalism? The topic wasn't about externalities or whether some markets have negative consequences.

Because there was a need to limit pollution on environment, people answered that need with various businesses to address that problem. In other words, capitalism is naturally working to correct the problem.

Yeah...that's not true.

The need to limit pollution came from government, capitalism wasn't going to address the issue. There was nothing "natural" about it. It was incentive driven from the government.

 

[Horse Style]

Yeah...that's not true.

The need to limit pollution came from government, capitalism wasn't going to address the issue. There was nothing "natural" about it. It was incentive driven from the government.

Really, you think without the govt coming in, no business would have addressed societal need to get pollution under control? No potential entrepreneur would have ever come up with the idea to address this issue?

<45>

 

[Blayt7hh]

I always thought it was crazy that as Americans we can't even discuss the prospect of having no federal minimum wage without someone acting like you just called for slavery to make a comeback.

I think if you let the air out of this, what you're saying is that if you discuss a policy change, people who oppose that change will point out the bad effects that they'd expect from it. Doesn't seem so crazy when you put it that way.

I actually get what he is saying though. Anytime you discuss something like fixing wealth distribution the specter of Communism is immediately brought up and a lot of people instantly close their ears to anything you have to say about it. The politicians have done a great job creating this communist boogey man in the US.

 

[panamaican]

Really, you think without the govt coming in, no business would have addressed society need to get pollution under control. No potential entrepreneur would have ever come up with the idea to address this issue?

<45>

Correct. Because without the government pressure to preserve the environment, business was not addressing the issue. They were not getting the pollution under control, they only shifted where the fallout would land.

THe issue itself has a long legal history. The impetus to address pollution has always followed the same cycle. Business pollutes. Individuals are harmed. They sue. Eventually the pressure from constituents leads to regulation. Business complies with regulation and starts looking for efficiencies related to the regulation.

They've never originated pollution controls on their own.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Says the guy who doesn't counter any arguments, explain his own or explain why the opposing argument is flawed. Just simple "uhh, you don't understand".

Keep deluding yourself, bud.

It would be redundant to explain my argument if you already understand it. Now that you've acknowledged that you don't (so you lied before), I can very simply.

One reason efficient markets are desirable because they permit prices to communicate important information to the people who most need it. When markets aren't functioning correctly, prices are distorted and participants make decisions they otherwise might not. A monopoly is an example of such price distortion. Here's Milton Friedman (you can look him up later):

Anything that prevents prices from expressing freely the conditions of demand or supply interferes with the transmission of accurate information. Private monopoly - control over a particular commodity by one producer or a cartel of producers - is one example. That does not prevent the transmission of information through the price system, but it does distort the information transmitted. The quadrupling of the price of oil in 1973 by the oil cartel transmitted very important information. However, the information it transmitted did not reflect a sudden discovery of new technical knowledge about future supplies of oil, or anything else of physical or technical character bearing on the relative availability of oil and other sources of energy. It simply transmitted the information that a group of countries had succeeded in organizing a price-fixing and market-sharing arrangement.

An externality is a market failure because a cost (or gain) of an exchange is shifted onto a third-party that hasn't consented to the exchange. If a producer creates waste in the process of producing, but dodges the burden of properly disposing of that waste, the price of the good produced is missing information. That's a market failure. A secondary market for the garbage might help with the garbage problem but it doesn't solve the price problem.

Now if you can take your time with all that instead of being constantly rude and obnoxious, you might be able to get to the next step of this very drawn out education session and closer to the topic of the thread.

 

[Horse Style]

Correct. Because without the government pressure to preserve the environment, business was not addressing the issue. They were not getting the pollution under control, they only shifted where the fallout would land.

THe issue itself has a long legal history. The impetus to address pollution has always followed the same cycle. Business pollutes. Individuals are harmed. They sue. Eventually the pressure from constituents leads to regulation. Business complies with regulation and starts looking for efficiencies related to the regulation.

They've never originated pollution controls on their own.

I'm talking about waste management companies in the private sector. How did they come to be? Did the govt create them or were they a response to a need?

What about all the market research businesses, small and big, do to gauge the public's reaction to different eco-friendly products? Then they use the data they receive from the public to make changes to better satisfy their customer. You wouldn't do market research if you were being forced through regulation.

Now, I'm not saying regulation is always a bad thing but it's foolish to think no business or potential business would eventually answer the public's need for more eco-friendly approaches.

 

[Horse Style]

It would be redundant to explain my argument if you already understand it. Now that you've acknowledged that you don't (so you lied before), I can very simply.

I understood your argument. All you did before was say "nah, you don't understand and that was it". I gave you several chances to present your argument. It looks like you rushed to do some research to try to back up your points. Let's see how you did:

One reason efficient markets are desirable because they permit prices to communicate important information to the people who most need it. When markets aren't functioning correctly, prices are distorted and participants make decisions they otherwise might not. A monopoly is an example of such price distortion. Here's Milton Friedman (you can look him up later):

Provide a link so I know where this random passage is from. I do wonder if the oil cartel he's referring to is OPEC which is important information.

An externality is a market failure because a cost (or gain) of an exchange is shifted onto a third-party that hasn't consented to the exchange. If a producer creates waste in the process of producing, but dodges the burden of properly disposing of that waste, the price of the good produced is missing information. That's a market failure. A secondary market for the garbage might help with the garbage problem but it doesn't solve the price problem.

An unintended benefit wouldn't be considered a failure to any reasonable person. An unintended cost on a third-party would, however like I pointed out above, private waste management is market addressing this unintended cost. Where one market created an unintended problem, another market sprouts up to help take care of that problem. That's some's money-making motivation driving them to take care of a societal need.

Now if you can take your time with all that instead of being constantly rude and obnoxious, you might be able to get to the next step of this very drawn out education session and closer to the topic of the thread.

You can't talk down to someone when you can't even link your source and if that blurb is referring to OPEC, you're even denser than I thought.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I understood your argument. All you did before was say "nah, you don't understand and that was it".

No you didn't. You don't even know what an externality is lol.

Provide a link so I know where this random passage is from. I do wonder if the oil cartel he's referring to is OPEC which is important information.

It's from Free to Choose. Obviously he's talking about OPEC and obviously that has no consequence on the relevance of the example.

An unintended benefit wouldn't be considered a failure to any reasonable person. An unintended cost on a third-party would, however like I pointed out above, private waste management is market addressing this unintended cost. Where one market created an unintended problem, another market sprouts up to help take care of that problem. That's some's money-making motivation driving them to take care of a societal need.

Market failure has a technical definition, it's not about whether you think good or bad things happen. And you're still failing to understand the concept out of sheer stubbornness.

You can't talk down to someone when you can't even link your source and if that blurb is referring to OPEC, you're even denser than I thought.

I can definitely talk down to you. You have no idea what you're talking about and constantly behave like a shitty person to boot.

 

[Horse Style]

No you didn't. You don't even know what an externality is lol.

Quote my post where I incorrectly identified what an externality was.

It's from Free to Choose. Obviously he's talking about OPEC and obviously that has no consequence on the relevance of the example.

I figured it was about OPEC. So when I asked for examples of natural monopolies, you cite an example of a govt-funded oligopoly. So how is this collusion of various govts in this oligopoly evidence that free-market capitalism is bad? I'd like to hear this.

Market failure has a technical definition, it's not about whether you think good or bad things happen. And you're still failing to understand the concept out of sheer stubbornness.

Well let's see what Investopedia has to say:

Market Failure

What is Market Failure?
Market failure is the economic situation defined by an inefficient distribution of goods and services in the free market. In market failure, the individual incentives for rational behavior do not lead to rational outcomes for the group.


In other words, each individual makes the correct decision for him or herself, but those prove to be the wrong decisions for the group. In traditional microeconomics, this can sometimes be shown as a steady-state disequilibrium in which the quantity supplied does not equal the quantity demanded.

Here are the key takeaways. You'll enjoy the 4th:

• Market failure occurs when individuals acting in rational self-interest produce a less than optimal or economically inefficient outcome.
• Market failure can occur in explicit markets where goods and services are bought and sold outright, which we think of as typical markets.
• Market failure can also occur in implicit markets as favors and special treatment are exchanged, such as elections or the legislative process.
• Market failures can be solved using private market solutions, government-imposed solutions, or voluntary collective actions.

Oh and in case you still think an externality that is an unintended benefit is indicative of market failure:

Understanding Market Failure
A market failure occurs whenever the individuals in a group end up worse off than if they had not acted in perfectly rational self-interest. Such a group either incurs too many costs or receives too few benefits.

-

I can definitely talk down to you. You have no idea what you're talking about and constantly behave like a shitty person to boot.

Please keep talking out of your ass. I'm having fun over here.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Quote my post where I incorrectly identified what an externality was.



I figured it was about OPEC. So when I asked for examples of natural monopolies, you cite an example of a govt-funded oligopoly. So how is this collusion of various govts in this oligopoly evidence that free-market capitalism is bad? I'd like to hear this.


Well let's see what Investopedia has to say:

Market Failure



Here are the key takeaways. You'll enjoy the 4th:

Oh and in case you still think an externality that is an unintended benefit is indicative of market failure:



-


Please keep talking out of your ass. I'm having fun over here.

Lol, now who's rushing to do research Mr. Investopedia?

Your posts on this subject will remain irrelevant until you improve as a person. I'm not going to indulge your flailing any further.

 

[panamaican]

I'm talking about waste management companies in the private sector. How did they come to be? Did the govt create them or were they a response to a need?

What about all the market research businesses, small and big, do to gauge the public's reaction to different eco-friendly products? Then they use the data they receive from the public to make changes to better satisfy their customer. You wouldn't do market research if you were being forced through regulation.

Now, I'm not saying regulation is always a bad thing but it's foolish to think no business or potential business would eventually answer the public's need for more eco-friendly approaches.

The government created them in response to a need. The government created the requirement that waste be managed (in attempts to improve the public health and reduce the spread of disease). Then the government outsourced the requirement to private business. In most cases, the companies either get paid from the government or they get paid by citizens who have to use the services because of the government.

As far eco-friendly products, they produce them because the government has already mandated eco-conscious products. Maximizing return after government sets the table is capitalism but capitalism isn't what created the movement in the 1st place. You're essentially crediting capitalism for its response to regulation without actually realizing that it is only a response to regulation, not a market that capitalism itself created.

And it's not foolish to say that no business would answer the need because no business ever has. Government has always done so and private business has responded.

 

[Horse Style]

Lol, now who's rushing to do research Mr. Investopedia?

Your posts on this subject will remain irrelevant until you improve as a person. I'm not going to indulge your flailing any further.

You were so fixated on definitions all of a sudden so I obliged with a quick lookup.

 

[Horse Style]

The government created them in response to a need. The government created the requirement that waste be managed (in attempts to improve the public health and reduce the spread of disease). Then the government outsourced the requirement to private business. In most cases, the companies either get paid from the government or they get paid by citizens who have to use the services because of the government.

As far eco-friendly products, they produce them because the government has already mandated eco-conscious products. Maximizing return after government sets the table is capitalism but capitalism isn't what created the movement in the 1st place. You're essentially crediting capitalism for its response to regulation without actually realizing that it is only a response to regulation, not a market that capitalism itself created.

And it's not foolish to say that no business would answer the need because no business ever has. Government has always done so and private business has responded.

So society had a need for proper waste management and communicated that need via govt. The private sector responded and now we have a private market to address that need. Whether the clients are the people directly or the govt, it's still a private market addressing the needs of society.

In other words, the govt became a customer that demanded waste management and the free-market produced suppliers of that waste management. So it's the capitalistic concept of supply/demand in action.

 

[panamaican]

So society had a need for proper waste management and communicated that need via govt. The private sector responded and now we have a private market to address that need. Whether the clients are the people directly or the govt, it's still a private market addressing the needs of society.

In other words, the govt became a customer that demanded waste management and the free-market produced suppliers of that waste management. So it's the capitalistic concept of supply/demand in action.

Okay, you're not being serious or genuine. You were wrong. Now, you're changing what you said.

 

[Horse Style]

Okay, you're not being serious or genuine. You were wrong. Now, you're changing what you said.

Oh? What did I change?