SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Don Hurst who wrote (726606)7/14/2013 11:45:12 PM
From: i-node8 Recommendations

Recommended By
Bonefish
d[-_-]b
Joe Btfsplk
longnshort
MakeMyDay

and 3 more members

  Respond to of 1582491
 
God you're clueless.



To: Don Hurst who wrote (726606)7/15/2013 9:17:31 AM
From: Joe Btfsplk1 Recommendation

Recommended By
simplicity

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1582491
 
The largest segment of our population would be in real poverty if not for..........

Evidence suggests reason and sober analysis can't penetrate your delusions, but try, just try, to chew on these:

Prosperity Through Higher Costs

Here’s another letter to the Washington Post on Prof. Massengill’s piece on Wal-Mart:

Rebekah Peeples Massengill argues that low-income families are harmed by Wal-Mart’s “relentless cost-cutting” (“ Five myths about Wal-Mart,” July 12). But because retailers from the earliest times have competed for customers by cutting costs (a result of what Prof. Massengill calls “prioritizing consumption”), her complaint isn’t with Wal-Mart so much as it is with retailing itself. Therefore, the only real solution to this scourge of ever-less-costly access to consumer goods is a strict prohibition on retailing.

Only by outlawing retailing can we ensure that no retailer will ever again weaken the economy by cutting costs. Only by outlawing retailing can we finally maximize the amount of resources used to bring consumer goods from farms and factories to individual homes. (Think of the countless hours that every one of us will spend driving from farm to farm and from factory to factory to buy food, clothing, and other consumer goods!) With retailing outlawed, the costs that we’ll incur – that is, the amount of resources that households will be obliged to spend – to bring each consumer good from farm or factory into a home will be multiple times greater than the puny amount of resources spent today to make each consumer good accessible for purchase.

And when the Commerce Dep’t. calculates the enormous monetary value of the resources that households spend to acquire consumer goods in this retailer-less world, we’ll discover just how prosperous we are without the likes of Wal-Mart and other greedy cost-cutting corporations.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics



Quotation of the Day…

… is from page 198 of the 1983 Leland Yeager translation of Ludwig von Mises’s 1919 book, the English title of which is Nation, State, and Economy:

One of the great ideas of [classical] liberalism is that it lets the consumer interest count alone and disregards the producer interest. No production is worth maintaining if it is not suited to bring about the cheapest and best supply. No producer is recognized as having a right to oppose any change in the conditions of production because it runs counter to his interest as a producer. The highest goal of all economic activity is the achievement of the best and most abundant satisfaction of wants at the smallest cost….

Preferring the producer interest over the consumer interest, which is characteristic of antiliberalism, means nothing other than striving artificially to maintain conditions of production that have been rendered inefficient by continuing progress.