WHOOP!'91 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bag said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Tariffs used as a tool to match foreign tariffs on a global scale and used as a deterrent of outrageous foreign tariffs (as a superpower country others rely on)= effective

Tariffs purely to restrict foreign production/imports and encourage nationalistic production policies (china) = idiotic

Tariffs from other countries without us responding in kind also hurts our wealth/value creation/intrinsic value as a country. Equally waging those is effective as a practice. Trump did it correctly and there are countless other examples.

People who blindly say tariffs bad without the context are brain dead.

---

Like Walter Williams used to say. Tariffs are like shooting a hole in your side of the boat to get back at another person who shot a hole in their side of the boat.

The only people that tariffs help are politicians who get additional support by morons who think it's good.

---

Tarrliffs are phenomenal for what they do, which is prop up a sector of the economy for extra economical reasons. Which is why they've been a part of our economy literally since the founding of our country, and even the freest economy in the world has them.

---

They are phenomenal for helping one sector and screwing over other sectors even more. They are always a net negative. Always. Zero exceptions. None. Nada. Zip.

Anybody who tells you otherwise should be ignored and mocked.

---

I will take absolutes for 200, Alex.

---

It is absolutely correct. Mathematically.

---

I suspect there are a LOT of factors that go into that calculation. For example, the people working in that protected industry go from consuming welfare to possibly paying net positive federal taxes. That benefit should be considered when determining the net value of tariffs.

Even if it isn't a net economic benefit, the benefit of having chips for cars or medicines, for example, don't fit easily into a financial benefit calculation but are benefits nonetheless.

---

But then other people who were not on welfare now got to go on welfare. There is no way to create wealth magically by stopping people from making decisions that is best for themselves.

---

Those people are in China. A pharmaceutical plant in China closes and re-opens in the US. I am talking about taking back manufacturing jobs because we've protected an important industry. Yes, the cost of their product will not be as cheap, but yes that many more Americans have jobs. Next time China releases a bio-weapon, they can't blackmail us with pharmaceutical supply.

I think we'd have to accept poor and unsafe working conditions and big environmental impacts to get close to Chinese peasant labor costs.

---

And even MORE Americans are spending a lot more for drugs. In the end the ass kicking gets us somewhere.

The REAL answer is to reduce government so we can make a pharmaceuticals for less than they can. Then we would start buying from our own suppliers.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Tariffs used as a tool to match foreign tariffs on a global scale and used as a deterrent of outrageous foreign tariffs (as a superpower country others rely on)= effective

Tariffs purely to restrict foreign production/imports and encourage nationalistic production policies (china) = idiotic

Tariffs from other countries without us responding in kind also hurts our wealth/value creation/intrinsic value as a country. Equally waging those is effective as a practice. Trump did it correctly and there are countless other examples.

People who blindly say tariffs bad without the context are brain dead.

---

Like Walter Williams used to say. Tariffs are like shooting a hole in your side of the boat to get back at another person who shot a hole in their side of the boat.

The only people that tariffs help are politicians who get additional support by morons who think it's good.

---

When Trump introduced tariffs to China my last job immediately shifted from margin optimization and throughput at retail and wholesale partners to elasticity of demand and supply chain optimization. Long story short, we raised prices, demand dipped a bit and then went back to normal, we added production in Malaysia for all US goods, and stopped paying tariffs but prices didn't drop.

I think the key point though is exiting China. Trading with a partner that steals from you, dumps stolen goods back at you into your market, and uses your money to underwrite a totalitarian and genocidal regime is bad policy. I've shifted to thinking tariffs in specifically China should be 500% with no exceptions.

Like life, business, uh, finds a way.

---

People who pay higher prices are denied the ability to spend the extra on other stuff. No matter how you cut it, it's detrimental as a whole.


We (and everybody else) should exit China by undercutting them and producing more at home. The US cannot do that unless we go back to free market principles that made us by far the largest producer the world had ever seen.

---

How do you do incentivize businesses to do that with where state policies are heading right now. Let's just start with a minimum wage issue.

---

It's not about incentivizing businesses, it's about getting government out of their way so they CAN produce stuff cheaply again. And yeah politically there is no way. If the majority of a conservative board cannot understand the economics then there is no way the people who vote for AOC would get it.

We will have our economy implode due to our big government policies. Maybe that will teach people the hard way.

Joe Boudain said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Tariffs used as a tool to match foreign tariffs on a global scale and used as a deterrent of outrageous foreign tariffs (as a superpower country others rely on)= effective

Tariffs purely to restrict foreign production/imports and encourage nationalistic production policies (china) = idiotic

Tariffs from other countries without us responding in kind also hurts our wealth/value creation/intrinsic value as a country. Equally waging those is effective as a practice. Trump did it correctly and there are countless other examples.

People who blindly say tariffs bad without the context are brain dead.

---

Like Walter Williams used to say. Tariffs are like shooting a hole in your side of the boat to get back at another person who shot a hole in their side of the boat.

The only people that tariffs help are politicians who get additional support by morons who think it's good.

---

When Trump introduced tariffs to China my last job immediately shifted from margin optimization and throughput at retail and wholesale partners to elasticity of demand and supply chain optimization. Long story short, we raised prices, demand dipped a bit and then went back to normal, we added production in Malaysia for all US goods, and stopped paying tariffs but prices didn't drop.

I think the key point though is exiting China. Trading with a partner that steals from you, dumps stolen goods back at you into your market, and uses your money to underwrite a totalitarian and genocidal regime is bad policy. I've shifted to thinking tariffs in specifically China should be 500% with no exceptions.

Like life, business, uh, finds a way.

---

People who pay higher prices are denied the ability to spend the extra on other stuff. No matter how you cut it, it's detrimental as a whole.


We (and everybody else) should exit China by undercutting them and producing more at home. The US cannot do that unless we go back to free market principles that made us by far the largest producer the world had ever seen.

---

The last time we had this argument you refused to concede that a Chinese peasant would accept less money for the same fungible job as the poorest American. Which is why jobs are shipped overseas.

---

What you fail to recognize is WHY the Americans cannot accept that level of money, and that is because we would starve to death. The reason we would starve to death is because everything here costs a lot more than they do there. If things here costed half the price as they did there, then we not only could match the Chinese peasants we could undercut them.

How do we make things here cost half as much as they do in China? By producing twice as much stuff per capita here as they do there. How do we do that? By reducing costs to the point where we can manufacture that much.
.

---

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting: we can lower costs by making more things?

---

Supply and demand ring a bell? If you increase the supply and keep demand the same the price goes down.

---

Is this a joke? Your solution for lowering prices is to purposefully make more items than the market demands?

---

No, it's to stop printing money and handing out welfare checks to reduce artificial demand and to get government out of the way of producers to increase supply. By nature that is the proper way to lower prices.

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Tariffs used as a tool to match foreign tariffs on a global scale and used as a deterrent of outrageous foreign tariffs (as a superpower country others rely on)= effective

Tariffs purely to restrict foreign production/imports and encourage nationalistic production policies (china) = idiotic

Tariffs from other countries without us responding in kind also hurts our wealth/value creation/intrinsic value as a country. Equally waging those is effective as a practice. Trump did it correctly and there are countless other examples.

People who blindly say tariffs bad without the context are brain dead.

---

Like Walter Williams used to say. Tariffs are like shooting a hole in your side of the boat to get back at another person who shot a hole in their side of the boat.

The only people that tariffs help are politicians who get additional support by morons who think it's good.

---

When Trump introduced tariffs to China my last job immediately shifted from margin optimization and throughput at retail and wholesale partners to elasticity of demand and supply chain optimization. Long story short, we raised prices, demand dipped a bit and then went back to normal, we added production in Malaysia for all US goods, and stopped paying tariffs but prices didn't drop.

I think the key point though is exiting China. Trading with a partner that steals from you, dumps stolen goods back at you into your market, and uses your money to underwrite a totalitarian and genocidal regime is bad policy. I've shifted to thinking tariffs in specifically China should be 500% with no exceptions.

Like life, business, uh, finds a way.

---

People who pay higher prices are denied the ability to spend the extra on other stuff. No matter how you cut it, it's detrimental as a whole.


We (and everybody else) should exit China by undercutting them and producing more at home. The US cannot do that unless we go back to free market principles that made us by far the largest producer the world had ever seen.

---

The last time we had this argument you refused to concede that a Chinese peasant would accept less money for the same fungible job as the poorest American. Which is why jobs are shipped overseas.

---

What you fail to recognize is WHY the Americans cannot accept that level of money, and that is because we would starve to death. The reason we would starve to death is because everything here costs a lot more than they do there. If things here costed half the price as they did there, then we not only could match the Chinese peasants we could undercut them.

How do we make things here cost half as much as they do in China? By producing twice as much stuff per capita here as they do there. How do we do that? By reducing costs to the point where we can manufacture that much.
.

---

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting: we can lower costs by making more things?

---

Supply and demand ring a bell? If you increase the supply and keep demand the same the price goes down.

---

If it were only that easy.

---

If you cannot grasp supply and demand, then there is no economic discussion that will teach you.

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Tariffs used as a tool to match foreign tariffs on a global scale and used as a deterrent of outrageous foreign tariffs (as a superpower country others rely on)= effective

Tariffs purely to restrict foreign production/imports and encourage nationalistic production policies (china) = idiotic

Tariffs from other countries without us responding in kind also hurts our wealth/value creation/intrinsic value as a country. Equally waging those is effective as a practice. Trump did it correctly and there are countless other examples.

People who blindly say tariffs bad without the context are brain dead.

---

Like Walter Williams used to say. Tariffs are like shooting a hole in your side of the boat to get back at another person who shot a hole in their side of the boat.

The only people that tariffs help are politicians who get additional support by morons who think it's good.

---

When Trump introduced tariffs to China my last job immediately shifted from margin optimization and throughput at retail and wholesale partners to elasticity of demand and supply chain optimization. Long story short, we raised prices, demand dipped a bit and then went back to normal, we added production in Malaysia for all US goods, and stopped paying tariffs but prices didn't drop.

I think the key point though is exiting China. Trading with a partner that steals from you, dumps stolen goods back at you into your market, and uses your money to underwrite a totalitarian and genocidal regime is bad policy. I've shifted to thinking tariffs in specifically China should be 500% with no exceptions.

Like life, business, uh, finds a way.

---

People who pay higher prices are denied the ability to spend the extra on other stuff. No matter how you cut it, it's detrimental as a whole.


We (and everybody else) should exit China by undercutting them and producing more at home. The US cannot do that unless we go back to free market principles that made us by far the largest producer the world had ever seen.

---

The last time we had this argument you refused to concede that a Chinese peasant would accept less money for the same fungible job as the poorest American. Which is why jobs are shipped overseas.

---

What you fail to recognize is WHY the Americans cannot accept that level of money, and that is because we would starve to death. The reason we would starve to death is because everything here costs a lot more than they do there. If things here costed half the price as they did there, then we not only could match the Chinese peasants we could undercut them.

How do we make things here cost half as much as they do in China? By producing twice as much stuff per capita here as they do there. How do we do that? By reducing costs to the point where we can manufacture that much.
.

---

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting: we can lower costs by making more things?

---

Supply and demand ring a bell? If you increase the supply and keep demand the same the price goes down.

---

If it were only that easy.

---

If you cannot grasp supply and demand, then there is no economic discussion that will teach you.

---

if you cannot grasp that these issues are exponentially more complex than supply and demand then there is no economic discussion that matters

I guess I am on board with using tariffs to fund our federal government like some of the founders intended. Use that to eliminate corporate and income tax and instead have a sales tax.

Sales Taxes are progressive enough.

The rest of this big government redistribution of funds is a bunch of crap only to the benefit of the ultra rich who get write offs and underhanded gov contracts. While some of the ultra poor and useless are rewarded with bloated welfare and social security payouts that never return the intrinsic cost of the program..

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Tariffs used as a tool to match foreign tariffs on a global scale and used as a deterrent of outrageous foreign tariffs (as a superpower country others rely on)= effective

Tariffs purely to restrict foreign production/imports and encourage nationalistic production policies (china) = idiotic

Tariffs from other countries without us responding in kind also hurts our wealth/value creation/intrinsic value as a country. Equally waging those is effective as a practice. Trump did it correctly and there are countless other examples.

People who blindly say tariffs bad without the context are brain dead.

---

Like Walter Williams used to say. Tariffs are like shooting a hole in your side of the boat to get back at another person who shot a hole in their side of the boat.

The only people that tariffs help are politicians who get additional support by morons who think it's good.

---

When Trump introduced tariffs to China my last job immediately shifted from margin optimization and throughput at retail and wholesale partners to elasticity of demand and supply chain optimization. Long story short, we raised prices, demand dipped a bit and then went back to normal, we added production in Malaysia for all US goods, and stopped paying tariffs but prices didn't drop.

I think the key point though is exiting China. Trading with a partner that steals from you, dumps stolen goods back at you into your market, and uses your money to underwrite a totalitarian and genocidal regime is bad policy. I've shifted to thinking tariffs in specifically China should be 500% with no exceptions.

Like life, business, uh, finds a way.

---

People who pay higher prices are denied the ability to spend the extra on other stuff. No matter how you cut it, it's detrimental as a whole.


We (and everybody else) should exit China by undercutting them and producing more at home. The US cannot do that unless we go back to free market principles that made us by far the largest producer the world had ever seen.

---

The last time we had this argument you refused to concede that a Chinese peasant would accept less money for the same fungible job as the poorest American. Which is why jobs are shipped overseas.

---

What you fail to recognize is WHY the Americans cannot accept that level of money, and that is because we would starve to death. The reason we would starve to death is because everything here costs a lot more than they do there. If things here costed half the price as they did there, then we not only could match the Chinese peasants we could undercut them.

How do we make things here cost half as much as they do in China? By producing twice as much stuff per capita here as they do there. How do we do that? By reducing costs to the point where we can manufacture that much.
.

---

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting: we can lower costs by making more things?

---

Supply and demand ring a bell? If you increase the supply and keep demand the same the price goes down.

---

If it were only that easy.

---

If you cannot grasp supply and demand, then there is no economic discussion that will teach you.

---

This is long run economics. In the short run there are sticky menu prices and other intangible real world business reasons why you don't automatically raise prices right away. You're coming across as professorial where what you know doesn't align with how things work in the real world. Source: I've done this for a living.

See my edit.


Supply just can't magically go up. The market forces seek to balance supply and demand. Prices reflect this.

Producers seek to maximize profit while consumers seek to reduce costs.

A producer is incentivized to make more by higher profits. One aspect is a higher selling cost. Another is lower cost input materials and resources.

Producers will make a certain amount of product for a certain price. Consumers buy a certain amount of a product at a certain price.

If supply goes above this equilibrium the prices tend to come down because it is an incentive for consumers.

The equilibrium aspect in supply and demand is missing in your assumption that a simple increase in supply ( apparently of all or most goods) will lower costs.

Wait, you mean ECON 101 does not universally apply in all scenarios?

Bag said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Tariffs used as a tool to match foreign tariffs on a global scale and used as a deterrent of outrageous foreign tariffs (as a superpower country others rely on)= effective

Tariffs purely to restrict foreign production/imports and encourage nationalistic production policies (china) = idiotic

Tariffs from other countries without us responding in kind also hurts our wealth/value creation/intrinsic value as a country. Equally waging those is effective as a practice. Trump did it correctly and there are countless other examples.

People who blindly say tariffs bad without the context are brain dead.

---

Like Walter Williams used to say. Tariffs are like shooting a hole in your side of the boat to get back at another person who shot a hole in their side of the boat.

The only people that tariffs help are politicians who get additional support by morons who think it's good.

---

When Trump introduced tariffs to China my last job immediately shifted from margin optimization and throughput at retail and wholesale partners to elasticity of demand and supply chain optimization. Long story short, we raised prices, demand dipped a bit and then went back to normal, we added production in Malaysia for all US goods, and stopped paying tariffs but prices didn't drop.

I think the key point though is exiting China. Trading with a partner that steals from you, dumps stolen goods back at you into your market, and uses your money to underwrite a totalitarian and genocidal regime is bad policy. I've shifted to thinking tariffs in specifically China should be 500% with no exceptions.

Like life, business, uh, finds a way.

---

People who pay higher prices are denied the ability to spend the extra on other stuff. No matter how you cut it, it's detrimental as a whole.


We (and everybody else) should exit China by undercutting them and producing more at home. The US cannot do that unless we go back to free market principles that made us by far the largest producer the world had ever seen.

---

The last time we had this argument you refused to concede that a Chinese peasant would accept less money for the same fungible job as the poorest American. Which is why jobs are shipped overseas.

---

What you fail to recognize is WHY the Americans cannot accept that level of money, and that is because we would starve to death. The reason we would starve to death is because everything here costs a lot more than they do there. If things here costed half the price as they did there, then we not only could match the Chinese peasants we could undercut them.

How do we make things here cost half as much as they do in China? By producing twice as much stuff per capita here as they do there. How do we do that? By reducing costs to the point where we can manufacture that much.
.

---

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting: we can lower costs by making more things?

---

Supply and demand ring a bell? If you increase the supply and keep demand the same the price goes down.

---

If it were only that easy.

---

If you cannot grasp supply and demand, then there is no economic discussion that will teach you.

---

if you cannot grasp that these issues are exponentially more complex than supply and demand then there is no economic discussion that matters

---

That's like saying the Global Warming is exempt from the laws of physics because it is so complex. Everything follows the laws of physics. Likewise, everything economic follows the laws of supply and demand.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

I guess I am on board with using tariffs to fund our federal government like some of the founders intended. Use that to eliminate corporate and income tax and instead have a sales tax.

Sales Taxes are progressive enough.

The rest of this big government redistribution of funds is a bunch of crap only to the benefit of the ultra rich who get write offs and underhanded gov contracts. While some of the ultra poor and useless are rewarded with bloated welfare and social security payouts that never return the intrinsic cost of the program..

---

I'd take tariffs in a heartbeat if we also had the rest of the tax system back in those days. Despite them being detrimental, they are nowhere near as bad as income taxes.

aTmAg said:

---

Bag said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Tariffs used as a tool to match foreign tariffs on a global scale and used as a deterrent of outrageous foreign tariffs (as a superpower country others rely on)= effective

Tariffs purely to restrict foreign production/imports and encourage nationalistic production policies (china) = idiotic

Tariffs from other countries without us responding in kind also hurts our wealth/value creation/intrinsic value as a country. Equally waging those is effective as a practice. Trump did it correctly and there are countless other examples.

People who blindly say tariffs bad without the context are brain dead.

---

Like Walter Williams used to say. Tariffs are like shooting a hole in your side of the boat to get back at another person who shot a hole in their side of the boat.

The only people that tariffs help are politicians who get additional support by morons who think it's good.

---

When Trump introduced tariffs to China my last job immediately shifted from margin optimization and throughput at retail and wholesale partners to elasticity of demand and supply chain optimization. Long story short, we raised prices, demand dipped a bit and then went back to normal, we added production in Malaysia for all US goods, and stopped paying tariffs but prices didn't drop.

I think the key point though is exiting China. Trading with a partner that steals from you, dumps stolen goods back at you into your market, and uses your money to underwrite a totalitarian and genocidal regime is bad policy. I've shifted to thinking tariffs in specifically China should be 500% with no exceptions.

Like life, business, uh, finds a way.

---

People who pay higher prices are denied the ability to spend the extra on other stuff. No matter how you cut it, it's detrimental as a whole.


We (and everybody else) should exit China by undercutting them and producing more at home. The US cannot do that unless we go back to free market principles that made us by far the largest producer the world had ever seen.

---

The last time we had this argument you refused to concede that a Chinese peasant would accept less money for the same fungible job as the poorest American. Which is why jobs are shipped overseas.

---

What you fail to recognize is WHY the Americans cannot accept that level of money, and that is because we would starve to death. The reason we would starve to death is because everything here costs a lot more than they do there. If things here costed half the price as they did there, then we not only could match the Chinese peasants we could undercut them.

How do we make things here cost half as much as they do in China? By producing twice as much stuff per capita here as they do there. How do we do that? By reducing costs to the point where we can manufacture that much.
.

---

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting: we can lower costs by making more things?

---

Supply and demand ring a bell? If you increase the supply and keep demand the same the price goes down.

---

If it were only that easy.

---

If you cannot grasp supply and demand, then there is no economic discussion that will teach you.

---

if you cannot grasp that these issues are exponentially more complex than supply and demand then there is no economic discussion that matters

---

That's like saying the Global Warming is exempt from the laws of physics because it is so complex. Everything follows the laws of physics. Likewise, everything economic follows the laws of supply and demand.

---

He/ she didn't say anything about an exemption.

Yes everything follows laws of physics. Whether we correctly interpret the behavior is another story.

And secondly " laws of economics" are not like laws of physics in that you can can't control multiple variables to accurately and precisely investigate the impact of a single variable on the behavior of a system ( such as supply and prices).

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Tariffs used as a tool to match foreign tariffs on a global scale and used as a deterrent of outrageous foreign tariffs (as a superpower country others rely on)= effective

Tariffs purely to restrict foreign production/imports and encourage nationalistic production policies (china) = idiotic

Tariffs from other countries without us responding in kind also hurts our wealth/value creation/intrinsic value as a country. Equally waging those is effective as a practice. Trump did it correctly and there are countless other examples.

People who blindly say tariffs bad without the context are brain dead.

---

Like Walter Williams used to say. Tariffs are like shooting a hole in your side of the boat to get back at another person who shot a hole in their side of the boat.

The only people that tariffs help are politicians who get additional support by morons who think it's good.

---

When Trump introduced tariffs to China my last job immediately shifted from margin optimization and throughput at retail and wholesale partners to elasticity of demand and supply chain optimization. Long story short, we raised prices, demand dipped a bit and then went back to normal, we added production in Malaysia for all US goods, and stopped paying tariffs but prices didn't drop.

I think the key point though is exiting China. Trading with a partner that steals from you, dumps stolen goods back at you into your market, and uses your money to underwrite a totalitarian and genocidal regime is bad policy. I've shifted to thinking tariffs in specifically China should be 500% with no exceptions.

Like life, business, uh, finds a way.

---

People who pay higher prices are denied the ability to spend the extra on other stuff. No matter how you cut it, it's detrimental as a whole.


We (and everybody else) should exit China by undercutting them and producing more at home. The US cannot do that unless we go back to free market principles that made us by far the largest producer the world had ever seen.

---

The last time we had this argument you refused to concede that a Chinese peasant would accept less money for the same fungible job as the poorest American. Which is why jobs are shipped overseas.

---

What you fail to recognize is WHY the Americans cannot accept that level of money, and that is because we would starve to death. The reason we would starve to death is because everything here costs a lot more than they do there. If things here costed half the price as they did there, then we not only could match the Chinese peasants we could undercut them.

How do we make things here cost half as much as they do in China? By producing twice as much stuff per capita here as they do there. How do we do that? By reducing costs to the point where we can manufacture that much.
.

---

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting: we can lower costs by making more things?

---

Supply and demand ring a bell? If you increase the supply and keep demand the same the price goes down.

---

If it were only that easy.

---

If you cannot grasp supply and demand, then there is no economic discussion that will teach you.

---

This is long run economics. In the short run there are sticky menu prices and other intangible real world business reasons why you don't automatically raise prices right away. You're coming across as professorial where what you know doesn't align with how things work in the real world. Source: I've done this for a living.

---

Done what for a living? I can't imagine anything that would make you an expert on any of this. I know you aren't an economist (and even that wouldn't suffice since over half of them are morons).

And I never said that prices would go down immediately, but they wouldn't have to. It's not like congress would pass a law that reverts everything to 1900 legal state in an instant. We have been screwing up our economy for 80 years. It's going to take a nasty recession to undo all that damage. But that's the price we'd pay for 80 years of liberalism. The longer we wait the worse it will be. If we don't take corrective action ourselves and let the economy implode on it's own, it will be real bad.

So how do we increase supply independently of all other factors?

Only way I know of is centralized control of production which I do t think you are arguing for.

Set prices on goods for a publicly traded company to maximize profits. But I suppose that doesn't qualify me to opine on how firms change prices in response to supply and demand.

Malibu2 said:

---

Set prices on goods for a publicly traded company to maximize profits. But I suppose that doesn't qualify me to opine on how firms change prices in response to supply and demand.

---

So you didn't ramp up production to lower costs?

Haha. Yes, just get on the phone with the Asian factory and ask for a better unit price for a higher order quantity. No worry about lead times, subcomponents, labor constraints, current working capital balance,or anything else.

fixer said:

---

See my edit.


Supply just can't magically go up. The market forces seek to balance supply and demand. Prices reflect this.

Producers seek to maximize profit while consumers seek to reduce costs.

A producer is incentivized to make more by higher profits. One aspect is a higher selling cost. Another is lower cost input materials and resources.

Producers will make a certain amount of product for a certain price. Consumers buy a certain amount of a product at a certain price.

If supply goes above this equilibrium the prices tend to come down because it is an incentive for consumers.

The equilibrium aspect in supply and demand is missing in your assumption that a simple increase in supply ( apparently of all or most goods) will lower costs.

---

I never said supply would magically go up. I went out of my way to to say if we "double their production" to make it clear that I was talking philosophical. Of course, I do not think we can snap our fingers and double their production in an instant. Nor did I say that prices would go below equilibrium. The equilibrium price would become much lower.

If government stopped welfare then that would greatly reduce salary requirements since people who now refrain from working for any offers lower than X will get off their asses and work for vastly lower salaries in order to not starve. Since salaries are the top expense in most businesses, suddenly entire industries that are unsustainable in America now would become viable again. That would move the supply curve right lowering prices. In addition, since everybody would be paying lower salaries, competition would also push the supply curve down and prices lower until it reaches equilibrium.

fixer said:

---

So how do we increase supply independently of all other factors?

Only way I know of is centralized control of production which I do t think you are arguing for.

---

I already said that in my reply to your last post.

Malibu2 said:

---

Set prices on goods for a publicly traded company to maximize profits. But I suppose that doesn't qualify me to opine on how firms change prices in response to supply and demand.

---

If you are claiming that prices do not go down in response to higher supply (all else being equal) then you should be fired. In fact, you probably should quit in shame.

There is nothing hard about supply and demand. Where people get lost is the higher order effects of that simple law.

Malibu2 said:

---

Haha. Yes, just get on the phone with the Asian factory and ask for a better unit price for a higher order quantity. No worry about lead times, subcomponents, labor constraints, current working capital balance,or anything else.

---

Who in the hell is saying any of this?

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Set prices on goods for a publicly traded company to maximize profits. But I suppose that doesn't qualify me to opine on how firms change prices in response to supply and demand.

---

If you are claiming that prices do not go down in response to higher supply (all else being equal) then you should be fired. In fact, you probably should quit in shame.

There is nothing hard about supply and demand. Where people get lost is the higher order effects of that simple law.

---

Yes, I'm claiming that in the real word rather than Econistan all else is never equal and that your assertions about how things always work like the laws of physics is amusingly myopic.

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

See my edit.


Supply just can't magically go up. The market forces seek to balance supply and demand. Prices reflect this.

Producers seek to maximize profit while consumers seek to reduce costs.

A producer is incentivized to make more by higher profits. One aspect is a higher selling cost. Another is lower cost input materials and resources.

Producers will make a certain amount of product for a certain price. Consumers buy a certain amount of a product at a certain price.

If supply goes above this equilibrium the prices tend to come down because it is an incentive for consumers.

The equilibrium aspect in supply and demand is missing in your assumption that a simple increase in supply ( apparently of all or most goods) will lower costs.

---

I never said supply would magically go up. I went out of my way to to say if we "double their production" to make it clear that I was talking philosophical. Of course, I do not think we can snap our fingers and double their production in an instant. Nor did I say that prices would go below equilibrium. The equilibrium price would become much lower.

If government stopped welfare then that would greatly reduce salary requirements since people who now refrain from working for any offers lower than X will get off their asses and work for vastly lower salaries in order to not starve. Since salaries are the top expense in most businesses, suddenly entire industries that are unsustainable in America now would become viable again. That would move the supply curve right lowering prices. In addition, since everybody would be paying lower salaries, competition would also push the supply curve down and prices lower until it reaches equilibrium.

---

Ok so I was with you on lower input costs for labor.

But if a company lowered their input costs they aren't going to simply ramp up production. There has to be a signal for increased demand.

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Set prices on goods for a publicly traded company to maximize profits. But I suppose that doesn't qualify me to opine on how firms change prices in response to supply and demand.

---

If you are claiming that prices do not go down in response to higher supply (all else being equal) then you should be fired. In fact, you probably should quit in shame.

There is nothing hard about supply and demand. Where people get lost is the higher order effects of that simple law.

---

Yes, I'm claiming that in the real word rather than Econistan all else is never equal and that your assertions about how things always work like the laws of physics is amusingly myopic.

---

Then describe what other factors would keep the price the same in the face of drastically lower labor and regulation costs.

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Set prices on goods for a publicly traded company to maximize profits. But I suppose that doesn't qualify me to opine on how firms change prices in response to supply and demand.

---

If you are claiming that prices do not go down in response to higher supply (all else being equal) then you should be fired. In fact, you probably should quit in shame.

There is nothing hard about supply and demand. Where people get lost is the higher order effects of that simple law.

---

Yes, I'm claiming that in the real word rather than Econistan all else is never equal and that your assertions about how things always work like the laws of physics is amusingly myopic.

---

Then describe what other factors would keep the price the same in the face of drastically lower labor and regulation costs.

---

Profit. That is the factor.

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

See my edit.


Supply just can't magically go up. The market forces seek to balance supply and demand. Prices reflect this.

Producers seek to maximize profit while consumers seek to reduce costs.

A producer is incentivized to make more by higher profits. One aspect is a higher selling cost. Another is lower cost input materials and resources.

Producers will make a certain amount of product for a certain price. Consumers buy a certain amount of a product at a certain price.

If supply goes above this equilibrium the prices tend to come down because it is an incentive for consumers.

The equilibrium aspect in supply and demand is missing in your assumption that a simple increase in supply ( apparently of all or most goods) will lower costs.

---

I never said supply would magically go up. I went out of my way to to say if we "double their production" to make it clear that I was talking philosophical. Of course, I do not think we can snap our fingers and double their production in an instant. Nor did I say that prices would go below equilibrium. The equilibrium price would become much lower.

If government stopped welfare then that would greatly reduce salary requirements since people who now refrain from working for any offers lower than X will get off their asses and work for vastly lower salaries in order to not starve. Since salaries are the top expense in most businesses, suddenly entire industries that are unsustainable in America now would become viable again. That would move the supply curve right lowering prices. In addition, since everybody would be paying lower salaries, competition would also push the supply curve down and prices lower until it reaches equilibrium.

---

Ok so I was with you on lower input costs for labor.

But if a company lowered their input costs they aren't going to simply ramp up production. There has to be a signal for increased demand.

---

When the supply curve moves down the equilibrium point moves right in addition to down. A more right equilibrium, point means a larger quantity. So if they don't want to lose money, then they better increase their production. If they do not, then somebody else will. Even if they have to enter the market to do so.

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Set prices on goods for a publicly traded company to maximize profits. But I suppose that doesn't qualify me to opine on how firms change prices in response to supply and demand.

---

If you are claiming that prices do not go down in response to higher supply (all else being equal) then you should be fired. In fact, you probably should quit in shame.

There is nothing hard about supply and demand. Where people get lost is the higher order effects of that simple law.

---

Yes, I'm claiming that in the real word rather than Econistan all else is never equal and that your assertions about how things always work like the laws of physics is amusingly myopic.

---

Then describe what other factors would keep the price the same in the face of drastically lower labor and regulation costs.

---

Profit. That is the factor.

---

Then your competitors will undercut you by a little and take all of your market share. Have you guys taken economics at all?

Stubborn CEOs, sunk cost fallacy, keeping your largest customer extremely happy, slipping in sales to a new quarter to hit goal, changes in marketing strategy you think will influence demand, the programs that were already printed at your industry trade show, the lack of a knob that is turned to immediately and unemotionally change prices instantaneously, and a whole lot more

Kvetch said:

---

Poverty cannot be cured. You can either have capitalism, or everyone can be relatively poorer. There is nothing inherently wrong with the rich getting richer unless they are doing so in a monopolistic fashion.

---

Fix the money....

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Set prices on goods for a publicly traded company to maximize profits. But I suppose that doesn't qualify me to opine on how firms change prices in response to supply and demand.

---

If you are claiming that prices do not go down in response to higher supply (all else being equal) then you should be fired. In fact, you probably should quit in shame.

There is nothing hard about supply and demand. Where people get lost is the higher order effects of that simple law.

---

Yes, I'm claiming that in the real word rather than Econistan all else is never equal and that your assertions about how things always work like the laws of physics is amusingly myopic.

---

Then describe what other factors would keep the price the same in the face of drastically lower labor and regulation costs.

---

Profit. That is the factor.

---

Then your competitors will undercut you by a little and take all of your market share. Have you guys taken economics at all?

---

You're not doing yourself any favors regurgitating Econ 101 talking points about commodity widgets sold by interchangeable companies. I can say for an absolute fact my last companies best selling product was 50% more expensive than the competition despite being functionally identical in specs. The more expensive one outsold 5:1 with similar retail coverage.

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

See my edit.


Supply just can't magically go up. The market forces seek to balance supply and demand. Prices reflect this.

Producers seek to maximize profit while consumers seek to reduce costs.

A producer is incentivized to make more by higher profits. One aspect is a higher selling cost. Another is lower cost input materials and resources.

Producers will make a certain amount of product for a certain price. Consumers buy a certain amount of a product at a certain price.

If supply goes above this equilibrium the prices tend to come down because it is an incentive for consumers.

The equilibrium aspect in supply and demand is missing in your assumption that a simple increase in supply ( apparently of all or most goods) will lower costs.

---

I never said supply would magically go up. I went out of my way to to say if we "double their production" to make it clear that I was talking philosophical. Of course, I do not think we can snap our fingers and double their production in an instant. Nor did I say that prices would go below equilibrium. The equilibrium price would become much lower.

If government stopped welfare then that would greatly reduce salary requirements since people who now refrain from working for any offers lower than X will get off their asses and work for vastly lower salaries in order to not starve. Since salaries are the top expense in most businesses, suddenly entire industries that are unsustainable in America now would become viable again. That would move the supply curve right lowering prices. In addition, since everybody would be paying lower salaries, competition would also push the supply curve down and prices lower until it reaches equilibrium.

---

Ok so I was with you on lower input costs for labor.

But if a company lowered their input costs they aren't going to simply ramp up production. There has to be a signal for increased demand.

---

When the supply curve moves down the equilibrium point moves right in addition to down. A more right equilibrium, point means a larger quantity. So if they don't want to lose money, then they better increase their production. If they do not, then somebody else will. Even if they have to enter the market to do so.

---

This is all true and is also not the same thing as " increasing production will lower prices".

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Set prices on goods for a publicly traded company to maximize profits. But I suppose that doesn't qualify me to opine on how firms change prices in response to supply and demand.

---

If you are claiming that prices do not go down in response to higher supply (all else being equal) then you should be fired. In fact, you probably should quit in shame.

There is nothing hard about supply and demand. Where people get lost is the higher order effects of that simple law.

---

Yes, I'm claiming that in the real word rather than Econistan all else is never equal and that your assertions about how things always work like the laws of physics is amusingly myopic.

---

Then describe what other factors would keep the price the same in the face of drastically lower labor and regulation costs.

---

Profit. That is the factor.

---

Then your competitors will undercut you by a little and take all of your market share. Have you guys taken economics at all?

---

Only if competition can make product at the same profit margin, or better.

Companies operate on margin.

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Set prices on goods for a publicly traded company to maximize profits. But I suppose that doesn't qualify me to opine on how firms change prices in response to supply and demand.

---

If you are claiming that prices do not go down in response to higher supply (all else being equal) then you should be fired. In fact, you probably should quit in shame.

There is nothing hard about supply and demand. Where people get lost is the higher order effects of that simple law.

---

Yes, I'm claiming that in the real word rather than Econistan all else is never equal and that your assertions about how things always work like the laws of physics is amusingly myopic.

---

Then describe what other factors would keep the price the same in the face of drastically lower labor and regulation costs.

---

Profit. That is the factor.

---

Then your competitors will undercut you by a little and take all of your market share. Have you guys taken economics at all?

---

Only if competition can make product at the same profit margin, or better.

Companies operate on margin.

---

And even if they can, get customers to actually buy it.

Malibu2 said:

---

Stubborn CEOs, sunk cost fallacy, keeping your largest customer extremely happy, slipping in sales to a new quarter to hit goal, changes in marketing strategy you think will influence demand, the programs that were already printed at your industry trade show, the lack of a knob that is turned to immediately and unemotionally change prices instantaneously, and a whole lot more

---

Again with the "instantaneously" I never said instantaneously. But of course you know this.

It doesn't matter how stubborn your CEO is, how much money you have sunk, etc. If you ignore lower prices elsewhere, you will lose your ass. Just ask the nearly infinite number of defunct companies out there.

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fixer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Set prices on goods for a publicly traded company to maximize profits. But I suppose that doesn't qualify me to opine on how firms change prices in response to supply and demand.

---

If you are claiming that prices do not go down in response to higher supply (all else being equal) then you should be fired. In fact, you probably should quit in shame.

There is nothing hard about supply and demand. Where people get lost is the higher order effects of that simple law.

---

Yes, I'm claiming that in the real word rather than Econistan all else is never equal and that your assertions about how things always work like the laws of physics is amusingly myopic.

---

Then describe what other factors would keep the price the same in the face of drastically lower labor and regulation costs.

---

Profit. That is the factor.

---

Then your competitors will undercut you by a little and take all of your market share. Have you guys taken economics at all?

---

You're not doing yourself any favors regurgitating Econ 101 talking points about commodity widgets sold by interchangeable companies. I can say for an absolute fact my last companies best selling product was 50% more expensive than the competition despite being functionally identical in specs. The more expensive one outsold 5:1 with similar retail coverage.

---

Then there was something else that made your product more valuable. Either that or you were fraudsters.