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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (68473)	11/21/2010 4:04:35 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218055

Mine rescue... There are plenty of people who would take their chance. If there's no spark, there's no fire. Somebody walking in with breathing apparatus and even a good old Davy safety lamp could do it, carrying a few litres of water, but there is more modern fireproof illumination. With some decent apparel, they could even survive a methane explosion. It's a bit like the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Once it has happened, the danger goes way down so a drilling moratorium was a waste of time and even if there was a second spill, the equipment was all on hand to contain it and once oiled, a pelican is no worse for another dose of oil. Dead once is enough - you can't kill somebody twice. Once the methane has exploded, it has been consumed and both the methane and air need replacement before another explosion is possible. Driving a loader through the explosive mixture was some risk but walking in soft shoes would not provide an ignition source. If my son was in there, I'd have waited not long at all before going to rescue him. Yes, it would be more risky than lying in bed with my eyes shut, but life is sometimes like that. Yes, I know about rescuers following each other to their death and that it's not necessarily a good idea to go to the rescue without precautionary safety. But there's a sensible balance of risks. It looks as though the rescue effort is pathetic. Mqurice

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (68473)	11/23/2010 11:08:54 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 218055

It flows form Say that: if a manufacturer wants to sell to a mass market, he knows that he can't wait until everyone can afford something expensive; he knows that he has to market his product at a low enough price that it will begin to sell [6]. ELMAT:China understands that and that is why it is selling here right now. In more technical economic terms, if the supply function increases (from "supply, a" to "supply, b" in the chart below), which means that it becomes possible to produce a greater quantity of goods for a given price, then, if the demand function does not also increase, a greater quantity of goods will end up being sold anyway as prices fall to a market clearing level (from "price, a" to "price, b" in the chart). friesian.com Say's Law may also mean that the demand function will increase also, but it is not necessary to get into that part just to see how the basic price mechanism works (and, indeed, if demand increases, prices might not fall). A greater quantity of demand will result from an increased supply function even if no other factors are involved -- as long as prices are allowed to fall (in Germany now, businesses are fined for cutting prices). When industrial production increases and more goods become available, some old goods will go unsold as money moves over to the new goods, and prices will have to fall right across the board. That is called "deflation," and it is what happened in the United States from the end of the Civil War until 1896, while the United States grew into the largest economy in the world. Money became more valuable, and wages continued to buy as much as was desired of total production (the Edsels, of course, don't sell, except for bankruptcy liquidation) [7].