Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Austrian Economics, a lens on everyday reality -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (200)	4/25/2003 5:15:28 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 445

If it had to pay more for either copper or the secretary, it would go out of business and the market prices of both would rise at least incrementally. Upon further review, -g- If it had to pay more for either copper or the secretary, because of new supramarginal demand or a loss of existing supply, it would go out of business and the market price of the affected good (copper or the secretary) would remain higher and the market price of the other good would drop at least incrementally as the marginal demand of the plastic ring maker drops out. Regards, Don

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (200)	5/4/2003 3:06:21 AM
From: Wildstar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 445

Don, However, the diamond ring company could increase its profits by $20,000 by only matching the wage of the other company. Why does it not do so? Isn't it just what the Mises quote you cited earlier was saying? The diamond ring maker sets the upper limit of the range of wage rates, perhaps because he believes his secretary could add more revenues than another person doing the same job? However you did specify that either secretary could do the job equally well, so I'm not sure. How about a hint? Wildstar