*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

Bottled water vs tap water is not choice, not when it comes to washing. Drinking, sure, but not everyday household chores.

It is choice. Just not a very good choice. And it is a type of choice that still has enough marginal impact on businesses that can really impact their decisions.

[OngBonga]

It is choice. Just not a very good choice.

This is rather like saying if you don't like the train service to work, you can always walk 10 miles.

[wufwugy]

This is rather like saying if you don't like the train service to work, you can always walk 10 miles.

Yeah. It IS. And it matters. I explained in the post I referenced earlier how just this small amount of choice is possibly responsible for a lot of "keeping the company in line".

The example you gave is a little extreme; quite a lot happens before a person decides to walk ten miles instead of take the train.

Government regulation of an industry where the choices are not that great doesn't fix the problem, and it makes the natural function of the market regarding overcoming that problem less effective.

[Savy]

Bottled water vs tap water is not choice, not when it comes to washing. Drinking, sure, but not everyday household chores.

Actually what you'd do is wash less. As everyone would be in the same situation washing less would become more normal and therefore prices would drop, especially when people are buying purely bottled water to drink. Well what would actually happen is the government would intervene and ban bottled water but you know.

[wufwugy]

Actually what you'd do is wash less. As everyone would be in the same situation washing less would become more normal and therefore prices would drop, especially when people are buying purely bottled water to drink. Well what would actually happen is the government would intervene and ban bottled water but you know.

This guy fucks.

[wufwugy]

If duckface is women presenting how sex-seeking they are (it is), then cuckface is men presenting how much prepped-bull jizz they can fit in their mouths.

[wufwugy]

Actually what you'd do is wash less. As everyone would be in the same situation washing less would become more normal and therefore prices would drop, especially when people are buying purely bottled water to drink. Well what would actually happen is the government would intervene and ban bottled water but you know.

I should clarify something.

If the premise is that the tap water company raises its price, then quantity demanded would fall (move left along the demand curve) and the company would decrease supply (shift the supply curve left) if it didn't want to produce a surplus of water. Then in complement markets (like faucets), demand would decrease (shift the demand curve left), and in substitution markets (like bottled water), demand would increase (shift the demand curve right). This would send incentive signals dependent on what happened to expected profits in the respective markets and among the respective firms. Over time this could yield a decline in demand for the tap water from that specific company because the competition over those potential profits would eventually achieve lower prices than before, and this would result in the demand for the original tap water company decreasing.

[Savy]

Actually what you'd do is wash less. As everyone would be in the same situation washing less would become more normal and therefore prices would drop, especially when people are buying purely bottled water to drink. Well what would actually happen is the government would intervene and ban bottled water but you know.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302

Just saying

[OngBonga]

Yeah, and quite a lot happens before someone decides to fill a bath with bottled water.

These examples are not extreme by coincidence, it's because they're natural monopolies and there is no reasonable alternative.

[wufwugy]

Yeah, and quite a lot happens before someone decides to fill a bath with bottled water.

These examples are not extreme by coincidence, it's because they're natural monopolies and there is no reasonable alternative.

Do you know what makes a company a natural monopoly?

Do you have examples of natural monopolies behaving in such a way that they would not if the market was not a monopoly market?

[wufwugy]

Do you know what makes a company a natural monopoly?

Do you have examples of natural monopolies behaving in such a way that they would not if the market was not a monopoly market?

Yo Ong I really wanted to hear your thoughts on this.

[OngBonga]

Yo Ong I really wanted to hear your thoughts on this.

Sorry been busy preparing to move house, plus work.

The second question, I'll answer that quickly... no.

The first one... what makes a natural monopoly? In my opinion (I'm not pretending to be an economist) it's a service that is both essential and comes from a single source, where the consumer has very little (not necessarily zero) choice but to use.

A natural monopoly is a business model where direct competition doesn't exist, and profit is essentially guaranteed by the need of the people to use the service.

I understand your point about bottled water and tap water being in competition with one another, but it's indirect and the tap water company needs to be performing particularly badly before a significant shift of custom moves to bottled water. So ok tap water companies can't literally charge what they like, but they can still overcharge while being "competetive" enough so people don't start bathing with bottled water.

So tap water is a natural monopoly, at least I believe so. People need it, and there is only one source.

Energy is another. I know savy seems to think that you can literally choose to use a different power plant, but you don't phone the plant and ask them for quotes. The "competition" here is an illusion... you're buying the same power from different middle men who charge different prices. What's the need for this competition? So the consumer has to figure out which one is taking the piss the least?

The only real competition enegery companies have is people investing in renewables, but for most people it's prohibitively expensive and therefore the energy companies are providing an essential service that the consumer has very little real choice on. Another natural monopoly.

You can't not make these things a monopoly. That's why they're natural.

[BananaStand]

So ok tap water companies can't literally charge what they like, but they can still overcharge .

Myth.

I though I had explained this quite thoroughly. There is a regulatory body within the government that oversees that tap water company and verifies that their return on invested capital is fair and consistent with the rest of the market.

They really don't have the ability to raise prices, or 'overcharge', in a way that would exploit their status as a monopoly.

[wufwugy]

Sorry been busy preparing to move house, plus work.

The second question, I'll answer that quickly... no.

The first one... what makes a natural monopoly? In my opinion (I'm not pretending to be an economist) it's a service that is both essential and comes from a single source, where the consumer has very little (not necessarily zero) choice but to use.

A natural monopoly is a business model where direct competition doesn't exist, and profit is essentially guaranteed by the need of the people to use the service.

I understand your point about bottled water and tap water being in competition with one another, but it's indirect and the tap water company needs to be performing particularly badly before a significant shift of custom moves to bottled water. So ok tap water companies can't literally charge what they like, but they can still overcharge while being "competetive" enough so people don't start bathing with bottled water.

So tap water is a natural monopoly, at least I believe so. People need it, and there is only one source.

Energy is another. I know savy seems to think that you can literally choose to use a different power plant, but you don't phone the plant and ask them for quotes. The "competition" here is an illusion... you're buying the same power from different middle men who charge different prices. What's the need for this competition? So the consumer has to figure out which one is taking the piss the least?

The only real competition enegery companies have is people investing in renewables, but for most people it's prohibitively expensive and therefore the energy companies are providing an essential service that the consumer has very little real choice on. Another natural monopoly.

You can't not make these things a monopoly. That's why they're natural.

Thanks for the response. I'll think about that.


What economists call natural monopoly derives from two elements: (1) fixed costs, and (2) economies of scale.

(1) is that the higher the fixed costs, the higher the natural monopoly. Example: if the fixed costs to start a business are $10, just about anybody can do it and the monopoly level is low, so to speak. If the fixed costs to start are $10M, a significantly smaller number of people can do it; therefore the market has a higher monopoly level, roughly speaking.

(2) is gains to efficiency made by scale increases. This is like how if you are the sole worker of your business, you do everything, and on average you might be able to produce $20/hr while costing $10/hr. But if you have ten workers, you each specialize at your comparative advantages, and could produce greater value at lower cost than you by yourself can. Equipment also factors in, which is also a fixed cost element.


Also, most markets are considered monopolistic. Monopolistic competition to be exact. What makes something monopolistic is having product differentiation. Economists don't view "need" or the like into what makes something monopolistic or natural monopoly; that is instead mainly captured by elasticity of demand, which means that for some things with high inelasticity of demand, like water might be (I don't know if it is), consumers will put up with higher price changes associated with lower quantity changes (the demand curve is very steep). For things with high elasticity, like a type of soda in a competitive soda market probably is, consumer response to price increases is to demand significantly less of the product.


Neat to note on (1) from above, this is why I said earlier how having more rich people and rich companies is an effective measure against natural monopolies. That makes higher fixed costs less costly to a larger number of potential competitors. On (2) from above, economies of scale creates an incumbent disadvantage to the firm too. Large structures can be less capable of adapting and more slow moving. One area we see an incumbent disadvantage is in Walmart not being able to compete with Amazon with internet/delivery services since any success for Walmart in that realm would detract from Walmart's bread and butter brick and mortar model. In this case, Walmart suffers from its own success. In perhaps an ironic way, monopolistic elements are necessary for growth of quality of goods and services in the first place. This is because to stand out to the consumer and for the producer to profit, product differentiation is key.

[spoonitnow]

So I see that the Women's March was a huge success this year.

[spoonitnow]

This is a picture of a nice woman chestfeeding:

Spoiler: Show

[wufwugy]

is that a dude with srs gyno?

[spoonitnow]

is that a dude with srs gyno?

That is a man chestfeeding his child that came out of his womb. What the fuck is wrong with you, you insensitive fuck?

[wufwugy]

how dare you assume that your offense doesn't offend me.

[spoonitnow]

how dare you assume that your offense doesn't offend me.

Note that it's called chestfeeding as well. I didn't make that up.

[wufwugy]

well if you have that much fucking gyno you probably cry yourself to sleep knowing that your manwomb is actually a cock and balls

[OngBonga]

Ok well I'm going to admit something that hurts my argument somewhat, but it only applies to water and certainly not energy.

Water isn't too expensive here. They don't overcharge, probably because of exactly what you just said... government regulations. Personally, I'm against regulations when it comes to the majority of things, but not when it comes to things like natural monopolies, even if I'm the only one who accepts that term. The regulations you speak of are anti-capitalist measures, they are anti-competetive policies, it is essentially doing exactly what I'm asking for... government control of critical infrastructure.

But energy is definitely too expensive, although that might well be an effort to force people to use less. Still, energy companies are making an absolute fucking fortune thanks to people's need for electricity. Is that being invested in research and development for renewable energy sources? Of course not. We can probably already do that, but there's just too much money in fossil fuels. Renewable energy remains out of reach for most people.

Trains are too expensive too. There should be an effort to get people off the roads, but in most cases it's cheaper to drive somewhere than get the train. That results in more pollution and heavier traffic. Did the trains work better when they were state owned? No, not in the 80's when I can remember, but they were Thatcher days and they were probably deliberately running the state owned service into the ground so the public weren't outraged when it was privatised, that's standard privatisation tactics.

The problem with state owned services is always the state itself, its incompetence or corruption, not the fact it is state owned. That incompetence and corruption can exist in a private company too. The difference is that an incompetent business goes bust, while an incompetent government loses power (or at least they should). Both have incentive.

[BananaStand]

Ok well I'm going to admit something that hurts my argument somewhat, but it only applies to water and certainly not energy.

That's probably wrong. Depends on what you mean by "energy". There's a difference between Exxon and your electric company, even though both provide "energy".

Water isn't too expensive here. They don't overcharge, probably because of exactly what you just said... government regulations

Oversight is a better word.

Personally, I'm against regulations when it comes to the majority of things, but not when it comes to things like natural monopolies, even if I'm the only one who accepts that term.

I'll concede I know what you mean when you say "natural monopolies". Now you gotta meet me halfway and promise me you understand the difference between regulation, and oversight.

The regulations you speak of are anti-capitalist measures

,
Not even close.

they are anti-competetive policies

A complete falsehood.

it is essentially doing exactly what I'm asking for... government control of critical infrastructure.

Oversight.

The measures are not anti capitalist. When a utility company generates and delivers electricity for a profit....that's capitalism. And the government oversight is not anti-competitive. The nature of the business itself is anti-competitive. There's ultimately nothing preventing you outright from burning some fuel, boiling some water, spinning a turbine, generating energy, and then selling it. The real hurdle though, is delivering that energy. For that you need infrastructure, like power lines. The capital and red tape required to build an infrastructure that can deliver energy at a level competitive with the existing electric company is a massive, practically insurmountable barrier to entry.

What government oversight does, is a countermeasure to this anti-competitive atmosphere. It doesn't allow the existing players to leverage large barriers to entry in a way that exploits the consumer.

And let's be clear. The government exercises very little "control", if any, over these companies.

But energy is definitely too expensive, although that might well be an effort to force people to use less

The first part sounds like a personal problem. The second part makes no sense. The energy company prefers to sell more energy.

Still, energy companies are making an absolute fucking fortune thanks to people's need for electricity.

I know I've explained this several times, so it baffles me how the concept still eludes you. They are not making "an absolute fucking fortune". They are making a return commensurate with the market, their risk, and their amount of invested capital. That's what the government oversight ensures.

Is that being invested in research and development for renewable energy sources? Of course not. We can probably already do that, but there's just too much money in fossil fuels. Renewable energy remains out of reach for most people.

Why is it the responsibility of the energy company to find alternative energy sources? It's up to YOU, the consumer, to demand alternatives if that's what you really want. Create a need in the marketplace, and capitalism will provide. That's how it works.

One way to do that, is to buy less energy. Exxon knows this. They see people buying hyrbid cars. They know that gasoline isn't going to work forever. Therefore they invest tons of capital into alternatives and remain on the cutting edge of the industry.

Another way to do that is to exercise democracy. If you don't like XYZ energy company burning fossil fuels because it pollutes, then you have a strong case for government action. Pollution is bad, and it affects entire communities, therefore it's totally within the government's purview to regulate/prevent it. Pass a law forcing XYZ company to pollute less, and they will be forced to find alternatives.

Remember I was telling you how valuable cowshit is? In Vermont, where cows outnumber people, the electric company buys cowshit, and burns it to generate electricity. It's really hard to get energy much cleaner than that.

They probably don't have this where you live because it's a shithole country with like 6 sunny days a year. But here in paradise, if you install solar panels at your house, and you use less energy than you produce....then there is a law requiring the public utility companies to BUY that extra energy from you. Even cleaner that cowshit!

Trains are too expensive too.

When was the last time you tried to buy a car?

The problem with state owned services is always the state itself, its incompetence or corruption, not the fact it is state owned. That incompetence and corruption can exist in a private company too. The difference is that an incompetent business goes bust, while an incompetent government loses power (or at least they should). Both have incentive.

So.....wouldn't you then prefer that these enterprises be run by private companies....since the consequences of incompetence and corruption are so much higher??

Yet, early you said...

exactly what I'm asking for... government control of critical infrastructure.

Does not compute

[wufwugy]

The measures are not anti capitalist. When a utility company generates and delivers electricity for a profit....that's capitalism. And the government oversight is not anti-competitive. The nature of the business itself is anti-competitive. There's ultimately nothing preventing you outright from burning some fuel, boiling some water, spinning a turbine, generating energy, and then selling it. The real hurdle though, is delivering that energy. For that you need infrastructure, like power lines. The capital and red tape required to build an infrastructure that can deliver energy at a level competitive with the existing electric company is a massive, practically insurmountable barrier to entry.

You mentioned two ways monopolies develop, (1) fixed costs, (2) government regulation.

In practice, we have seen that government regulation is a remarkable deterrent to competition. The high fixed cost component, well, it's tough to say if the data show that it's much of a deterrent to competition. It's a deterrent to having a lot of competitors, but quantity of competitors doesn't equal competition. Some markets are highly competitive even with only two firms.

What government oversight does, is a countermeasure to this anti-competitive atmosphere. It doesn't allow the existing players to leverage large barriers to entry in a way that exploits the consumer.

What are these barriers to entry the firms are leveraging that aren't instead the government making them?

Here's how a firm with market power (the power to set market price, essentially a monopoly) can leverage in free market: it can set price where marginal cost equals demand whenever another firm tries to enter the market, thereby reducing the entering firm's incentive to enter. Then when the entering firm backs off, the monopoly can go back to setting the price where marginal cost equals marginal revenue, which is a higher price and lower quantity than the market demand would prefer while higher profits for the monopoly.

In theory, that is what can happen. In practice, it doesn't seem to have much of an effect on firm entry. Given my study of other elements of economics, it is my view that the monopoly model's deterrent on firm entry that I presented is flawed enough that it's near worthless. Firms are unlikely to want to enter a market based on current price/profits under a monopoly regime, and instead are likely to want to enter a market based on expected future price/profits in a market after the newly entered firm is established.

Perhaps the best example of all of the above is ISP. Incumbent ISPs are trying to use their market power to deter entry from companies like Google. It's not working. The only real active barriers to entry in the market are government regulations. Those barriers have been quite successful so far.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"the government"?

You and ong live in different countries.

Other governments are available.

[OngBonga]

Yeah but these government regulations exist in both countries, it was an applicable argument even if we have different regulations.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fair enough.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oversight without regulation seems pointless. Can you clarify?
I mean, gov't oversight which isn't backed up by legal consequences isn't likely to change any business practices, IMO.

Maybe you mean this:
Oversight would amount to an agency (3rd party or otherwise) whose primary objective was communication between the producers and consumers, but the oversight agency has no regulatory authority, only the consumers do.

Is that it?

[BananaStand]

Oversight without regulation seems pointless. Can you clarify?
I mean, gov't oversight which isn't backed up by legal consequences isn't likely to change any business practices, IMO.

You're not wrong, but you're really splitting hairs. There are consequences. The word "regulation" isn't entirely irrelevant.

The distinction is mostly for Ong's benefit. He seems to be advocating for total government control of these enterprises and is describing that as "regulation"

[BananaStand]

Maybe you mean this:
Oversight would amount to an agency (3rd party or otherwise) whose primary objective was communication between the producers and consumers, but the oversight agency has no regulatory authority, only the consumers do.

Is that it?

No, it's more like the oversight acts as a replacement for market forces in situations where those market forces are absent.

[wufwugy]

No, it's more like the oversight acts as a replacement for market forces in situations where those market forces are absent.

This assumes market forces are absent in those situations.

[BananaStand]

This assumes market forces are absent in those situations.

they are absent. Using the same example of the electric company....there is no competition.

If you're gonna say that light bulbs are competing with candles, just GTFO. There's ONE electric company and it controls the only existing infrastructure to deliver electricity.

Without competition, and without a better way to get electricity, power is removed from the consumers and given to the electric company. Maybe they don't do anything with it. But maybe they do. Maybe they decide that people are gonna just buy the electricity no matter what, so why not charge double??

Competition is a market force that would prevent that. It's missing. So the government restores the balance of power through oversight/regulation.

[wufwugy]

they are absent. Using the same example of the electric company....there is no competition.

If you're gonna say that light bulbs are competing with candles, just GTFO. There's ONE electric company and it controls the only existing infrastructure to deliver electricity.

Without competition, and without a better way to get electricity, power is removed from the consumers and given to the electric company. Maybe they don't do anything with it. But maybe they do. Maybe they decide that people are gonna just buy the electricity no matter what, so why not charge double??

Competition is a market force that would prevent that. It's missing. So the government restores the balance of power through oversight/regulation.

The existence of a direct competitor is not a necessary condition for the market forces to be working. Indeed a market might function best with only one firm in it all the while market forces would be working.

Why doesn't the electric company just charge double? I answered this in two different ways on my post above yours and the one a couple days ago about roads and trains. There are a bunch of market forces in play if a monopoly doubles its price.

The typical effect of oversight by government is to reduce those market forces due to the unintended consequence of the oversight reducing profit expectations for potential entrants, increasing cost, and criminalizing innovation.

[OngBonga]

I'm not being ignorant, I'm just too tired to read all that economics stuff and make sense of it.

[wufwugy]

I'm not being ignorant, I'm just too tired to read all that economics stuff and make sense of it.

Save for later.

[wufwugy]

It's super cool that you're working btw. Good job on that.

[OngBonga]

It's super cool that you're working btw. Good job on that.

If I'm not working from home within six months I'm ditching it, I'll be fucked if I'm commuting an hour every day to work in a warehouse. But strangely, it does actually feel good to be doing something with my time, so I'm in no hurry.

[OngBonga]

Sorry banana haven't time for your post.

[BananaStand]

Sorry banana haven't time for your post.

Workin man aint got time to read, I get it.

Basically you have MUBS when it comes to monopolies.

And wuf has MUBS when it comes to government oversight of monopolies.

And you both need to chill

[BananaStand]

If I'm not working from home within six months I'm ditching it, I'll be fucked if I'm commuting an hour every day to work in a warehouse.

I used to have a long commute. At the end of a long day there really is nothing like sparking up a joint, turning on an OAR album and driving the speed limit for over an hour. I think it's good for the soul or something.

Now I have a 12 minute commute. So I leave work, and within a quarter hour I'm in my living room catching up on what stupid shit the democrats are saying on TV. Not as good for the soul.

[Poopadoop]

Ugh. Commuting is the worst fucking time sink in life; not that there aren't worse ways to waste time, but just that it's frequency is so high. An hour commute both ways is 10 hours a week of your life spent in traffic, and basically makes your job 10 hours/day instead of 8. Music and a doobie might help, but nothing you can do in a car or on a train can ever truly balance that equation.

[BananaStand]

Ugh. Commuting is the worst fucking time sink in life; not that there aren't worse ways to waste time, but just that it's frequency is so high. An hour commute both ways is 10 hours a week of your life spent in traffic, and basically makes your job 10 hours/day instead of 8. Music and a doobie might help, but nothing you can do in a car or on a train can ever truly balance that equation.

Well if you're Ong, and you were at home, you'd be sitting around smoking a doobie. I'm not sure that driving around smoking a doobie is that big of a step down.

[spoonitnow]

Ugh. Commuting is the worst fucking time sink in life; not that there aren't worse ways to waste time, but just that it's frequency is so high. An hour commute both ways is 10 hours a week of your life spent in traffic, and basically makes your job 10 hours/day instead of 8. Music and a doobie might help, but nothing you can do in a car or on a train can ever truly balance that equation.

I generally recommend podcasts and learning a language.

[OngBonga]

I used to have a long commute. At the end of a long day there really is nothing like sparking up a joint, turning on an OAR album and driving the speed limit for over an hour. I think it's good for the soul or something.

Now I have a 12 minute commute. So I leave work, and within a quarter hour I'm in my living room catching up on what stupid shit the democrats are saying on TV. Not as good for the soul.

The commutes haven't started yet. I'll be lucky because I'll be passenger and I can smoke... so I can chill the journey. And it's not quite an hour, it's perhaps under 40 minutes on a good day, but you gotta account for traffic, which is dreadful once you hit town at rush hour.

What will suck about the commute is I'm returning to the town I just fucking left, but like I say, it's a means to an end. Either I'll be working mostly from home by summer, or I'll find other ways to make a living.

I won't be going back on benefits again, those days are done.

[wufwugy]

I won't be going back on benefits again, those days are done.

That's great to hear. Have you experienced change?

[spoonitnow]

The commutes haven't started yet. I'll be lucky because I'll be passenger and I can smoke... so I can chill the journey. And it's not quite an hour, it's perhaps under 40 minutes on a good day, but you gotta account for traffic, which is dreadful once you hit town at rush hour.

What will suck about the commute is I'm returning to the town I just fucking left, but like I say, it's a means to an end. Either I'll be working mostly from home by summer, or I'll find other ways to make a living.

I won't be going back on benefits again, those days are done.

This needs more attention.

[BananaStand]

I dont know. And maybe they werent. The problem was the incompetence involved in the way they incentivized the project manager.

His directive was...spend and get your bonus. So in that regard, all investments are equal. The two may be different later on when it comes to the rate case. But the person making the decision of what to spend money on, doesnt care about those details.

The point though, is that the money was spent on something that consumers didnt want or need. So why should they pay for it?

[wufwugy]

I dont know. And maybe they werent. The problem was the incompetence involved in the way they incentivized the project manager.

His directive was...spend and get your bonus. So in that regard, all investments are equal. The two may be different later on when it comes to the rate case. But the person making the decision of what to spend money on, doesnt care about those details.

The point though, is that the money was spent on something that consumers didnt want or need. So why should they pay for it?

In the short run, that is a necessary component of what makes for a robust market in the long run.

Besides, it's not avoidable. Like you said, the consumers eventually responded to the information and the company's rating tanked.

[Savy]

I really don't mind commuting to work as long as I'm not on completely packed public transport or having to walk a lot. Driving in traffic sucks in comparison to being sat on a train doing puzzles/listening to podcasts/finishing off work etc.

The best commute I ever had was when I used to work at the same place my dad did and he'd drive so I basically got to sleep 30 mins both ways.

[spoonitnow]

[Poopadoop]

Did it say anything about the value of getting spanked with a magazine with your daughter's face on the cover?

[BananaStand]

I can only speak from my own experience, but having been the "bull" in a handful of these situations, my observations are as follows:

1) The woman likes her husband's money, but also wants some guilt-free deep-dickin'

2) The guy is a closet homo.

[spoonitnow]

I can only speak from my own experience, but having been the "bull" in a handful of these situations, my observations are as follows:

1) The woman likes her husband's money, but also wants some guilt-free deep-dickin'

2) The guy is a closet homo.

Same and I linked to a paper earlier in this thread or the randomness thread on the current active page that goes into a lot of detail on #1.

[OngBonga]

If that's the case, why would the shareholders of these companies invest at all?

Well that's the point. The only people who have the incentive to run this service for no profit are the people themselves... ie the taxpayer. Their profit is savings.

[BananaStand]

Well that's the point. The only people who have the incentive to run this service for no profit are the people themselves... ie the taxpayer. Their profit is savings.

Is it really a savings? When has the government ever demonstrated that it can run an enterprise cheaper, or more efficiently than a private institution?

[wufwugy]

Well that's the point. The only people who have the incentive to run this service for no profit are the people themselves... ie the taxpayer. Their profit is savings.

That's not much incentive.

The method that economics shows directly decreases price and directly increases quantity in a market is from the profit incentive, and indirectly the result includes quality increase.


I hate to appeal to an example because they are never persuasive, but we have examples of markets being run non-profit and a popular quote that came out of one of those examples is "they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work".

[OngBonga]

That's not much incentive.

Of course it is, it's the same as profit, because it is capital gain.

If I could guarantee that I'd bring down people's energy bills by half, I'd win votes. Incentive.

What do you think about BP?

BP drill for oil. It's hard to be enthusiastic about a company that engagesz in such activity. I have no idea how the company is structured, it's a PLC but that only means the public can buy shares, it doesn't mean the government own it unless the government themselves buy shares.

When the government bail it out, they essentially buy shares, but whenever that happens, the government nearly always seek to sell their shares in the future. I dunno if that happened with BP, but it certainly did with the banking bailouts.

[wufwugy]

Of course it is, it's the same as profit, because it is capital gain.

While a capital gain is a profit, it is a different "profit" than wage or salary income because of present value. In short, a capital gain in the future can be much larger than a wage today yet both have the same present value. This is one of the main math reasons why capital gains are better treated as "less than wage/salary income".

If I could guarantee that I'd bring down people's energy bills by half, I'd win votes. Incentive.

I'm unsure how you would do that. By decree?

BP drill for oil. It's hard to be enthusiastic about a company that engagesz in such activity.

Which is pretty funny since if we stopped getting oil people would get on hands and knees begging for the companies to start up again since most lives would be virtually destroyed by no more oil.

When the government bail it out, they essentially buy shares, but whenever that happens, the government nearly always seek to sell their shares in the future. I dunno if that happened with BP, but it certainly did with the banking bailouts.

The 2008 crisis and related economic issues are a remarkable example of government intervention causing the problem(s).

[BananaStand]

Well that's the point. The only people who have the incentive to run this service for no profit are the people themselves... ie the taxpayer. Their profit is savings.

you could say this about anything

How come the government doesn't make pencils? How come there isn't one government run entity making laundry detergent? If a taxpayer wants to buy a bicycle, why should he have to pay a price that includes profit for some private bicycle enterprise??

What if everyone just went to work, gave all their paychecks to the state, and then stood in line for government rationed beets?

Sounds like paradise.........right???

[wufwugy]

How come the government doesn't make pencils?

Here's why government doesn't make pencils: there isn't one single person alive who knows how to make a pencil. It takes knowing how to cut down trees, which takes know how to build saws, which takes know how to mine ore. To use the trees, it takes know how to process the wood, know how to transport it. The other components -- graphite, rubber, etc. -- also take unique know how from people all across the world. Selling it in stores takes know how.

No one person knows how.

So, if one person was in charge (like with a government), he would clearly delegate (like with a bureaucracy). But the bureaucrats don't collectively have the know how either. They would delegate to firms that specialize. But the firms don't have the know how regarding how much to make, in what styles, for what function, and where to put it. So firms would delegate to clients and consumers and other firms along the chain. How do they delegate to consumers and others? The price system. Since the price system does the work, what is the role of the bureaucracy and government? It has no role but to assuage concerns that citizens believe should not be addressed by the price system. What we want to do is change that belief so that the more effective mode of manifesting peoples' preferences -- the price system -- can work for more.

[CoccoBill]

So, if one person was in charge (like with a government), he would

One person? In many countries the top position, be it president, king or whatever, is usually the most powerful, but in most countries apart from dictatorships you definitely cannot say one person is in charge. In most democracies the powers are severely limited, even in the US where undeniably the president has an unusual amount of say in things. In more and more countries the "top" position is largely ceremonial and more a PR position than anything. The "one person in charge" is a much more relevant concept in business.

[wufwugy]

One person? In many countries the top position, be it president, king or whatever, is usually the most powerful, but in most countries apart from dictatorships you definitely cannot say one person is in charge. In most democracies the powers are severely limited, even in the US where undeniably the president has an unusual amount of say in things. In more and more countries the "top" position is largely ceremonial and more a PR position than anything. The "one person in charge" is a much more relevant concept in business.

The illustration works with this.

[OngBonga]

you could say this about anything

Jesus wept pencils are not a naturtal monopoly. I'm not a commie who wants the government to make everything so bad capitalists can't make a profit. That's dumb and is never going to work. So no, I can't say the same about anything.

There's no incentive for the taxpayer to pay for a company that makes pencils, the reason being pencils are not an essential service where the population has no genuine choice but to use. If a pencil is too expensive, buy a different one. Sure the consumer might save a few pence if pencils are made by the government, but how many people does the government emplopy to make pencils?

Noone wants a big government do they? I don't. I want the government to be as small as possible while doing what's necessary to run the country.

[CoccoBill]

That's not why governments don't (usually) make pencils though.

Not one person knows how to make a pencil, that's probably true, but there's no reason why one organization collectively couldn't have that knowledge, and I don't see how that would be different whether that organization is a public or a private sector one.

Within governments and pencil corporations it's the same exact people working there (humans), and from a manufacturing, engineering and logistics point of view how they operate could be identical. I say could, because there are a vast number of different ways to organize the supply chain for a pencil (or any commodity), regarding the level of outsourcing. You could just outsource everything from design to manufacturing to sales, or do one or all parts of that in-house. The reason why governments generally don't produce pencils, is the same reason why Apple and Pizza Hut don't. It's not their core business, and they see no benefit in investing in that area and bring in the expensive expertise required. For them it's much more economically viable to outsource it.

[wufwugy]

That's not why governments don't (usually) make pencils though.

Not one person knows how to make a pencil, that's probably true, but there's no reason why one organization collectively couldn't have that knowledge, and I don't see how that would be different whether that organization is a public or a private sector one.

Within governments and pencil corporations it's the same exact people working there (humans), and from a manufacturing, engineering and logistics point of view how they operate could be identical. I say could, because there are a vast number of different ways to organize the supply chain for a pencil (or any commodity), regarding the level of outsourcing. You could just outsource everything from design to manufacturing to sales, or do one or all parts of that in-house. The reason why governments generally don't produce pencils, is the same reason why Apple and Pizza Hut don't. It's not their core business, and they see no benefit in investing in that area and bring in the expensive expertise required. For them it's much more economically viable to outsource it.

In this situation, the pencils still need the price system to get made according to preference and at greater benefit than cost. Every firm in the world that knows everything about making pencils still don't know what to make, where to put it, when to do it, etc., without the price system.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...n-couples.html

They used pictures of straight people to illustrate the results of a study that evaluated 580 gay couples.

Brilliant.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You mean the fact that by many arguments on this forum, ong had no incentive to ever get himself off the gov't dole, and yet here he is, not only getting off the dole, but feeling good about it.

It's almost as if the act of simplifying human motivations down to a single issue is rarely the whole story.

[Savy]

Week 1, I give it 2 months.

Also if you quit a job you don't get benefits so maybe he meant that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Week 1, I give it 2 months.

Also if you quit a job you don't get benefits so maybe he meant that.

If you want to be hired by someone else, you give your 2 weeks notice and work it out to demonstrate you aren't a petty jerk.
If you want to get back on the dole, you just no-call / no-show until your boss fires you.

Is it different in the UK?

[spoonitnow]

If you want to be hired by someone else, you give your 2 weeks notice and work it out to demonstrate you aren't a petty jerk.
If you want to get back on the dole, you just no-call / no-show until your boss fires you.

Is it different in the UK?

The bold doesn't work quite like you think it does. You can't get welfare, unemployment, etc. in most states in this type of scenario, especially if you haven't worked there for several months.

[BananaStand]

If you want to get back on the dole, you just no-call / no-show until your boss fires you.

Is it different in Missoura?

Where I live if your employment is terminated for cause, you do not enjoy the benefits of unemployment insurance.

[Poopadoop]

Is it different in Missoura?

Where I live if your employment is terminated for cause, you do not enjoy the benefits of unemployment insurance.

Same for when I'm from (Alberta, Canada). Goddamn socialists don't even know how to let people milk the system.

[BananaStand]

Same for when I'm from (Alberta, Canada). Goddamn socialists don't even know how to let people milk the system.

My father immigrated to America from somewhere about 6 feet north of the border when he was about two days old. Somehow, that means that I have dual citizenship. If I ever need expensive medical care, I am coming up there and just raping the shit out of your system.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I was working as a carpenter and someone used construction glue to cement my radio to my workbench. We pranked each other a lot, so that didn't really bother me.
Thing is that in order to move the radio, it had to be destroyed.

When I told the owner of the company that I'm fine with a prank, but this had destroyed my radio, and I want it replaced, preferably by the person who pranked me.

The owner started to lecture me about personal responsibility, and I cut him off and asked, "Isn't it the responsibility of the person whose prank caused destruction of my property?"

He got all red-faced and fired me for not letting him lecture me.

I collected unemployment for 6 months after that. What was his "cause" aside from, presumably, my belligerence (from his POV)?


IDK the exact laws, but I fail to see why that employer wouldn't fabricate any old story to blame me for the loss of my job.

[BananaStand]

IDK the exact laws, but I fail to see why that employer wouldn't fabricate any old story to blame me for the loss of my job.

When you file for unemployment benefits, the gov't will send a letter informing your former employer that a claim has been made against his insurance (that's what unemployment is, it's an insurance program, not a tax. Important distinction).

He has the option to contest it, saying that you were fired for cause. He would only do this to prevent his insurance rates from going up, or if he wanted to be a dick to you.

The government is then caught in the middle of a he-said/monkey-said situation. So they have to investigate. They are going to ask for forms filled out, and statements, depositions, blah blah blah blah. And when you consider that actual $ impact of one layoff on insurance rates, it's FAR more expedient for your former employer to just let it go.