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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (145979)	11/6/2008 2:27:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Where are you drawing your conclusions about price supports for fruits and vegetables? Which conclusion are you referring to? The conclusion that price supports tend to keep the price up? I'm drawing that from history and from the fact that price supports are designed to keep prices up, that's their purpose. The conclusion that if fruits and vegetables are more expensive that at the margin people will tend to consume less of them, from economics, from history of other things becoming more expensive, and from observation of human nature. In any case to refute your argument people don't have to consume less because of price supports the only important point is to show that higher prices wouldn't cause them to consume more. Markets exist because there is a government structure that supports markets. Sure you can barter in the wilderness but try using money without government. People use money without government involvement. Mediums of exchange existed long before legal tender laws, and took forms that where not created by government. People also trade in direct opposition to government, and when government is trying to stop them (drug sales, alcohol sales during prohibition, smuggling items across state lines or national boundaries to avoid taxation etc.) In any case even "bartering in the wilderness" is an example of markets in operation. Which is not to say that aspects of government aren't enormously beneficial for markets. Keeping public order and protecting property rights are HUGE. Yes, you do equate wealth creation with UNEVEN wealth creation. Now your closer but still wrong. Uneven wealth creation is wealth creation, but the not all wealth creation is uneven. To you equal wealth creation equals COMMUNISM or SOCIALISM or MARXISM. No equal wealth creation, is pretty much impossible, but if it happened it wouldn't be a bad thing, and it wouldn't be communist, socialist, or marxist, or at least it wouldn't have to be. But you aren't calling for equal wealth creation, your calling for looking at the real world situation where wealth creation is unequal, and then taking wealth from the creators to try to make things more equal.