A Survey on the Importance of Prices

[Bibliofagus]

I must be retarded but I never realised that Cheney and Romney derived most of their income directly from working for the government.

Where did Halliburton get so many billions of dollars?

From your government probably. So... assuming you already knew the answer to your question before you asked it: What's your point?

[The Whit]

I must be retarded but I never realised that Cheney and Romney derived most of their income directly from working for the government.

Where did Halliburton get so many billions of dollars?

From your government probably. So... assuming you already knew the answer to your question before you asked it: What's your point?

This is taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton), but this info is easily verifiable:

Halliburton has become the object of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million.  As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.  Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.

Is it starting to make sense as to how this con system works now?

[Bibliofagus]

I know that governments buy stuff in the private sector, and I suspect that decisionmakers in the government are likely to buy at least - slightly - skewed towards the people who they actually talk to and who are more likely to to be of future use.

Do you think this is different in the private sector? Really? What is your point? I'd hate to strawman you.

[The Whit]

I know that governments buy stuff in the private sector, and I suspect that decisionmakers in the government are likely to buy at least - slightly - skewed towards the people who they actually talk to and who are more likely to to be of future use.

Do you think this is different in the private sector? Really? What is your point? I'd hate to strawman you.

A guy leaves a company with a $36 million dollar severance package plus stock options and becomes the VICE PRESIDENT of the country.  Three years later said country is at war and the VP's old company is getting all the best deals and making BILLIONS of dollars hand over fist.  That's SLIGHTLY SKEWED!?


The difference in the private sector is that I, and everyone else, have the choice to give or not give you my money regardless of what you do.  Halliburton didn't make it's billions on the free market by producing goods for consumers, it made billions by getting handouts from the people it knew in the government.  Those billions of dollars were not freely handed over, but taken from the people by the government through force--or the threat of it (try not paying taxes and see how far you get).

[Plu]

Capitalism is a system that affords individual freedom in the marketplace. Yes, businesses are trying to get as much profit as possible but consumers are also trying to get as much value for every dollar. Competition among producers means that consumers can take their money elsewhere if they don't think they're getting the best bang for their buck. That means that producers have to provide enough value to convince consumers to hand over their cash in trade for their product. Even though everyone is working on their own self interest, they provide increasingly valuable products at lower prices.

Of course there will be companies that try to fool consumers, but that's where education comes in. The more educated someone is the less gullible they are and the less likely they are to waste their resources on product that does not serve them or being conned. We already see this correlation in religion, and that was posted about here:

Right. So how is it not in the interest of the producers to keep the people buying their stuff as dumb as possible? The dumber they are, the easier to con. The easier to con, the more profit is to be made.

Value is incredibly subjective. Look at religion indeed; it makes billions of dollars off of keeping people uninformed and ignorant, and it's every bit in their interest to keep people stupid so they can keep raking in the big bucks.

There's a whole field around "spreading bullshit and hoping people are dumb enough to buy it", it's called marketing and it's their goal to get people to buy your shit, any way they can. It's not at all in the marketing departments interest to be honest about what a product does; it's in their interest to lie through their teeth as long as they sell.

So who's going to educate people in a free market society? It's certainly not going to be the corporations, they prefer anyone not working a high-level job for them stupid. It's not going to be some education company, because I don't think one of those has ever been profitable, or even affordable, that's why so much of our tax money goes to education.

There's nothing education does that provides profit to a company that cannot be achieved by spreading more lies and misinformation. The catholic church is the ultimate proof of that; they've been deceiving people into giving their money for no return for over 2000 years and no amount of education has been able to stop them.

Unless you think that the Catholic Church is an amazing example of how companies should work, a totally free market is not what you want. Because like it or not, they are a company, and they are amazingly succesful, and that's in a large part because of capitalist values.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Value is incredibly subjective.

Yup, and is the basis behind the demolition of rational choice theory as a useable and workable theoretical paradigm.

This is economics 101, as is Webber's axiological rationality. Haven't seen it discussed even once on this thread either until you hinted at it, Plu.

[Bibliofagus]

I know that governments buy stuff in the private sector, and I suspect that decisionmakers in the government are likely to buy at least - slightly - skewed towards the people who they actually talk to and who are more likely to to be of future use.

Do you think this is different in the private sector? Really? What is your point? I'd hate to strawman you.

A guy leaves a company with a $36 million dollar severance package plus stock options and becomes the VICE PRESIDENT of the country.  Three years later said country is at war and the VP's old company is getting all the best deals and making BILLIONS of dollars hand over fist.  That's SLIGHTLY SKEWED!?

Have fun reading what you want to read dude.
I clearly said that I believe that buying decisions done by government representatives are -at least- slightly skewed. Do I need explain how what Cheney did fits into that? Really?

Maybe you could answer my question instead:

Do you think this is different in the private sector? Really? What is your point? I'd hate to strawman you.

The difference in the private sector is that I, and everyone else, have the choice to give or not give you my money regardless of what you do.

Really? You actually check all the companies Coca cola does business with before buying a coke? And for your coffee as well, and your meat, and your insurance, and your pension, and the school you send your kids to, etc etc. Making sure they do not reap to much profit off of doing business with the people who actually give you what you want?
Really?

Halliburton didn't make it's billions on the free market by producing goods for consumers, it made billions by getting handouts from the people it knew in the government.

And if the government wouldn't have had any money to spend they'd just all roll over and die or something? What the hell is your point? Somebody got to rich by doing a fucking deal with somebody with too much power? Do you REALLY believe this does not happen in the private sector?  I mean really?

Those billions of dollars were not freely handed over, but taken from the people by the government through force--or the threat of it (try not paying taxes and see how far you get).

I keep fucking forgetting that Americans believe they do not live in a democracy. Sorry.

[The Whit]

Right. So how is it not in the interest of the producers to keep the people buying their stuff as dumb as possible? The dumber they are, the easier to con. The easier to con, the more profit is to be made.

I see you didn't comprehend what I said, so I'll repeat it for you and maybe it will get though this time:

Of course there will be companies that try to fool consumers, but that's where education comes in. The more educated someone is the less gullible they are and the less likely they are to waste their resources on product that does not serve them or being conned.

Value is incredibly subjective.

Yes.

Look at religion indeed; it makes billions of dollars off of keeping people uninformed and ignorant, and it's every bit in their interest to keep people stupid so they can keep raking in the big bucks.

Again, it is in the best interests of the people to be educated.

There's a whole field around "spreading bullshit and hoping people are dumb enough to buy it", it's called marketing and it's their goal to get people to buy your shit, any way they can. It's not at all in the marketing departments interest to be honest about what a product does; it's in their interest to lie through their teeth as long as they sell.

There's this thing called false advertising, and companies can be held liable for doing this.  For fuck's sake Subway was just sued for selling foot-longs that were actually 11".  You're never going to get rid of people who are going to con others, the best you can do is educate yourself to identify their bullshit.  Obviously, when you watch a commercial for a Big Mac you damn well know that burger doesn't look the way it does in the commercial.

So who's going to educate people in a free market society?

Uh, schools?

It's certainly not going to be the corporations, they prefer anyone not working a high-level job for them stupid. It's not going to be some education company, because I don't think one of those has ever been profitable, or even affordable, that's why so much of our tax money goes to education.

So certain?  Education is commodity the same as any other.  If there is demand, there will be supply.  Like all things, initially the price will be very high and few people will be able to afford it.  But those high prices are going to attract a lot of vendors who will eventually have to undercut their competition to increase business, and eventually it becomes affordable to the masses.  The exact same thing as in the TV example, just that colleges have been around for hundreds of years and have been affordable to lay people for quite some time now.  The reason why colleges are getting so much more expensive right now is a mix of unemployed people trying to re-educate themselves in hopes of getting a better career and the easy to get government funds that are sending them there.  The increase in demand and money to pay for it drives up the price of education, just like the prices of houses were driven up by the federally backed funds provided by Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae.

There's nothing education does that provides profit to a company that cannot be achieved by spreading more lies and misinformation.

I want you to think about that statement really hard.

The catholic church is the ultimate proof of that; they've been deceiving people into giving their money for no return for over 2000 years and no amount of education has been able to stop them.

The only way the catholic church can see it's product is to the gullible, since it doesn't even have a tangible product besides racism and misogyny.  In the age of information--brought about by education and the freedom of information made possible by products of said education--has been a disaster for religion.  The Church of England alone is losing 2,000 regular members per week.  Catholicism is still doing well but it's a far cry from what it was in the middle ages when it had complete control.  The only way to fight these institutions is through education.

Unless you think that the Catholic Church is an amazing example of how companies should work, a totally free market is not what you want. Because like it or not, they are a company, and they are amazingly succesful, and that's in a large part because of capitalist values.

Wrong.  Capitalist values are what has given rise to catholicism's competitors.  Namely, the 30,000+ other denominations of christianity.  Granted, none of them are any better but that just goes to show how in need of quality education this country is.  The future does look good though.  The younger generations are far less religious and the less people waste their money on useless shit like religion the more money people can spend on shit they could actually put to good use, like a new car or rent or charity that actually helps people.

@Fidel_Castronaut   Elaborate it you would.  I'm not seeing the connection.

Have fun reading what you want to read dude.
I clearly said that I believe that buying decisions done by government representatives are -at least- slightly skewed. Do I need explain how what Cheney did fits into that? Really?

Poe's law.  Sorry.  I was being sarcastic.  Dick Cheney is one of the biggest examples of corporate-government fraud you could think of...besides AIG.

Really? You actually check all the companies Coca cola does business with before buying a coke?

No.  I don't hardly ever buy soda, unless I plan on pouring whiskey in it.  That shit is horrendously sugar filled and partially responsible for the obesity problem.

And for your coffee as well nope, and your meat nope, and your insurance nope, and your pensionI would hope so, it's your retirement, and the school you send your kids to, etc etc.

Making sure they do not reap to much profit off of doing business with the people who actually give you what you want?[/color]

What?  Be more specific please.

And if the government wouldn't have had any money to spend they'd just all roll over and die or something?

No.  They'd have to compete for my business like everyone else by trying to convince me that what they've got is worth more to me than my money.

What the hell is your point? Somebody got to rich by doing a fucking deal with somebody with too much power? Do you REALLY believe this does not happen in the private sector?  I mean really?

No, it doesn't happen in the private sector because no company has the power to take your money at gun point and give it to whoever the hell it wants.

I keep fucking forgetting that Americans believe they do not live in a democracy. Sorry.

Actually, most Americans think they DO live in a democracy but they, and you, are wrong.  The United States is a republic--there's a difference.

[Plu]

There's this thing called false advertising, and companies can be held liable for doing this.

So you are in favor of the government meddling with the free market, then? Otherwise, where would false advertising laws come from? They're clearly anti-capitalist.

The exact same thing as in the TV example, just that colleges have been around for hundreds of years and have been affordable to lay people for quite some time now.

I don't know about the US, but where I live a college education minus the government subsidising costs over 50.000 euros on tuition alone, something that really isn't affordable to most of society.

Let alone being able to afford basic level education for your children, which is probably also close to free right now. I wonder how many kids will go to gradeschool if it's $10.000 a year.

The primary factor that is driving mass education is (and always has been) the government sporting the bill so that every child can go to school. You can't rely on the free market to educate children. You can just barely rely on them to run universities, where there is sometimes enough of a pay-off to be worth the investment but only if the child already had 15 years of basic education to be prepared for it for free.

Back when education wasn't a government subsidies requirement for every person, most people didn't go to school. They were taught their parent's job and they knew how to do only that. Even now, with most people having 12+ years of education, most in the US are still religious and still don't know enough. No free market is going to improve that, because no parent (except the super wealthy) can afford to pay for their child to go to grade school, then high school, then college/university. Let alone for multiple children.

If you want education for the people, you need free education available for everyone. The free market doesn't give anything for free. Only the free market and the government staying out of things won't work.

[The Whit]

So you are in favor of the government meddling with the free market, then? Otherwise, where would false advertising laws come from? They're clearly anti-capitalist.

Isn't bearing false witness one of the ten commandments?  If even religion, which couldn't even get slavery and rape right, could get THAT RIGHT how is it that you can't?  

I don't know about the US, but where I live a college education minus the government subsidising costs over 50.000 euros on tuition alone, something that really isn't affordable to most of society.

So you're agreeing with me that public money only inflates prices?  The people of my parent's generation paid their way through college flipping burgers for $1.50 an hour.  You need a job and Financial Aid now just to even consider it.

Let's look at the info, shall we?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/ ... 2-graphics
http://www.statista.com/statistics/1839 ... titutions/

So federal funds makes funding for college easier to get, lowering the relative cost of education, artificially increasing demand.  As a result prices increase to attract the resources required to keep up with demand.  This in turn requires more federal funding to maintain the increased demand which then further inflates prices, and your solution to this cost problem is MORE PUBLIC MONEY?

Let alone being able to afford basic level education for your children, which is probably also close to free right now. I wonder how many kids will go to gradeschool if it's $10.000 a year.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.  It may not cost you but it cost someone.  If we keep on this inflationary spiral it will cost 10 grand or more just to get your kid lunch for a day.

The primary factor that is driving mass education is (and always has been) the government sporting the bill so that every child can go to school.

Yes, but saying the government sports the bill only practically means those who pay taxes sport the bill.  

Not that I am in the least saying that poor children shouldn't receive the same education benefits as any other.  On the contrary I believe it is in our greatest interest to educate every child to the fullest extent.  Education is an investment, and one that has the highest returns.

You can't rely on the free market to educate children. You can just barely rely on them to run universities, where there is sometimes enough of a pay-off to be worth the investment but only if the child already had 15 years of basic education to be prepared for it for free.

Again, nothing is free and it wouldn't be "higher education" if you didn't have to have an education to begin with.

Back when education wasn't a government subsidies requirement for every person, most people didn't go to school.

Not all careers require a college education.  Then again, the K-12 schooling my grandparents got was of much higher quality than that which I received.

They were taught their parent's job and they knew how to do only that.

Really?

Even now, with most people having 12+ years of education, most in the US are still religious and still don't know enough.

Part of a failure of education brought about by pubic education policy.

No free market is going to improve that, because no parent (except the super wealthy) can afford to pay for their child to go to grade school, then high school, then college/university. Let alone for multiple children.

Does everyone need to go to college immediately after high school?  Does everyone need their parents to pay for college?  The only people who don't pay for their child's education are those who do not pay taxes the benefit education, and even those who do not have children attending school pay for these children to go to school through their taxes as it should be.  Education is an investment in the future, and if we don't invest in the future we won't have one.

If you want education for the people, you need free education available for everyone. The free market doesn't give anything for free. Only the free market and the government staying out of things won't work.

ONLY the free market doesn't give anything for free?  Nothing is free.

[Xerographica]

I'm going to try this one more time and I want you to read this carefully.  If everything is run on donations, then money has no value and the market place is completely blind to the needs of consumers and supply chains will collapse.

Money would lose value because there wouldn't be price tags on bread?  Money doesn't have value because there are price tags on bread...it has value because you had to sacrifice your life to earn it.  

The reason money exists is to streamline trading.  Before people had to barter and in that system you might not always have something that the other person wants, in which case you're pretty much screwed.  Money is the standard trading medium.  Money represents all resources because it can be traded for any resource, meaning that money is always in demand.  The supply of money determines the values of the currency and it's trading power.

Why are you trying to explain the importance and function of money when I never said anything about getting rid of money?  

What you're suggesting isn't even trade.  As a baker, I bake bread for the market and consumers just come and take what they want at no cost.  I then have to HOPE they donate enough money to me to stay alive?  But wait, why would I need that money anyway?  What would I do with it?  Donate to flour producers who are producing flour in hopes of getting enough donations?  What's to prevent me from taking the flour and not donating money to them?  Are they or are they not going to give me flour?  If they do, money is literally meaningless because I can get what I want without it.  If they don't give me flour then you're arguing for the price system.

If you can get enough bread without ever having to donate any money to your local bakery then what's the problem?  If you can't get enough bread to match your demand...then is this problem bigger than your other problems?  How many other problems do you have?  If a shortage of bread is your only problem then clearly the system I described is superior to the current one.  

If a shortage of bread is your biggest problem then you'd give your money to the bakery.  If a shortage of bread was not your biggest problem then you'd give your money to whichever organization was helping you tackle your biggest problem.  

What else are you going to do with your money?  Give it to organizations which are doing absolutely nothing to help you tackle your problems?  If you want to support the organizations which are helping you the most...then it would behoove you to earn money.  If you didn't want to earn money...if you didn't want any influence...then all the influence will be shifted to those that do want to support the organizations that support them.  And the allocation of resources would reflect their preferences rather than yours.

[Plu]

Isn't bearing false witness one of the ten commandments? If even religion, which couldn't even get slavery and rape right, could get THAT RIGHT how is it that you can't?

Explain how morals are even relevant to free market capitalism?

So you're agreeing with me that public money only inflates prices?

I have no idea, honestly.

The people of my parent's generation paid their way through college flipping burgers for $1.50 an hour. You need a job and Financial Aid now just to even consider it.

The people of my grandparents generation could buy a loaf of bread for $0.10, and I pay $2.00, but I'm still a lot richer than they are. Part of the reason you could once flip burgers and pay for college is also that minimum wages, relatively speaking, used to be higher. Also, you can still make it through college flipping burgers, it's just a really shitty life while you're doing it.
(Also I have no idea what the quality comparison is between education then and now. Especially on the level of sciences and computers we have come a long way in the last 30 years.)

On the contrary I believe it is in our greatest interest to educate every child to the fullest extent. Education is an investment, and one that has the highest returns.

So am I, but then it's not in my interest to make the most money possible, so it doesn't bother me when people are smarter.

Part of a failure of education brought about by pubic education policy.

US education policy, yeah. Dutch one seems to be doing reasonably well. (Although it's also suffering from the economic crisis, mostly caused by the banks it seems.)

Really?

I was referring to a period from before the US existed. But yeah, really.

ONLY the free market doesn't give anything for free? Nothing is free.

Depending on your definition of the word "free". All things cost resources, but some things are paid for, and available to, everyone in a society, regardless of how many resources they happen to have. They are free from the point of "personal resources needed to acquire them".

[Eric1958]

Did anyone see the movie Elysium? It's got one of those new young actors, either Matt Damon or Ben Aflec or whatever. The premise is a future society where the wealthy people live on a satellite of earth andiit's really cool there, no sickness genteel society and it's beautifu.NeMeanwhile, back on earth billions of people live in a globalwide gehto of ppoverty, sickness and despair. In the end the hero breaks into Elysium and reboots the mainframe computer that runs everything and reprograms it to make it serve all the people of earth the same as it does for the few really wealthy people of Elysium.The mmovie focused on health care and even though every home (on Elysium) seemed to have a bed you could lay on and get anything from cancer, third degree burns or broken bones fixed, they also had a bunch of ships with robots and medical beds sitting in the wings. As soon as the computer was reprogrammed the ships take off for earth and start treating the general population.

It was beautiful to watch and I recommend the movie, but as I commented to my friend, I'm tired of movies that pretend that limited resources can be used to fulfill a virtually unlimited demand.

As far as the original question goes, I'd give the planned economy more than a zero, maybe a three. I don't understand what a planed economy without prices is. I don't buy the "it's where all companies are nonprofit". I thought maybe a barter economy which I'd rank just above the planned economy, say a four. Free market with prices I'd say a seven or eight. I would love us to take health care out of the freemarket, for pprofit though.

[surly74]

Elysium was deliberately made that way.

//http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/08/12/2450871/elysium-health-care/

[Bibliofagus]

Have fun reading what you want to read dude.
I clearly said that I believe that buying decisions done by government representatives are -at least- slightly skewed. Do I need explain how what Cheney did fits into that? Really?

Poe's law.  Sorry.  I was being sarcastic.  Dick Cheney is one of the biggest examples of corporate-government fraud you could think of...besides AIG.

We are in agreement about Cheney. Most of what Cheney did however is standard practise in the private sector. Most of the outrage stems from the fact that most people want their elected officials to be better than that. They are not.

The big difference is that we expect better behaviour of our governments than we do of the private sector. Why is that bad?

Really? You actually check all the companies Coca cola does business with before buying a coke?

No.  I don't hardly ever buy soda, unless I plan on pouring whiskey in it.  That shit is horrendously sugar filled and partially responsible for the obesity problem.

Okay... let me rephrase:
Really? You actually check all the companies your brand of whiskey does business with before buying a bottle?

What?  Be more specific please.

You appear to be butthurt about the fact that some government officials are making more money than you think they should. So I was assuming you would apply the same standards to the private sector.

And if the government wouldn't have had any money to spend they'd just all roll over and die or something?

No.  They'd have to compete for my business like everyone else by trying to convince me that what they've got is worth more to me than my money.

Ah. Like they are competing for the governments money right now. Got it.

What the hell is your point? Somebody got to rich by doing a fucking deal with somebody with too much power? Do you REALLY believe this does not happen in the private sector?  I mean really?

No, it doesn't happen in the private sector because no company has the power to take your money at gun point and give it to whoever the hell it wants.

Sick people who have no money get their patented medicine for free nowadays in the US? Goodness. Didn't realise that.

Furthermore you are dodging the point.