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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

But if you get rid of centralised standards - as you seemed to suggest earlier, all we're left with is a quagmire of competing (marketing driven) testimonials - like the endless barrage of ambulance-chasing law firms we're exposed to.

Why would the consumer be any more informed on these issues by one expert than they would from another?

This is surely where a consensus view is surely called for - rather than "Mr Brown, Expert Meat Inspector (because we say so)".

[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.

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

Now that's funny, seriously. I saw the adverts on the tv (not that I was going to buy anything, but regardless) and I said to hubby "what pathetic discounts". Seems to me, if you are being forced out of business, you should be selling at 60/70+% off. 40% is just normal for January sales. Not even taking a loss

[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.

Now that's funny, seriously. I saw the adverts on the tv (not that I was going to buy anything, but regardless) and I said to hubby "what pathetic discounts". Seems to me, if you are being forced out of business, you should be selling at 60/70+% off. 40% is just normal for January sales. Not even taking a loss

The guy who wrote the article was excited that he could get a new TV for 30% off until he realised that he could STILL get that same TV for less on amazon.

It was quite deceptive actually - last weekend they were advertising a 50% discount on DVDs, but when you looked at the boxes - they'd basically taken all of the old DVDs and labelled them at full retail price - up to $34.99 for a 2 disc set. So even with the discount you'd still wind up paying more than you could get them for elsewhere.

Only bargain I picked up was a battery backup surge protector for my PC, which I got for about $45 - and those things are almost never discounted.

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

But if you get rid of centralised standards - as you seemed to suggest earlier, all we're left with is a quagmire of competing (marketing driven) testimonials - like the endless barrage of ambulance-chasing law firms we're exposed to.

Why would the consumer be any more informed on these issues by one expert than they would from another?

This is surely where a consensus view is surely called for - rather than "Mr Brown, Expert Meat Inspector (because we say so)".

Not to mention, the average consumer isn't very good at discerning something that is healthy and good for them as apposed to something that 'tastes' great because it has been chemically enhanced and there is no way of knowing how reasonably or otherwise an animal has been treated both prior to and during slaughter. Those nice marketing people could sell us a picture of all these happy cows chewing fresh grass in the sunshine, when the reality is factory farmed cows. As I said, the seller is in a more powerful position most of the time, not only in terms of what they know, but in terms of when they sell. They are not in the 'need' situation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

But if you get rid of centralised standards - as you seemed to suggest earlier, all we're left with is a quagmire of competing (marketing driven) testimonials - like the endless barrage of ambulance-chasing law firms we're exposed to.

Why would the consumer be any more informed on these issues by one expert than they would from another?

This is surely where a consensus view is surely called for - rather than "Mr Brown, Expert Meat Inspector (because we say so)".

Not to mention, the average consumer isn't very good at discerning something that is healthy and good for them as apposed to something that 'tastes' great because it has been chemically enhanced and there is no way of knowing how reasonably or otherwise an animal has been treated both prior to and during slaughter. Those nice marketing people could sell us a picture of all these happy cows chewing fresh grass in the sunshine, when the reality is factory farmed cows. As I said, the seller is in a more powerful position most of the time, not only in terms of what they know, but in terms of when they sell. They are not in the 'need' situation.

... like the "contains 0g of Trans Fat" which apparently doesn't.

Or

99% Fat Free! (But is loaded with sugar and artificial flavors/preservatives)

[Peikko 1,575]

Where do meat inspectors come from now that we have deregulated everything? What's the point of a meat inspector if there are no standards to adhere to?

Why would someone try to persuade the public that their brand is better and make a loss(particularly in the burger trade) when they realize that their competitor is raking in profits by selling inferior product? Surely the simplest thing to do is get on that bandwagon?

We already know that the market segment for 'premium' food products is niche and relies on rich people who have so much income to dispose of, they can wander around paying for 'organic this' and 'grass fed' that just because it sounds good.

Take the regulation as to what 'organic' and 'grass fed' are away and these people will be paying through the nose for their niche products that might not even exist.

The market is a beautiful thing if you hold all the cards

[mRx 16]

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.

That's not true at all. Perishables have limited shelf-lives, so the imperative to sell is just as important as the one to buy. Also if a seller commands a price higher than a competitor, he may be stuck with all his supply, as the market gets cleared by those with goods of comparable quality but at lower prices. There is no comparative advantage of sellers over buyers. In reality each party is "buying" what the other is "selling".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now that I think about it - isn't the real proof for this idea in the pudding already?

McDonalds marketing and production practices have been in the public domain for years now - from the fact that they set up a company called "100% Prime Beef" so that they could claim that their meat is "made from 100% Prime Beef^TM" to movies like Supersize Me where you saw how the food damaged the guy's liver; or more simply - campaigns by animal rights groups (McCruelty To Go - which I believe McDonalds has taken to court to silence) showing exactly what McDonalds burgers are made of (boiled cow heads), so its not like people don't *know* these things (although I'm sure a fair few are ignorant), but McDonalds still exists, is still highly profitable and yet still sells the same nasty old #######...

What does this tell us?

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.

That's not true at all. Perishables have limited shelf-lives, so the imperative to sell is just as important as the one to buy. Also if a seller commands a price higher than a competitor, he may be stuck with all his supply, as the market gets cleared by those with goods of comparable quality but at lower prices. There is no comparative advantage of sellers over buyers. In reality each party is "buying" what the other is "selling".

They do? Oh, so they don't use every and any means from freezing to homogenization to irradiation to get every last ounce of shelf life out of a product beyond that which is actually fit for human consumption in any real sense. However, yes, there is spoilage in some comestibles of course. However, again it's not the consumer who has the power, it's the supermarket buyers, the big guys, the people who have the clout to demand both ways, to cheat the little consumer and the producer as needs be.

Yes, it's true that even now they get away with all kinds of dodgy practices, but at least we have some regulations to prevent them from getting away with the most heinous and immediately destructive practices. McDonald's may not win any awards for their relevance to food, but it's not going to kill you quickly enough to be able to file a law suit.

[mRx 16]

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.

Child labor is a very interesting issue to place on a business. First, as you know, it is the concern of a business to sell their product for the highest price they can command at the lowest cost to themselves.

Children and younger members of the workforce are less skilled than adults and veterans of the workforce, so naturally their labor will command a lower price, and as they advance to higher skill levels, they will command a higher wage as they become more marketable. I used to mow people's lawn and wash their cars when I was a kid, and I made about 2 dollars per car, and about the same for mowing a lawn. The going rate at the local car wash company was about 5-6 dollars. Note, I did this voluntarily. If I didn't work, I wouldn't be able to purchase Transformers toys. My labor was less valuable than the car wash company, and my wage reflected that.

Now, onto the extreme absolute. A child working in a sweatshop in Asia. If this child is working to earn money for food and basic necessities of life, then you must assume that the wage of this child's family is not sufficient to cover these expenses. Second, you must assume that this job is "valued" more than any alternative available. Some children scavenge waste dumps, sifting through disease-ridden trash looking for food or scraps of metal to sell. These children may very well rely on these incomes to survive. It's sad, really. I know it is. But it's the responsibility of the child's owners, their parents, to raise them in the way they see fit. Just remember, if the family didn't desperately need the money, then I highly doubt there would be any need for their unskilled child(ren) to work. Again, these are ethical issues in which you need to look at the parents of the child, not the business. The business could very well be ensuring this child's survival.

When you look at the situation from that perspective, you may become very ambivalent towards the subject of child labor. While I don't actively seek to purchase products made by voluntary child labor, it is not my decision, or anyone elses, who works, and who buys those products.

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

Child labor is a very interesting issue to place on a business. First, as you know, it is the concern of a business to sell their product for the highest price they can command at the lowest cost to themselves.

Children and younger members of the workforce are less skilled than adults and veterans of the workforce, so naturally their labor will command a lower price, and as they advance to higher skill levels, they will command a higher wage as they become more marketable. I used to mow people's lawn and wash their cars when I was a kid, and I made about 2 dollars per car, and about the same for mowing a lawn. The going rate at the local car wash company was about 5-6 dollars. Note, I did this voluntarily. If I didn't work, I wouldn't be able to purchase Transformers toys. My labor was less valuable than the car wash company, and my wage reflected that.

Now, onto the extreme absolute. A child working in a sweatshop in Asia. If this child is working to earn money for food and basic necessities of life, then you must assume that the wage of this child's family is not sufficient to cover these expenses. Second, you must assume that this job is "valued" more than any alternative available. Some children scavenge waste dumps, sifting through disease-ridden trash looking for food or scraps of metal to sell. These children may very well rely on these incomes to survive. It's sad, really. I know it is. But it's the responsibility of the child's owners, their parents, to raise them in the way they see fit. Just remember, if the family didn't desperately need the money, then I highly doubt there would be any need for their unskilled child(ren) to work. Again, these are ethical issues in which you need to look at the parents of the child, not the business. The business could very well be ensuring this child's survival.

When you look at the situation from that perspective, you may become very ambivalent towards the subject of child labor. While I don't actively seek to purchase products made by voluntary child labor, it is not my decision, or anyone elses, who works, and who buys those products.

Bolded, simpy untrue. They can be highly skilled but that doesn't mean they are going to be paid a lot for it. They don't get paid a lot because being young, and poor they don't command any respect and they can't get the reward for the skills that they have. It's akin to slave labour - but of course, because their family is so poor they 'need' the child to work to survive, that makes it ok? Perhaps we should re introduce this idea into the States, after all, the US producers need to be able to compete on a level playing field, don't they?

Voluntary child labour, laugh hysterically at that thought, voluntary...

[mRx 16]

Now that I think about it - isn't the real proof for this idea in the pudding already?

McDonalds marketing and production practices have been in the public domain for years now - from the fact that they set up a company called "100% Prime Beef" so that they could claim that their meat is "made from 100% Prime Beef^TM" to movies like Supersize Me where you saw how the food damaged the guy's liver; or more simply - campaigns by animal rights groups (McCruelty To Go - which I believe McDonalds has taken to court to silence) showing exactly what McDonalds burgers are made of (boiled cow heads), so its not like people don't *know* these things (although I'm sure a fair few are ignorant), but McDonalds still exists, is still highly profitable and yet still sells the same nasty old #######...

What does this tell us?

That people like McDonalds? Are people not free to purchase what they like? If I found a razor blade in my McNugget and it slices my mouth up, I deserve to be retributed, but it doesn't mean that people have to avoid going there.

However, I probably wouldn't eat there again. And I'm sure most people who I know that eat there, would be hesitant as well.

Does that mean we need the central government to mandate that no razor blades be served in the McNuggets? Should a Federal Inspection panel physically X-Ray each McNugget to ensure they're razor-free?

[mRx 16]

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.

Child labor is a very interesting issue to place on a business. First, as you know, it is the concern of a business to sell their product for the highest price they can command at the lowest cost to themselves.

Children and younger members of the workforce are less skilled than adults and veterans of the workforce, so naturally their labor will command a lower price, and as they advance to higher skill levels, they will command a higher wage as they become more marketable. I used to mow people's lawn and wash their cars when I was a kid, and I made about 2 dollars per car, and about the same for mowing a lawn. The going rate at the local car wash company was about 5-6 dollars. Note, I did this voluntarily. If I didn't work, I wouldn't be able to purchase Transformers toys. My labor was less valuable than the car wash company, and my wage reflected that.

Now, onto the extreme absolute. A child working in a sweatshop in Asia. If this child is working to earn money for food and basic necessities of life, then you must assume that the wage of this child's family is not sufficient to cover these expenses. Second, you must assume that this job is "valued" more than any alternative available. Some children scavenge waste dumps, sifting through disease-ridden trash looking for food or scraps of metal to sell. These children may very well rely on these incomes to survive. It's sad, really. I know it is. But it's the responsibility of the child's owners, their parents, to raise them in the way they see fit. Just remember, if the family didn't desperately need the money, then I highly doubt there would be any need for their unskilled child(ren) to work. Again, these are ethical issues in which you need to look at the parents of the child, not the business. The business could very well be ensuring this child's survival.

When you look at the situation from that perspective, you may become very ambivalent towards the subject of child labor. While I don't actively seek to purchase products made by voluntary child labor, it is not my decision, or anyone elses, who works, and who buys those products.

Bolded, simpy untrue. They can be highly skilled but that doesn't mean they are going to be paid a lot for it. They don't get paid a lot because being young, and poor they don't command any respect and they can't get the reward for the skills that they have. It's akin to slave labour - but of course, because their family is so poor they 'need' the child to work to survive, that makes it ok? Perhaps we should re introduce this idea into the States, after all, the US producers need to be able to compete on a level playing field, don't they?

Voluntary child labour, laugh hysterically at that thought, voluntary...

Should the children be prohibited from working then? What's the alternative? Digging through the trash? Starvation?

Children are still in development, and if they believe that they are being paid less than they believe they are worth, then they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Slavery is ownership, a working child is not owned by the company.

[Peikko 1,575]

Now that I think about it - isn't the real proof for this idea in the pudding already?

McDonalds marketing and production practices have been in the public domain for years now - from the fact that they set up a company called "100% Prime Beef" so that they could claim that their meat is "made from 100% Prime Beef^TM" to movies like Supersize Me where you saw how the food damaged the guy's liver; or more simply - campaigns by animal rights groups (McCruelty To Go - which I believe McDonalds has taken to court to silence) showing exactly what McDonalds burgers are made of (boiled cow heads), so its not like people don't *know* these things (although I'm sure a fair few are ignorant), but McDonalds still exists, is still highly profitable and yet still sells the same nasty old #######...

What does this tell us?

That people like McDonalds? Are people not free to purchase what they like? If I found a razor blade in my McNugget and it slices my mouth up, I deserve to be retributed, but it doesn't mean that people have to avoid going there.

However, I probably wouldn't eat there again. And I'm sure most people who I know that eat there, would be hesitant as well.

Does that mean we need the central government to mandate that no razor blades be served in the McNuggets? Should a Federal Inspection panel physically X-Ray each McNugget to ensure they're razor-free?

That's being stupid, no manufacturer is going to insert unnecessary items into the food, particularly not something so expensive and pointless as a razor blade - but, salmonella? Sure, we can sprinkle a bit of that in, along with our slightly over the edge meat that we didn't quite get to use up last week even though it's just a tad over the sell by date. Sure, let's slip some more of that in, why not? Salmonella isn't that bad now, is it?

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.

Child labor is a very interesting issue to place on a business. First, as you know, it is the concern of a business to sell their product for the highest price they can command at the lowest cost to themselves.

Children and younger members of the workforce are less skilled than adults and veterans of the workforce, so naturally their labor will command a lower price, and as they advance to higher skill levels, they will command a higher wage as they become more marketable. I used to mow people's lawn and wash their cars when I was a kid, and I made about 2 dollars per car, and about the same for mowing a lawn. The going rate at the local car wash company was about 5-6 dollars. Note, I did this voluntarily. If I didn't work, I wouldn't be able to purchase Transformers toys. My labor was less valuable than the car wash company, and my wage reflected that.

Now, onto the extreme absolute. A child working in a sweatshop in Asia. If this child is working to earn money for food and basic necessities of life, then you must assume that the wage of this child's family is not sufficient to cover these expenses. Second, you must assume that this job is "valued" more than any alternative available. Some children scavenge waste dumps, sifting through disease-ridden trash looking for food or scraps of metal to sell. These children may very well rely on these incomes to survive. It's sad, really. I know it is. But it's the responsibility of the child's owners, their parents, to raise them in the way they see fit. Just remember, if the family didn't desperately need the money, then I highly doubt there would be any need for their unskilled child(ren) to work. Again, these are ethical issues in which you need to look at the parents of the child, not the business. The business could very well be ensuring this child's survival.

When you look at the situation from that perspective, you may become very ambivalent towards the subject of child labor. While I don't actively seek to purchase products made by voluntary child labor, it is not my decision, or anyone elses, who works, and who buys those products.

Bolded, simpy untrue. They can be highly skilled but that doesn't mean they are going to be paid a lot for it. They don't get paid a lot because being young, and poor they don't command any respect and they can't get the reward for the skills that they have. It's akin to slave labour - but of course, because their family is so poor they 'need' the child to work to survive, that makes it ok? Perhaps we should re introduce this idea into the States, after all, the US producers need to be able to compete on a level playing field, don't they?

Voluntary child labour, laugh hysterically at that thought, voluntary...

Should the children be prohibited from working then? What's the alternative? Digging through the trash? Starvation?

Children are still in development, and if they believe that they are being paid less than they believe they are worth, then they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Slavery is ownership, a working child is not owned by the company.

Really? They are 'free' to do that are they? Free to 'bargain' for a better wage? I see you have this all so nicely thought out

[Niels Bohr 72]

The Mexican militia sent thousands of troops to the city that have about 2000 homicide this past year. They are putting up checkpoints everywhere. The US styled malls also have checkpoints. We'll see what happens after.