ilovefuzz.com

solder fumes are the smoke monster from Lost in less condensed form.

wfs1234 wrote:I like all the amenities and comforts that big business provide, however, big business is still a bad thing. If you're looking at a market for any good, the bigger the business the the more power they have to influence prices. When big business can influence prices they are essentially robbing consumers of the benefit they would recieve from lower prices. And not only that, they are robbing the potential benefit to additional businesses by pushing the price lower than they can sell for.

So, it would be better if businesses were so small that they had no ability to affect prices. This would maximize the benefit to consumers. By allowing big business to persist, as a nation we are only hurting ourselves. Because we are allowing them to influence prices and, in doing so, are allowing them to steal from us what would be ours under ideal market conditions. It would be better if we had a lot of businesses providing these things instead of only a few, and in the areas where market competition leads to a decrease in quality, the government should step in and provide the service to eliminate the inefficiencies created by market competition.

Whether or not we are better off as result of all this newfangled technology is irrelevant.

boom perfect

mathias wrote:solder fumes are the smoke monster from Lost in less condensed form.

That explains so much.

wow you guys have been busy
since i went to work
my politics=dont trust anyone
and dont talk politics
didnt read most of the stuff you wrote
cause i like it here
and to stay on topic
i hate that you guys were arguing
about them scumbags
thats what they want

ryan summit wrote:wow you guys have been busy
since i went to work
my politics=dont trust anyone
and dont talk politics
didnt read most of the stuff you wrote
cause i like it here
and to stay on topic
i hate that you guys were arguing
about them scumbags
thats what they want

I'm so sorry for changing the subject....but I read all your posts like poetry. Just figured I'd let you know


ok, back to your regularly scheduled program

I just received a letter from my school. Apparently my loans didn't cover the full amount. Apparently, my loan, which I was lead to believe would be coming in two installments of ~$3k, was actually one payment of ~$3k. So I owe my school another $1800 which I just don't fucking have. So, I guess I won't be getting a car. Or moving. Or gaining much more of a will to live.

This is just fucking ridiculous. Why the fuck was my loan not enough to cover the fucking bill? What the fuck am I supposed to do here?

I mean, the amount that I was informed of was supposed to cover the total. When I checked my eligibility, it was the total, because I hadn't tried to get loans for next semester, just this. I was under the impression that the amount I was told was the total for the semester, and that they had simply only received the amount I was told (I had an issue like that in the past, where they just got the second part of my loan late because of my late enrollment). So I'm going to have to contact the school tomorrow, which is a fucking nightmare, because I'm not on campus.

This is not something I was prepared to deal with.

My amp is fucked.

Yeah. It's not a late loan installment. I actually owe 1800 for the semester, because my unsubsidized loan was incredibly small for some reason. So, I need to pick up a second job and contact financial aid tomorrow to find out what can be done about that.

I'm feeling incredibly crushed right now. This was not something that I thought was going to be an issue.

GardenoftheDead wrote:Obama's nominees were pretty rational individuals.

seriously? they've been ill-qualified ideologues.

wfs1234 wrote:When big business can influence prices they are essentially robbing consumers of the benefit they would recieve from lower prices. And not only that, they are robbing the potential benefit to additional businesses by pushing the price lower than they can sell for.

do you realize that these two statements are self-contradictory? if business is selling at low prices, they cannot be depriving consumers of the benefit of lower prices.

wfs1234 wrote:Because we are allowing them to influence prices and, in doing so, are allowing them to steal from us what would be ours under ideal market conditions. It would be better if we had a lot of businesses providing these things instead of only a few, and in the areas where market competition leads to a decrease in quality, the government should step in and provide the service to eliminate the inefficiencies created by market competition.

again, this is logically daft. the whole notion of "steal(ing)...what would be ours under ideal market conditions" implies that there are artificial conditions you would impose which would be more ideal. do you seriously think that government could produce salable products for less than private business without punitive levels of taxation to pay for their assumedly profitless endeavors? and how's government doing at providing essential services? how's the UK NHS doing? and how well were products produced under government direction in the former Communist states? hint: the answer to the last three questions is "not well at all."

in other deightful news, the woman who's buying my pedal steel finally PPed me a $100 down payment, but is now sniveling that the instrument is only worth $800 rather than the $1000 she agreed to pay. i'm fucking pissed, since she delayed me since September and thus fucked up my finances mightily and i've never had anyone in my life try to re-negotiate after partial payment. i'm about ready to pin her to the wall of the Gretsch Pages and ruin her rep there forever if she doesn't come through. i have no respect for someone who tries this kind of bullshit.

dubkitty wrote:

GardenoftheDead wrote:Obama's nominees were pretty rational individuals.

seriously? they've been ill-qualified ideologues.

The best supreme court justice in history didn't go to law school.

dubkitty wrote:

wfs1234 wrote:When big business can influence prices they are essentially robbing consumers of the benefit they would recieve from lower prices. And not only that, they are robbing the potential benefit to additional businesses by pushing the price lower than they can sell for.

do you realize that these two statements are self-contradictory? if business is selling at low prices, they cannot be depriving consumers of the benefit of lower prices.

wfs1234 wrote:Because we are allowing them to influence prices and, in doing so, are allowing them to steal from us what would be ours under ideal market conditions. It would be better if we had a lot of businesses providing these things instead of only a few, and in the areas where market competition leads to a decrease in quality, the government should step in and provide the service to eliminate the inefficiencies created by market competition.

again, this is logically daft. the whole notion of "steal(ing)...what would be ours under ideal market conditions" implies that there are artificial conditions you would impose which would be more ideal. do you seriously think that government could produce salable products for less than private business without punitive levels of taxation to pay for their assumedly profitless endeavors? and how's government doing at providing essential services? how's the UK NHS doing? and how well were products produced under government direction in the former Communist states? hint: the answer to the last three questions is "not well at all."

I agree about your first point. But mostly it's a result of poor/sloppy wording. A big company can influence prices. And any business can run a deficit for a short amount of time. So a business can lower their prices below their cost of production for a long enough time to drive out the other sellers in the market, and raise their prices after they've captured the market; this is a process called dumping. It's more popular in international trade, but it applies equally well in domestic markets. So, the overall result is an increase in prices.

You're right that there's a limit to how much government intervention can be warranted. And "conditions" can be incredibly difficult to impose. In markets where there exists a large enough firm that they have market power, the government could try to offer incentives for firms to enter the market and reduce the power of that firm. How much of an incentive depends on how big the deadweight loss is that's being created by big business. It is possible that the government stepping in would only create a bigger deadweight loss, so, like I said it's tricky. But seriously in a perfectly free market, where neither the buyers nor the sellers have market power, the return to both buyers and sellers is maximized and if necessary, and possible, the government should try to "fix" markets where there exists an imbalance.

It sounds like you think I'm proposing a strict dichotomy where we either have the government provide everything or we have the market provide everything, and I'm not. There are some industries where it doesn't make sense for there to be competition. Prime example: providing electricity. The up-front cost is incredibly high and having even a few companies competing is incredibly costly and eventually creates a lot of waste. Most states create artificial, and heavily regulated, monopolies for this exact reason. It really depends on the market you're looking at as to whether or not the government should step in and do something.

Also, while I don't know much about the NHS I know this much. They don't pay even half of what we do for medical care and can expect to live longer. And the reason that they're having funding problems with it right now is probably because it's funded by a sales tax and they've been experiencing an extended recession. Also, for a while the communists were keeping up very well with the westernized capitalists, they really only began to fail when people began to realize that socialism never was going to lead to communism (communism just won't work, it doesn't have the right incentive structure). And if you want to debate communism or socialism those are completely different discussions. And I work on a culinary water system and I think governments do very well considering the restrictions and expectations that are placed on them by both the communities they serve and the layers of government above them.

Ugh, finally made it to kitchen close, but I've still got a shitton of dishes and stocking to get done before I can leave...

Looks like its time to get high in the walk-in.

We always went to the dumpsters.
Or right out the back door.
Coworkers sharing hits and free spinach dip are the only perks of working in a restaurant. It's still not nearly worth having people ask you to give them rides home every night...