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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (321602)	1/18/2007 5:37:08 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574408

Sure you have. Indirectly at least. Not at all. You pronounce that there must be shortages That overstates my case. I never said there MUST be shortages. and you use an example where, apparently, people refused to shift resources because they couldn't jack up the prices. I used an example in which people did shift resources in response to an increased price and where arrested for it. They were providing a benefit to the local community but they got punished anyway. Likely free or lower priced ice would have been available, but they had ice right then. Removing the supply helped no one, except perhaps competing ice sellers if there where any. If Home Depot, or FEMA dumped a ton of ice in the local area, then all of the sudden their ice would be worth less, perhaps worthless. The private profit seeking ice traders actions didn't prevent any such donated or subsidized ice from appearing, and if it was made legal it again would not prevent charity. What John and I were saying is that resources get shifted to help alleviate the problem without a major profit motive. I never said they don't get shifted without profit motives, or without the motive of additional profit. Now true, you can theorize that even more supplies would be made available in a freer market, but that hasn't been shown to be true. The example I listed is far from the only one. People move goods and services to where they can make a larger profit for the goods and services. To claim that this wouldn't be the case is a rather extraordinary claim, and should require extraordinary evidence, but you provide none. And to get it to make sense you have to have highly contrived circumstances The circumstances I listed were not very contrived. Perhaps the majority of businesses don't face them, but they aren't unusual. But it is hard to believe he stays in business doing things that way Only if you take the most extreme interpretation of his statement. (That any tax increase would cause him to cut back under any circumstances) I know I wouldn't be happy if one of my suppliers or contractors limited or endangered my business for that reason. But one of your suppliers would cut back if you didn't accept the higher prices they insisted on charging you because of their higher costs, or if you cut your order because increasing taxes reduced the demand for your product. Tax changes have effects across the economy. If you reduce Longshort's statement to "tax increase = reduce the amount of business I do", and apply that universally then I agree it seems silly, but I doubt he meant it that way, and if he did, its not the idea I'm making/defending.