U.S. rattled as Mexico drug war bleeds over border

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps in the land of gumdrops and candy canes.

I'm just not seeing it...

Consumers do demand quality products, that isn't in doubt. What is in doubt is whether they actually get them in the rather gritty real world. But I should really send this to my dad - who conducts audit inspections for occupational health and safety, I'm sure he'd get a kick out of this.

I'm not knocking the free market - it certainly has merit, but the hardcore philosophy (utopian - as you yourself indicated) you keep promoting is about as practically realistic as Communism. Great theory, questionable application.

[mRx 16]

In theory yes.

But the waters are pretty muddy on what constitutes "deception", especially if you hold to a view that ethics are disposible in business.

Whether or not something constitutes fraud would be between the buyer, the seller, and a private arbitration company.

The idea that each side experiences a profit is not a theory, it's an axiom.

Whatever semantics you want to use doesn't get away from the fact that black and white terminology isn't particularly useful in explaining the nuances of specific examples.

The axiom of profit as gains is not a theory, it's applicable to each and every specific example, except for fraud/deception, which as explained, would be determined via an arbitration agency between buyer and seller. The triangulation through arbitration would decide whether or not a possible fraud is black or white.

Wasn't trying to be semantic, man.

No you're being condescending

So if you're not being semantic I guess I should be.

I wasn't describing the idea itself as "theory", I was saying that the idea works "in theory".

I was agreeing with you - I was disagreeing with how it is useful in understanding the examples that we're talking about.

The specific example you brought up in reply to my statement about profit was of deception. I tried to illustrate that the existence of deception doesn't disprove the profit axiom. Maybe the topic changed and I missed it. Alright, I'm done being semantic. I guess we agree?

The profit as gain axiom is more relavent to PH, I think.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The reason I mentioned deception was because it isn't always easy to determine what practices are or aren't deceptive.

[mRx 16]

Perhaps in the land of gumdrops and candy canes.

I'm just not seeing it...

Consumers do demand quality products, that isn't in doubt. What is in doubt is whether they actually get them in the rather gritty real world. But I should really send this to my dad - who conducts audit inspections for occupational health and safety, I'm sure he'd get a kick out of this.

I'm not knocking the free market - it certainly has merit, but the hardcore philosophy (utopian - as you yourself indicated) you keep promoting is about as practically realistic as Communism. Great theory, questionable application.

That's the problem, though! I was being entirely sarcastic when I referred to the free market as utopian. Is it really unfathomable to imagine a world free of corruption, greed, and power-pandering? Is that why it's pegged as a utopia of gumdrops and candy canes?

Unlike Communism, the free-market is completely applicable to society. People are owner's of themselves, the land in which they transformed with labor, and their own production. As we slip towards Statism, we will see these once self evident truths disappear.

Granted, proof of application will be needed. Hopefully something like this will open some eyes.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

get a room guys

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps in the land of gumdrops and candy canes.

I'm just not seeing it...

Consumers do demand quality products, that isn't in doubt. What is in doubt is whether they actually get them in the rather gritty real world. But I should really send this to my dad - who conducts audit inspections for occupational health and safety, I'm sure he'd get a kick out of this.

I'm not knocking the free market - it certainly has merit, but the hardcore philosophy (utopian - as you yourself indicated) you keep promoting is about as practically realistic as Communism. Great theory, questionable application.

That's the problem, though! I was being entirely sarcastic when I referred to the free market as utopian. Is it really unfathomable to imagine a world free of corruption, greed, and power-pandering? Is that why it's pegged as a utopia of gumdrops and candy canes?

Unlike Communism, the free-market is completely applicable to society. People are owner's of themselves, the land in which they transformed with labor, and their own production. As we slip towards Statism, we will see these once self evident truths disappear.

Granted, proof of application will be needed. Hopefully something like this will open some eyes.

The weight of history says it is unrealistic. And I mean that in an entirely general sense.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[mRx 16]

Perhaps in the land of gumdrops and candy canes.

I'm just not seeing it...

Consumers do demand quality products, that isn't in doubt. What is in doubt is whether they actually get them in the rather gritty real world. But I should really send this to my dad - who conducts audit inspections for occupational health and safety, I'm sure he'd get a kick out of this.

I'm not knocking the free market - it certainly has merit, but the hardcore philosophy (utopian - as you yourself indicated) you keep promoting is about as practically realistic as Communism. Great theory, questionable application.

That's the problem, though! I was being entirely sarcastic when I referred to the free market as utopian. Is it really unfathomable to imagine a world free of corruption, greed, and power-pandering? Is that why it's pegged as a utopia of gumdrops and candy canes?

Unlike Communism, the free-market is completely applicable to society. People are owner's of themselves, the land in which they transformed with labor, and their own production. As we slip towards Statism, we will see these once self evident truths disappear.

Granted, proof of application will be needed. Hopefully something like this will open some eyes.

The weight of history says it is unrealistic. And I mean that in an entirely general sense.

The majority of our woes can be placed on the central government, including this most recent crisis, and I'm sure history will tell the same story. So there is no doubt in my mind what the culprit is.

[NickD 202]

In regards to the war part, no fair when the drug dealers get to use 50 caliber machine guns while we are stuck with pea shooters.

In regards to enforcement, got this terrible paranoid feeling that our political and legal system is cleaning up on this deal, not that 80% of our police force twenty years ago were all drug dealers, but they were dumb and got caught. that movie, Pride and Glory touched on that.

In regards to the market, are those that take drugs suicidal? Or just suckers waiting to get addicted and creamed by these parasites? I liked getting high by flying my own airplane, but liability, insurance, and fuel cost greatly curtailed that. But at least I maintained my sanity and don't go around robbing and killing old ladies to support that habit. Doubt if I could do that if addicted.

But like any other hard working taxpayer, have to pay extra for these kinds of people. Somebody is getting rich off of our money.

[Peikko 1,575]

I understand the theory that in trade everyone gains except when there is fraud or deception. My point has always been fraud and deception are attractive business concepts because business doesn't care for or demand any ethical considerations. Nothing better than gaining without losing anything or gaining while offering something less than what is thought to be being gained by the 'consuming' party. The motive for business is not to bring advantage to the consumer it is to gain as much as possible while giving as little as possible - no?

Edited March 3, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[mRx 16]

I understand the theory that in trade everyone gains except when there is fraud or deception. My point has always been fraud and deception are attractive business concepts because business doesn't care for or demand any ethical considerations. Nothing better than gaining without losing anything or gaining while offering something less than what is thought to be being gained by the 'consuming' party. The motive for business is not to bring advantage to the consumer it is to gain as much as possible while giving as little as possible - no?

That motive can be extended universally. Would you offer McDonald's $50 for a BigMac when it only costs $2? No. Would you sell a BigMac for $.05 when you could command $2? No. Ethical considerations of what is the "right" price, and what is "fair" is largely irrelevant.

Sellers want the highest possible price for their goods and buyers want the lowest possible price. Your analysis is correct though, but it's only the seller half of the equation. Each side bids up/down the other side. The final selling price is somewhere between the maximum buying price of the buyer and the minimum selling price of the seller. Basically the business of the seller is in direct correlation with the demands of the buyer. The gains made by the seller are his profits, and the gains made by the buyer are his profits. The market tends to bring about a swift equilibrium between buyers and sellers.

[Peikko 1,575]

Except, it doesn't. Buyers are always in a weaker position. Unethical can be about a seller demanding an unfair price based on consumer expectation of a 'reasonable' price and it is possible to 'get away with it' if you happen to be the only seller in town (which does happen, albeit not for burgers).

But, back to burgers. So here I am, a business and like all good business my prime motivation is to get as much as I can while giving as little as I can get away with.

I decide that the going price for a burger is $2.00 but I want the best possible return so instead of using fresh, good cuts of meat, I source some old, machine reclaimed meat (and in this unregulated marketplace, uninspected to boot) I know this is going to taste pretty naff, so I buy some cheap and cheerful salt/fats and other chemicals to make the burger look and taste reasonable. I tell noone, in fact I claim that my burgers are made from prime cuts of grass fed beef and I start selling my cheapo burgers.

Because I didn't spend much on my raw materials, I get a much bigger return than if I was using quality ingredients but perhaps they don't sell quite as well because despite my claims, some discerning customers notice that it doesn't quite taste the same as the burgers they are used to - but, because I have bigger margins to play with (I have after all sourced the cheapest crappiest ingredients available) I can afford to undercut my rival. I can sell my burgers for less than the market price for a burger made from quality ingredients. Customers roll in, they are getting a 'bargain' it might not taste the same, but heck, it's cheaper. They are totally unaware of any problems with my products and meanwhile my rival, who can't compete either reduces the quality of his product in order to do so, or gets out of the marketplace. The customer no longer has the choice and doesn't even know that the choice he has is a ####### one, let alone whether there are any health risks.

in other words, how does anyone know that what they are paying for is in fact what they think they are paying for unless there is independent verification ? Sometimes it's obvious, but a lot of the time it just isn't.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Also what's missing from that picture are ethics issues arising from things that don't directly affect the consumer - sweat shop labour in clothing factories in the far east (to the extent of having the child labour stitching on the labels that say "this is not a product of child labour") or organized crime murdering union workers at Coca Cola factories in Colombia, battery chicken farming etc.

Of course while you have some consumers who take issue with such practices and boycott products (like Tesco importing fruit and veg from Zimbabwe as the native population starves), many people are content to ignore such things because it affords them cheap and plentiful goods with no concern for the big picture beyond their own immediate needs.

It would seem to me to be an extremely amoral view of the world - based on those who have the economic power, and who are willing and capable of exploiting people who don't - to their own advantage and profit.

This is actually one of the big objections to free market theory (as Matt must surely know), that it has the potential to create unprecedented tyranny.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

I think part of the problem is that for this to even work out in theory the power of the buyer and the seller have to be equal and opposite. My reasoning tells me that in fact, the seller has more power most of the time. The buyer very often 'needs' what is being sought, and there might even be a time frame on when this need must be satisfied. The seller on the other hand is rarely forced to sell at any price.

[mRx 16]

Except, it doesn't. Buyers are always in a weaker position. Unethical can be about a seller demanding an unfair price based on consumer expectation of a 'reasonable' price and it is possible to 'get away with it' if you happen to be the only seller in town (which does happen, albeit not for burgers).

But, back to burgers. So here I am, a business and like all good business my prime motivation is to get as much as I can while giving as little as I can get away with.

I decide that the going price for a burger is $2.00 but I want the best possible return so instead of using fresh, good cuts of meat, I source some old, machine reclaimed meat (and in this unregulated marketplace, uninspected to boot) I know this is going to taste pretty naff, so I buy some cheap and cheerful salt/fats and other chemicals to make the burger look and taste reasonable. I tell noone, in fact I claim that my burgers are made from prime cuts of grass fed beef and I start selling my cheapo burgers.

Because I didn't spend much on my raw materials, I get a much bigger return than if I was using quality ingredients but perhaps they don't sell quite as well because despite my claims, some discerning customers notice that it doesn't quite taste the same as the burgers they are used to - but, because I have bigger margins to play with (I have after all sourced the cheapest crappiest ingredients available) I can afford to undercut my rival. I can sell my burgers for less than the market price for a burger made from quality ingredients. Customers roll in, they are getting a 'bargain' it might not taste the same, but heck, it's cheaper. They are totally unaware of any problems with my products and meanwhile my rival, who can't compete either reduces the quality of his product in order to do so, or gets out of the marketplace. The customer no longer has the choice and doesn't even know that the choice he has is a ####### one, let alone whether there are any health risks.

in other words, how does anyone know that what they are paying for is in fact what they think they are paying for unless there is independent verification ? Sometimes it's obvious, but a lot of the time it just isn't.

That's where the beauty of competition comes in. You're assuming that your competitor is just going to roll over and submit, when in reality, that doesn't happen. Let's say, hypothetically, I'm your competitor that you're under-cutting.

First, I'm going to have to figure out how you are able to produce your products at costs that are lower than mine, if I'm ever going to want to remain in business. Eventually, as any beef-searing professional would, I would discover the source of your low prices. This is immense ammunition that I could use against you, in order to provide enough reason for consumers to pay the higher price for my product. People don't really mess around when it comes to food quality. Maybe I would hire a respected meat inspector and publish his results about your deceptive marketing in my own little marketing campaign. Your business would be ruined, and you would need to liquidate your assets at a loss.

Competition is really a beautiful thing, as it is only of the benefit of the consumer. The fundamentals of this scenario are universally applicable to any other scenario. Businesses everywhere are constantly checked by the threat that someone, somewhere, may be able to do it better, or for less.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think part of the problem is that for this to even work out in theory the power of the buyer and the seller have to be equal and opposite. My reasoning tells me that in fact, the seller has more power most of the time. The buyer very often 'needs' what is being sought, and there might even be a time frame on when this need must be satisfied. The seller on the other hand is rarely forced to sell at any price.

Slightly O/T - but did you check out the Circuit City sales? Interesting article on CNET about how stingy the discounts were.