The Numbers Case For SS Reform

rtwngAvngr said:
Consumers will decide which products they value the quality of and which ones they look at the price of. There are premium brands people are willing to pay for, even in our curerent system. We? who's we? the borg?

I want to keep price fixing illegal so companies with money can't take a loss to create a product so cheap that the company loses money and defeats a superior product vying for the same market segment (i.e. cheap good market or high quality goods market) and then raise the price to an unreasonable level once the competition is defeated in an oligopoly or monopoly.

How utterly naive.

How utterly naive to think I'm naive. Let me know when the EU fails because of Common External Tarrif.

Market protectionism is bad mojo. I don't think you realize the extent to which our standards of living are subsidized by cheap foreign goods. seems like you don't really get it.

I understand it. The goods are only cheap compared to the wages our workers make, but not so cheap compared to the wages of the works who made them. If our wages fall those cheap goods won't be cheap anymore. Yeah it is good to import some of them, but there is a balance that is thrown out by having completely open trade.

If they will eventually be forced off, why not make the period 0 days.

Because some people need support until they can find another job.

Yep. except lib welfare workers will encourage them to stay single and never get a checking account, so the dem reason for being is still there. Just like they do now.

This doesn't seem to make any sense. They will be off the program eventually no matter what they do, and will be kicked off if they don't try to get a job, even if they don't have a checking account and stay single. Over 90% of people are off welfare within 10 years already, the remainer being mostly children. Over 2/3 are off after two years.
 
IControlThePast said:
I want to keep price fixing illegal so companies with money can't take a loss to create a product so cheap that the company loses money and defeats a superior product vying for the same market segment (i.e. cheap good market or high quality goods market) and then raise the price to an unreasonable level once the competition is defeated in an oligopoly or monopoly.
That's way too much meddling.
I understand it. The goods are only cheap compared to the wages our workers make, but not so cheap compared to the wages of the works who made them. If our wages fall those cheap goods won't be cheap anymore. Yeah it is good to import some of them, but there is a balance that is thrown out by having completely open trade.
Nope. There is a balanced that is maintained by completely open trade. The only remedy is protectionism, which is assinine.
Because some people need support until they can find another job.
Any subsidy whatsoever decreases the cost of idleness to the individual, encouraging to find solvency sooner.
This doesn't seem to make any sense. They will be off the program eventually no matter what they do, and will be kicked off if they don't try to get a job, even if they don't have a checking account and stay single. Over 90% of people are off welfare within 10 years already, the remainer being mostly children. Over 2/3 are off after two years.

So if they're going to be off it no matter what, just eliminate it. They'll just do whatever they do sooner rather than later.
 

Forum List

Back
Top