Price basics - very basic

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Thursday, February 2. 2017

Price basics - very basic

A Price Is a Signal Wrapped up in an Incentive

Posted by The Barrister in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 16:12 | Comments (20) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

....as long as the government doesn't decide it has a roll that will 'help' the system be more efficient.

#1 HJB on 2017-02-02 16:27 (Reply)

Amal the Clock Boy is the personification of our federal bureaucracy (especially as envisioned by the left): They take something that works perfectly well, put it thru the government meat grinder, and spit out something that looks like crap and doesn't work...and proclaim that they have created something (like jobs).

The federal government should really do very little - protect me and my stuff from encroachment by domestic and foreign bad guys, enforce contracts and (this is the part they really screw up and where we need politicians willing and able to show great restraint and take a hands off approach) deal with the free rider problem.

Most of what they do otherwise amounts to treating us as slaves to some degree.

#2 mike m on 2017-02-02 17:24 (Reply)

that's because you're thinking small, as is the guy in the video.

you want the SEC and all the blue sky laws regulating securities markets. you do, even if you don't know why. likewise with FDA/state ag inspections, clean air, clean water standards, child labor law, zoning, too, unless you want that dynamite factory next door.

#2.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-02 17:46 (Reply)

you want the SEC and all the blue sky laws regulating securities markets. you do, even if you don't know why. likewise with FDA/state ag inspections, clean air, clean water standards, child labor law, zoning, too, unless you want that dynamite factory next door.

Of course we all want that. We want a lot of things. I want to be a ballerina, for example. Everything has a price, though. The price of clean air and water and child labor laws and inspections regimens and so on is that your taxes went up, economic growth went down, and a lot of dirty, dangerous, low-skill, low-pay jobs moved to Mexico and China. Was it worth the price? Were you consulted on the price? Were you aware there was going to be a price? Are you confident that anybody knows more than everybody else what the "right" price is and they're qualified to tell everybody else what they're going to be forced to pay?

#2.1.1 Jerryskids on 2017-02-02 20:45 (Reply)

I'm sure you'd make a fine ballerina, but won't the other girls be jealous?

how do your kids feel about child labor laws? do you think they're missing out?

you don't really know what the SEC does, do you? never heard of blue sky laws? ProTip: they have nothing to do with the environment.

I know you're not paid to think, but a little effort might help sometime.

#2.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-03 03:28 (Reply)

I think the cost for a lot of the granny state is much higher than people realize.

Everybody's for OSHA, right? I mean, look at the reduction of workplace fatalities since it was instituted. That looks great until you look at the trend before OSHA was instituted. Work place fatalities had been on a decline for thirty years before OSHA came into being and the rate of decline didn't budge after OSHA started its rule making. The implication is that there would have been a similar decline even without OSHA.

There's a similar story with the War On Poverty. The poverty rate had been declining pretty steadily before Johnson got in the act. It declined a bit further but overall, it's been fairly flat since the middle '60s.

Food in the grocery store has all kinds of nutritional information, but even with that and Michelle Obama war on food, it probably hasn't had any effect on the general health of people - especially kids.

It would not surprise me to learn that that similar stories could be said about pretty much every regulatory regime our betters in government have started.

That's not to say that all regulations is worthless. I think a lighter touch on things that make a big difference (like where you can build a dynamite factory) is the most effective. The problem is defining a "light touch" and a "big difference." It's clear to me that we past "light touch" long ago and may have passed into negative difference because of it.

#2.1.2 mudbug on 2017-02-02 21:03 (Reply)

its always a matter of degree.

between us, what I find consistently here is that few, meaning none, of the MF commentators seem to be aware of the fundamental difference between state and federal authority. congressional law and rule making is limited to Article I sec. 8 specific grants of power. but states have no such limits, they have general powers. they are bounded only by federal constitutional guarantees of rights imposed on the states through the 14th amendment (due process, equal protection, the bill of rights) the Supremacy Clause for conflicts between state and federal laws or where congress has preempted areas of law (bankruptcy, maritime law).

so while you could argue correctly that the EPA is overreaching its constitutional authority and have a rule invalidated, you don't ever want to run afoul of Cal/EPA which is backed by the general (and generally unlimited) authority of the state. a state law could limit the height of your shag carpet or the thread count in shoelaces and withstand any challenge.

#2.1.2.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-03 04:54 (Reply)

Nope, I don't want any of that useless nonsense, douchenozzle.

You are either smart enough to protect yourself from these evil boogeymen you want to have the government check on or you're not smart enough.

If you are smart enough, you don't need the government to do it, nor do I need the expense.

If you're not smart enough to protect yourself, you're not smart enough to engage in an argument for government protection...and you're probably not smart enough to engage in any activities where you claim you need protection.

#2.1.3 mike m on 2017-02-02 22:25 (Reply)

if your idea of finance is at the lemonade stand level, which is a generous assessment, i can see why you don't have any interest in securities regulation, asshat.

but let's pretend you have a a real job -- just pretend, bear with me, it might happen, you never know -- and you have a retirement account managed by a fund management company hired by your employer. these are big words, so feel free to consult an adult. you don't actually know who the money managers are, or have a choice of the stocks, bonds, or whatever investment vehicles they choose because that's not how it works. you mop floors, they invest for your retirement.

now, and this is a yes or no question, wouldn't you rather have SEC rules regulating disclosures, how to sell, what can be sold, what kind of risks can be taken?

because if you say no, and you will either say no or evade the question because you're being schooled and are too immature to admit it, you will be robbed blind and not know who to blame, except you'll blame former president osama, or former president bush depending on whether you call yourself a true patriot or a progressive.

amirite?

#2.1.3.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-03 03:45 (Reply)

do you think the government should enforce contracts or deeds with racially restrictive covenants?

#2.2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-02 19:18 (Reply)

You mean like affirmative action and quotas?

#2.2.1 SweetPea on 2017-02-03 10:36 (Reply)

you think as small as whoever that is upstream. so let me explain. a racially restrictive covenant is a provision in a deed that says the land can't be sold to a black, or a Jew or whoever your Bund hates most.

true case: a guy wills a parcel of land to the city for use as park, but the deed says that if blacks are ever allowed in the park, the land reverts to the guy's heirs. this is a big deal because the right to contract or dispose of property is almost sacred here (I'm in the USA, where are you?), but not, according to the USSC (that's our Supreme Court, top court here in America) important enough so that a court will enforce property or testamentary rights against what we here like to call "equal protection", which is a guaranteed right under our Constitution.

verstehst du?

#2.2.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-03 11:11 (Reply)

So what you are saying is "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

#2.2.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2017-02-03 16:11 (Reply)

the animal farm reference is pretty stupid. but if you insist, yes, I consider you to be the equal of any Black.

so, why not just address the issue. I explained what a racially restrictive covenant is, now you tell me why you like the idea. just so you understand what you're supporting: a racially restrictive covenant in a deed can be used to prevent black ownership or use. no court where I live, in 21st century America, would enforce that.

and you're cool with that?

#2.2.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-03 16:29 (Reply)

Oh, I totally agree. Absolute equality no special treatment, no affirmative action, no quotas. How could anyone disagree with that. Make all the animals equal. Glad you finally came around to my view. Welcome to the constitution.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1 SweeetPea on 2017-02-04 10:24 (Reply)

the constitution is not a place. did you miss that day in second grade? or just miss second grade?

its always disappointing to find someone who doesn't like Blacks for no other reason than they're Black, but that's the internet. and the only real way to deal with self-anointed race baiters like you (meaning you can't explain why you think selling property to a Black, or Jew, threatens you) is to ignore you. even sachreals, who is almost always wrong, attempts to defend his positions.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-04 10:39 (Reply)

One of the most powerful light bulb over my head moments came
from reading a one paragraph quote by Milton Friedman, which
explained the price as information concept. Price is the reflection
of what everyone in the entire supply chain is willing to pay
for the labor, materials and equipment required to produce and
market the product.

The second boot to the head came from Dr. Walter E. Williams, who was guest hosting a conservative radio talk show. He offered a some prize for the first person to correctly answer
a question: "How many people does it take to bring bananas
to market from a South American country?"

It is not just the farm workers, it is the company's who make
the pumps, the tractors and other pieces of farming equipment.
It is also the people who make the trucks, trains, tracks and
other things necessary to bring the product to the ports. Then
comes the shipbuilders and the people who created the radar, GPS, compasses, etc.

The guy who won the coffee mug or whatever, answered
"Millions." Voluntary exchange based on immeasurable
complexity cannot be planned or managed. It is like global
climate, if it is impossible to even name all the variables,
you are engaging in what F.A. von Hayek described as the
Fatal Conceit.

#3 Leonard Jones on 2017-02-03 02:09 (Reply)

Voluntary exchange based on immeasurable complexity cannot be planned or managed.

1. sure it can. Soviet industry during WW2 and especially after the German invasion, was of the command-economy form, and while not suitable for western democracies, was both successful and the only kind of economy that could have worked. to some extent, this is true of all wartime economies, even in the US and UK. that it was a failure in peacetime does not invalidate its success during what was a war of national survival.

2. sometimes it must be managed. assume south american banana growers pay extortion to narcotics gangs and work children under slave-labor conditions to keep production costs down. I know, it sounds insane, because slave labor? narco gangs? extortion? Williams and Friedman never talked about these things, can they exist?

do you have some problem with the US banning imports even if the cost of bananas rises because of this government interference? yes? no?

someone upthread has the naive (or insane) idea that in a market that doesn't exist except in the minds of economists, information is freely and fully exchanged. do you agree?

#3.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-03 04:08 (Reply)

Milton Friedman - The Pencil

#4 Zachriel on 2017-02-03 08:49 (Reply)

you're out of your league, punk.

#4.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-03 11:12 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, February 2. 2017

Price basics - very basic