Wayne Stollings wrote:
HeritageFarm wrote:
Only if you want there to be supply. If you let the free market take care of itself, oil prices would go up, people would consume less, and other prices would (somewhat) stay the same.
If you ignore that whole transportation issue that is included in the cost and thus the sale price if there is to be a profit. Of course, in a theoretical true free market the price is always as high as can be made so the only impact would be the lowering of profit.
HeritageFarm wrote:
And yet the price is still high. So supposedly the government is supposed to keep costs down? The only to keep costs down is to subsidize them, which transfers the cost onto the public.
You moved to an entirely different discussion from the error in assuming costs of transportation would not affect other prices. The government is supposedly supposed to keep all costs down? How? Why?
Quote:
Quote:
Unless gas prices went too high, in which case, out the window with that as well.
How high is too high?
Quote:
So high that people cannot afford transportation any longer. If you have someone who can't afford either gas, or a fuel-efficient vehicle, AND public transport does not exist, you have a serious problem.
Some people have never been able to afford transportation well, so they must cut other necessities as required.
Quote:
Quote:
But if what you say is true, then inflation should just be able to pick up the tail end of things.
Not in a "free market" where the prices go as high as that market will sustain. Any increase in wages should be met by an increase in cost of products and services. Thus, either no increase in wages and the any rising cost of essentials is absorbed or there is a general inflation.
Quote:
But they are not. Wages stay stagnant, and inflation goes up. Hence, the average person has less money.
You are discussing something different that what I wrote.
In a "free market" the price is supposed to be as high as the market will bear and no higher. Thus, if there is a wage increase for any reason the costs accross the board would then rise accordingly .... which would be inflation as the same things would cost more.
Quote:
Quote:
But gas prices are still going up. Inflation is a tax, plain and simple.
That is inaccurate pure and simple. Calling a dog a cat does not make it so.
Quote:
Let's analyze the differnces:
Taxes take money away from people. Inflation reduces people's spending power, hence they have less money, hence they have had money taken from them. Sure, that definition may not match your law books, but surely it is logical to you, no?
Taxes are the government TRANSFER of money from the population to the government for public works. That definition does not cover the usage of the term.
A leg is an appendage on a dog, so calling a tail a leg can be done, but it does not make a dog have five legs.
Quote:
Quote:
It is also a very deceitful tax.
No, it is deceitful to call everything a "tax" just because you dislike it.
Quote:
My dislike for it is irrelevant. The point is that excessive taxes are not good for the economy, and inflation manipulates the economy in such a way as to benefit politicians. Therefore my stance is for the better of America.
You just refuted your own point nicely.
Quote:
Quote:
A tax that cannot be seen by the majority populous is both very effective and very unfair.
Probably because they understand what a tax really is and inflation does not come close to meeting that crtiteria.
Quote:
Only because it does not match your law books. And, quite frankly, the average population understands nothing.
That supports my point well. The definition does not fit and the use is based on ingorance fueled by emotionalism.
Quote:
Quote:
If everyone knew that the Fed can create money for the government out of thin air, and that the government relies very heavily upon this practice, it would create a revolution.
Let's just look at GM. Too much borrowing, too much spending, bad management, etc, got them bailed out. And now, governmental intervention on the part of Obama and the Chevy Volt (which by the way is a complete joke), and other things which I haven't researched very well, are causing GM to go under again. Ultimately this is the government's fault, as they are the biggest shareholder of GM. And honestly, who buys chevy? They only last for 150k miles and are junk! GMC gas guzzlers are much better. The Cadillac line is also very lovely and immortal (hopefully). But off track.
A lot of misinformation, but the lack of research does show.
Quote:
True, but GM is not a very well run company otherwise A. they would not be going bankrupt and B. their cars would not be so uncompetitive.
Now for the exceptions or do we ignore your prior points on the Cadillac brand?
Quote:
Quote:
How about the postal service? The government raided it too much and now they have too cut back "because they aren't making enough money." When what is actually true is that they took too much money from the USPS for it to function.
The Nixon Administration set it up as a quasi-business and then retained control over the main guidelines. Thus, even though they can show a profit they are required to pre-pay benefits, unlike any other "business" and are restricted as to what areas may be streamlined by Congress.
Quote:
So since it was a quasi business, it really shouldn't have had it's money raided...
They were "raided"? When? How?
Login
Register
FAQ
