Deadweight loss

[Rat in the Hat]

If the price of a glass of beer is $3.00 and the price of a glass of wine is $3.00, a consumer might prefer to drink beer. If the government decides to levy a beer tax of $3.00 per glass, the consumer might prefer to drink wine. The excess burden of taxation is the loss of utility to the consumer for drinking wine instead of beer, since everything else remains unchanged. Most notably the tax revenue from this consumer is zero.



Come on there are nuggets in there for you.

You can try to play at least.

The only ones who would try to impose a 100% tax on the beer would be tax and spend liberals.

Anything to get money for feel good social programs.

 

[Truthmatters]

For this market, the producer would charge 60 cents and thus exclude every customer who had less than 60 cents of marginal benefit. The deadweight loss is then the economic benefit forgone by these customers due to the monopoly pricing.



In an unfettered market you will have monpolies build.

Every market will eventually have someone corner it.

They will then seek the most profit with the least outlay.

That means that they can find more profit by charging more and selling and making less because their profit margin is best with that plan.

How does your magic market EVER produce a great society worth living in for anyone but the wealtiest people?


It will mean the vast majority of people will be left in want of most things in society.

Gee sounds kinda third world huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

Ready to discuss or are you scared to death of the outcome?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The excess burden of taxation is the loss of utility to the consumer for drinking wine instead of beer, since everything else remains unchanged. Most notably the tax revenue from this consumer is zero.

AKA: Why Tax increases never raise the revenue Progressives claim they will

 

[syrenn]

So a simple post on an economic term turns right into a insult fest without one shred of intelligent discussion from the right.


They are shivering from the implied death of their historically failed ideas by this simple explanation of an economic term

Because you start them off and turn them into insult fest YOURSELF.



Post 1

The reality of markets.

please learn something instead of spouting the same failed talking points

post 2

ts seems the cons here are affraid of learning things because it will cause their historically failed ideas to be outed for what they really are.

post 3

So what did you learn from that example of dead wieght loss?
Or were you incapable of understanding the example?

Any other questions liesmatter?

 

[Truthmatters]

That is just an example and not what happens when you raise taxes in a wise way.


Say you raised taxes on both wine and beer but only a nickle.


People still buy it and you get more revenue.

 

[Truthmatters]

So a simple post on an economic term turns right into a insult fest without one shred of intelligent discussion from the right.


They are shivering from the implied death of their historically failed ideas by this simple explanation of an economic term

Because you start them off and turn them into insult fest YOURSELF.



Post 1

The reality of markets.

please learn something instead of spouting the same failed talking points

post 2

ts seems the cons here are affraid of learning things because it will cause their historically failed ideas to be outed for what they really are.

post 3

So what did you learn from that example of dead wieght loss?
Or were you incapable of understanding the example?

Any other questions liesmatter?

Get over yourself.


You insult me every time you post to me.


Now grow some nerves and discuss something beside how much you like this poster or not.


Discuss some policy for a change and stop being a mindless partisan hack who only discusses personal insults.

 

[Si modo]

Ready to discuss or are you scared to death of the outcome?

So, if I choose not to discuss something inane with you, I must be scared to do so?

Hmmm, lemme think about that false dichotomy for a sec......

You may actually have a point. I might just be scared, although scared is not the word I would use. I am no fan of tedious inanity.

 

[syrenn]

So a simple post on an economic term turns right into a insult fest without one shred of intelligent discussion from the right.


They are shivering from the implied death of their historically failed ideas by this simple explanation of an economic term

Because you start them off and turn them into insult fest YOURSELF.



Post 1







post 2




post 3

So what did you learn from that example of dead wieght loss?
Or were you incapable of understanding the example?

Any other questions liesmatter?

Get over yourself.


You insult me every time you post to me.


Now grow some nerves and discuss something beside how much you like this poster or not.


Discuss some policy for a change and stop nkbeing a mindless partisan hack who only discusses personal insults.

That right and it is rather the idea.

Your OP is not to me...it is to the general membership...and insults everyone. At least i am specifically insulting to you.

There is no discussing anything with you as you have blinders on.... focused talking points..... and are an all around general hack. Its ALL the rights fault. There is nothing else you ever say. Ive given up "talking" to you. I talk at you just as you talk at others.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Examples





The deadweight loss is the area of the triangle formed by the tax income box, the original supply curve, and the demand curve. This is sometimes called Harberger's triangle.
For example, consider a market for nails where the cost of each nail is 10 cents and the demand will decrease linearly from a high demand for free nails to zero demand for nails at $1.10. In a perfectly competitive market, producers would have to charge a price of 10 cents and every customer whose marginal benefit exceeds 10 cents would have a nail. However if there is one producer who has a monopoly on the product, then they will charge whatever price will yield the greatest profit. For this market, the producer would charge 60 cents and thus exclude every customer who had less than 60 cents of marginal benefit. The deadweight loss is then the economic benefit forgone by these customers due to the monopoly pricing.

Conversely, deadweight loss can also come from consumers buying a product even if it costs more than it benefits them. To describe this, let's use the same nail market, but instead it will be perfectly competitive, with the government giving a 3 cent subsidy to every nail produced. This 3 cent subsidy will push the market price of each nail down to 7 cents. Some consumers then buy nails even though the benefit to them is less than the real cost of 10 cents. This unneeded expense then creates the deadweight loss: resources are not being used efficiently.

If the price of a glass of beer is $3.00 and the price of a glass of wine is $3.00, a consumer might prefer to drink beer. If the government decides to levy a beer tax of $3.00 per glass, the consumer might prefer to drink wine. The excess burden of taxation is the loss of utility to the consumer for drinking wine instead of beer, since everything else remains unchanged. Most notably the tax revenue from this consumer is zero.






Its seems the cons here are affraid of learning things because it will cause their historically failed ideas to be outed for what they really are.

Thank you for explaining why when idiot politicians, like Pat Quinn in Illinois, raise income taxes 66% and corporate taxes 46%, people and corporations flee, causing revenues from these ex-residents to fall to ZERO.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For this market, the producer would charge 60 cents and thus exclude every customer who had less than 60 cents of marginal benefit. The deadweight loss is then the economic benefit forgone by these customers due to the monopoly pricing.



In an unfettered market you will have monpolies build.

Every market will eventually have someone corner it.

They will then seek the most profit with the least outlay.

That means that they can find more profit by charging more and selling and making less because their profit margin is best with that plan.

How does your magic market EVER produce a great society worth living in for anyone but the wealtiest people?


It will mean the vast majority of people will be left in want of most things in society.

Gee sounds kinda third world huh?

Sounds kind of ignorant.

Unfettered markets compete away extraordinary returns. How do you not see that?

 

[Avorysuds]

How long until this is moved in the "LOL massive TM spam thread" in the "You don't matter" sectoin on the forums?

 

[California Girl]

So a simple post on an economic term turns right into a insult fest without one shred of intelligent discussion from the right.


They are shivering from the implied death of their historically failed ideas by this simple explanation of an economic term

I have to confess, I haven't actually read your posts. I hardly ever read your posts. I don't read fiction.

 

[California Girl]

I miss Midnight Marauder. Just sayin'.

 

[Truthmatters]

For this market, the producer would charge 60 cents and thus exclude every customer who had less than 60 cents of marginal benefit. The deadweight loss is then the economic benefit forgone by these customers due to the monopoly pricing.



In an unfettered market you will have monpolies build.

Every market will eventually have someone corner it.

They will then seek the most profit with the least outlay.

That means that they can find more profit by charging more and selling and making less because their profit margin is best with that plan.

How does your magic market EVER produce a great society worth living in for anyone but the wealtiest people?


It will mean the vast majority of people will be left in want of most things in society.

Gee sounds kinda third world huh?

Sounds kind of ignorant.

Unfettered markets compete away extraordinary returns. How do you not see that?

How does that happen when someone corners the market?

 

[Truthmatters]

I miss Midnight Marauder. Just sayin'.

Is he no longer on the site?

 

[California Girl]

I miss Midnight Marauder. Just sayin'.

Is he no longer on the site?

I swear to God, a fucking bomb could go off right next to you, and you wouldn't notice unless someone put it on fucking wiki. And you wonder why I never respond to you with anything other than mocking. Jeeez, TM, do you ever pay attention to anything other than your partisan hackery?

 

[Truthmatters]

Thank you for the civil answer.

What did he do to get banned.

I unlike you have a life and will be doing other things at times as opposed to being here 24/7 like you

 

[Truthmatters]

Still not one con who can discuss this idea without going immediately into an insult fest?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For this market, the producer would charge 60 cents and thus exclude every customer who had less than 60 cents of marginal benefit. The deadweight loss is then the economic benefit forgone by these customers due to the monopoly pricing.



In an unfettered market you will have monpolies build.

Every market will eventually have someone corner it.

They will then seek the most profit with the least outlay.

That means that they can find more profit by charging more and selling and making less because their profit margin is best with that plan.

How does your magic market EVER produce a great society worth living in for anyone but the wealtiest people?


It will mean the vast majority of people will be left in want of most things in society.

Gee sounds kinda third world huh?

Sounds kind of ignorant.

Unfettered markets compete away extraordinary returns. How do you not see that?

How does that happen when someone corners the market?

Only in rare instances do markets get "cornered" especially without a patent.

Look at wireless service. Market forces are driving prices down and service up and that's with companies having "monopolies" into your home by providing the landlines.

The vast majority of competition, like 99.9% of it it geared toward providing better service, higher quality at lower cost than someone else does.

That's why even though Southern California and Northern Mexico are identical, our system of free enterprise gives us a crushing advantage over the Mexicans