CDZ What is socialism?

[320 Years of History]

Once monopolies and markets are artificially tampered with, we're no longer in the realm of capitalism, simply because you generally need the help of politicians to do that. Can monopolies form without the help of government, sure, but not often. And when they do form, they do need to be broken up.

Monopolies form like sticky bubbles. Corporations are always looking to merge to gain power. We have seen many mega-mergers the last half century. Without government to stop them, there will soon be one bubble.

??? What does that have to do with sakinago's central point that any extent of "tampering" necessarily moves one from capitalism to something else? I'm sorry, but I'm trying to follow the conversation and I don't see what your remark has to do with her/his point.

Re: sakinago's point, I disagree. An economy functions under capitalism so long as the laws of supply and demand determine what goods and services are produced and made available for sale. A lot of tampering can happen before those two forces cease to drive productive and consumptive behavior.

I am not sure what sakinago means by "the realm of capitalism". As far as I am concerned, the existence of monopolies or near monopolies has already killed any advantage of capitalism. Government does not create monopolies; it simply allows it happen. Of course, the government can create its own monopoly for anything. Maybe that is what he meant.

The laws of supply and demand only make sense if the products needed by society are produced. People generate actual demand. When products are made that are not necessarily needed, and demand is artificially created by advertising, our natural resources are wasted unnecessarily and other needs are NOT met.

I understand your confusion about sakinago's remark. I won't remake sakinago's framing to ensure you about Capitalism, but I will offer my perspective about the discussion taking place because I disagree with the final conclusion of resource wastage under the obviously misunderstood procedure of social laws and market forces reduced to partial supply and unregulated demand in consideration of the primary comprehension for both production and consumption of governments and peoples.

Production is indeed necessary for any kind of consumption. With that I cannot disagree because I am both producer and consumer.

As soon as you point to the economy as being exemplified by the fact that products have indeed been made without any necessity and moreover, rather implicitly or explicitly, that their unnecessary transactions would have to be proceeded through psychological cohercion (what you called artificial advertising), you personally become indebted to market forces to reinstate the necessary supply you have neglected for putting the identified unnecessary production as more greatly remunerating and even as more important to pay attention to, when attention is more greatly valuable in Capitalism than any form of remuneration.

When supply has already exceeded demand but the basic demand has not been met and even deprived of, we are obliged to acknowledge and face a serious factual contemporary problem reaching transnational transactions. These transnational transactions are what the realm of Capitalism is, like any other economic or political measure that would already be so advanced to reach such Statal proportions, Capitalism has been made to ensure regulation for greater accuracy within synchronistic circulation of distribution schedules and consumer-producer stability.

Because the economy has already been established since long and many regulating structures chronologically implemented for general civil improvement, and Capitalism being as it is the "cap limit" for global market expansionism, the excess of supply, in fact so excessive to already provide for all consumers and still remain as excess, the producers have no other option but to continue its appropriate distribution and also to redistribute what cannot righteously be consumed because of the previous importive and exportive pursuit strung by remuneration focused labor.

The currently functioning distribution and redistribution proceeding with the already projected post capitalistic economy takes form now as what is known as sustainability. Sustainability is the recycling and composting of inorganic and organic economic products by and through different industries to become better designed and more greatly efficient products for the already mentioned mending of transgressed market and social regulations.

Would someone tell me, please, what is so confusing about "realm of capitalism?" Could it mean anything other that "all that capitalism entails and nothing that it does not?" I suppose it can, an asteroid could strike me as I write this post, but seeing as it was offered without explanation and he didn't expound on it or provide a reference for it, it's a stretch to think it/he means anything other than what I posited herein.

 

[DonaldFG]

I understand your confusion about sakinago's remark. I won't remake sakinago's framing to ensure you about Capitalism, but I will offer my perspective about the discussion taking place because I disagree with the final conclusion of resource wastage under the obviously misunderstood procedure of social laws and market forces reduced to partial supply and unregulated demand in consideration of the primary comprehension for both production and consumption of governments and peoples.

Production is indeed necessary for any kind of consumption. With that I cannot disagree because I am both producer and consumer.

As soon as you point to the economy as being exemplified by the fact that products have indeed been made without any necessity and moreover, rather implicitly or explicitly, that their unnecessary transactions would have to be proceeded through psychological cohercion (what you called artificial advertising), you personally become indebted to market forces to reinstate the necessary supply you have neglected for putting the identified unnecessary production as more greatly remunerating and even as more important to pay attention to, when attention is more greatly valuable in Capitalism than any form of remuneration.

When supply has already exceeded demand but the basic demand has not been met and even deprived of, we are obliged to acknowledge and face a serious factual contemporary problem reaching transnational transactions. These transnational transactions are what the realm of Capitalism is, like any other economic or political measure that would already be so advanced to reach such Statal proportions, Capitalism has been made to ensure regulation for greater accuracy within synchronistic circulation of distribution schedules and consumer-producer stability.

Because the economy has already been established since long and many regulating structures chronologically implemented for general civil improvement, and Capitalism being as it is the "cap limit" for global market expansionism, the excess of supply, in fact so excessive to already provide for all consumers and still remain as excess, the producers have no other option but to continue its appropriate distribution and also to redistribute what cannot righteously be consumed because of the previous importive and exportive pursuit strung by remuneration focused labor.

The currently functioning distribution and redistribution proceeding with the already projected post capitalistic economy takes form now as what is known as sustainability. Sustainability is the recycling and composting of inorganic and organic economic products by and through different industries to become better designed and more greatly efficient products for the already mentioned mending of transgressed market and social regulations.

"you personally become indebted to market forces to reinstate the necessary supply you have neglected" ...

Huh. I'm sorry, but that comment (all green in that paragraph of yours) does not make much sense. I am not personally responsible for anything on the grand scale. Many products are produced before any demand is there in our current economic system. That does not seem responsive to peoples needs as I see it.

Skipping your incomprehensible statements on supply and demand, my point is that many of our (and the world's) population do not receive the products they need. Sometimes that is due to the fact that the needed products are not manufactured (usually due to low profit margins), or the people in need do not have the funds due to lack of jobs or other reasons not of their control. This is a system that does not function for the population at large. And I do not see it improving short of necessary government regulation to make it work. It is obvious the free market cannot do this left uncontrolled. Regulations that greatly limit the size of companies might have a shot at generating enough innovation and competition.

By the way, this might be a good point to mention that I have no problem with extremely large companies or even monopolies if their financial power is neutralized. Manufacturing should not be about profits, but should be about making the best product possible for the task. It is the profit motive that has gotten carried away in today's economy.

 

[320 Years of History]

"you personally become indebted to market forces to reinstate the necessary supply you have neglected" ...

Huh. I'm sorry, but that comment (all green in that paragraph of yours) does not make much sense.

That's all? More power to you, buddy! Usually, not always, but usually, I don't have the first idea what he is talking about. LOL (I presume "he." If I'm wrong about that, apologies.) I better go read that one now.

Edit:
Oh...I think I understand that paragraph in his post.

In the first part, he's writing about the fact, and it is a fact, that when an economy produces goods that are discretionary in nature, consumers will only buy them when they are coerced into doing so by marketing messages and/or social pressure.

Think of it like things of which we say, "it's an acquired taste." Many folks feel that way about beer or Scotch. The first time they try it, they know damn well they don't like the taste, but peer pressure and their need to fit in, and a host of other reasons may inspire them to keep trying it, and over time, they like it, in response, producers invest their resources into producing beer and Scotch rather than investing them into producing things -- more of them or producing them more inexpensively -- one/society needs.

Once that happens, the only way to get producers to shift from producing beer or Scotch, as per my example, is for market forces -- demand mostly -- to show producers that beer and Scotch are no longer desired; thus they should either stop producing them, or they should at least produce less beer and Scotch.

That one is in fact, one of his better posts. It's much easier to understand than most of them. That doesn't mean I agree or disagree with all of it. Just that I feel more confident that I mostly understand what he's trying to communicate.

 

[Holos]

I understand your confusion about sakinago's remark. I won't remake sakinago's framing to ensure you about Capitalism, but I will offer my perspective about the discussion taking place because I disagree with the final conclusion of resource wastage under the obviously misunderstood procedure of social laws and market forces reduced to partial supply and unregulated demand in consideration of the primary comprehension for both production and consumption of governments and peoples.

Production is indeed necessary for any kind of consumption. With that I cannot disagree because I am both producer and consumer.

As soon as you point to the economy as being exemplified by the fact that products have indeed been made without any necessity and moreover, rather implicitly or explicitly, that their unnecessary transactions would have to be proceeded through psychological cohercion (what you called artificial advertising), you personally become indebted to market forces to reinstate the necessary supply you have neglected for putting the identified unnecessary production as more greatly remunerating and even as more important to pay attention to, when attention is more greatly valuable in Capitalism than any form of remuneration.

When supply has already exceeded demand but the basic demand has not been met and even deprived of, we are obliged to acknowledge and face a serious factual contemporary problem reaching transnational transactions. These transnational transactions are what the realm of Capitalism is, like any other economic or political measure that would already be so advanced to reach such Statal proportions, Capitalism has been made to ensure regulation for greater accuracy within synchronistic circulation of distribution schedules and consumer-producer stability.

Because the economy has already been established since long and many regulating structures chronologically implemented for general civil improvement, and Capitalism being as it is the "cap limit" for global market expansionism, the excess of supply, in fact so excessive to already provide for all consumers and still remain as excess, the producers have no other option but to continue its appropriate distribution and also to redistribute what cannot righteously be consumed because of the previous importive and exportive pursuit strung by remuneration focused labor.

The currently functioning distribution and redistribution proceeding with the already projected post capitalistic economy takes form now as what is known as sustainability. Sustainability is the recycling and composting of inorganic and organic economic products by and through different industries to become better designed and more greatly efficient products for the already mentioned mending of transgressed market and social regulations.

"you personally become indebted to market forces to reinstate the necessary supply you have neglected" ...

Huh. I'm sorry, but that comment (all green in that paragraph of yours) does not make much sense. I am not personally responsible for anything on the grand scale. Many products are produced before any demand is there in our current economic system. That does not seem responsive to peoples needs as I see it.

Skipping your incomprehensible statements on supply and demand, my point is that many of our (and the world's) population do not receive the products they need. Sometimes that is due to the fact that the needed products are not manufactured (usually due to low profit margins), or the people in need do not have the funds due to lack of jobs or other reasons not of their control. This is a system that does not function for the population at large. And I do not see it improving short of necessary government regulation to make it work. It is obvious the free market cannot do this left uncontrolled. Regulations that greatly limit the size of companies might have a shot at generating enough innovation and competition.

By the way, this might be a good point to mention that I have no problem with extremely large companies or even monopolies if their financial power is neutralized. Manufacturing should not be about profits, but should be about making the best product possible for the task. It is the profit motive that has gotten carried away in today's economy.

It may not make sense but it makes logic. Sense is not always constructive or progressive, logic is.

You are truly not responsible if you truly had no involvement in it. I was writing in general terms and using personal conclusions because that is truly the scope of current economics - and as far as I am concerned that range from the grand to the personal has always been and always will be the scope of functional economics.

Your understanding of supply and demand is false. There can be no supply without demand. How could there ever be? Even if the supply was actually artificially enforced over any legitimate demands, there was still demand from the producer who hadn't considered all demanding consumers. That producer becomes indebted for transgressing basic market laws.

 

[DonaldFG]

One of my heroes is RichardDWolff.

There are several videos on that webpage. Which of them is most germane to the topic at hand? I don't have the time to watch all of them. I can find the time to read them if there is a text version, but absent that, I will read the one that best pertains to what we are discussing here.

I am familiar with Dr. Wolff. Indeed, I've read parts of his book Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian. It was one of the texts included in my son's AP economics class. (I wish his book had existed when I was in school...it'd have been a great time and effort saver for writing two of my papers and my minor thesis so much easier. LOL)

I believe some years back he was named one of the top Marxist economists in the U.S. That's a pretty cool accolade to receive; however, it also is one that indicates he prefers, in the "big picture sense," a command economy to one driven by supply and demand. I can understand the benefits of command economies, particularly if they are managed by disinterested and benevolent "controllers." I certainly am not committed to capitalism's key reality that some competitors will experience greater success than others, thereby having and having access to more of the overall society's resources.

The downside of a command economy isn't found in what it offers, but rather it bringing it to fruition and maintaining it. Looking pragmatically at the "big picture" of implementing a command economy, one must consider what is among the biggest picture elements of all: human nature. To have a thriving and successful command economy that works both effectively and efficiently, the people making the decisions about what gets produced and made available for sale have to unwaveringly make their choices without regard to their own gain, or that of those close to them, focusing entirely and always on what's best for everyone.

While there may be individuals who are both highly knowledgeable re: economics and can thus make excellent choices about what the society needs, produces, imports, exports, etc., I find it highly unlikely that there exists anyone who sooner or later will not take unfair advantage of their position(s) as the "economy controllers" to enrich (monetarily or otherwise) themselves incrementally more than the millions on whose behalf they are expected to make macroeconomic and microeconomic choices.

y you are one of those who cannot see the forest because of all the trees! If you back off and consider the main events happening everyday, you begin to see the big picture. I am a big picture guy. Pay special attention to whistleblowers. Some economists agree with me.

I appreciate your effort in putting your response together, but my big picture view remains the same. I won't try to reply to all that you stated, but will make a few additional comments.

In your post, you specifically posit that I do not see the big picture. I assure you. You are wrong. I specifically mentioned China’s and drew examples from it because it is a society that macroeconomically is a command economy and that in selected locales allows capitalism to reign in the microeconomic sphere.

In your post you also attest to being a “big picture guy.” Well, I doubt that you are, though I believe you want to be, because as one, you’d have realized I have no expectation of you addressing a good deal of what I wrote because they were specific events and observations that served as examples that served as support for and illustrations of the key points I was making, and there weren’t that many key points in the post. In fact, there really was just one, supported by multiple things, and that one is:

• You don't know what you are talking about, or if you do, it's not evident from what you wrote in that post. The evidence that led me to make that point is:
  • You lack an accurate understanding of what free trade is and is not. This is seen by contrasting the definition of that term with your presentation of what the term means which mentions nothing about the presence or absence of restrictions on or constrictors of the exercise of trade such that it is either free or not free.
  • You describe elements of competition as being what free trade is or entails, failing to recognize that those aspects of competition exist when there is and is not free trade.
  • You inaccurately paraphrased the theory of rational choice -- something that is so central to economics that nobody who knows economics misstates it, even if they do attempt to recharacterize or refute it -- and cited it as part of what is free trade, which is a means by which one or groups exercise rational choice. Rational choice theory is even a key foundation in Marxist economic theory Your "hero," Dr. Wolff even wrote of it, referring to it as "rational choice Marxism." (see additional references to the idea of rational choice as it applies to Marxist economics just below)
    • Elster, J. 1983. Sour Grapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Elster, J. Ed. 1986. Rational Choice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    • Roemer, J. 1988. Free To Lose. London: Radius.
      
    • Wright, E. O. 1985. Classes. London: Verso.
      
    • Wright, E. O. 1989. "Rethinking The Concept of Class Structure". In The Debate on Classes.
  • You ascribe to capitalism, competition and free trade the diminution of quality in goods (services) produced, yet boosts in quality and the availability of exceptionally high quality, exceptionally innovative approaches, ideas and products are among very things that unbridled competition and capitalism are best at yielding. Among the things command economies have to attempt to overcome is allowing the good to become the enemy of the best. That simply isn't a problem in capitalism because ultimately, what's best is determined by the laws of supply and demand.

Elasticity and substitution were the two things I specifically discussed and that, along with rational choice, is what I would have expected you to respond to because those are the key dimensions that pertain to the points you seemed to be trying to make, particularly now given your presumed preference (as implied by whom your hero is) for greater degrees of control over macro and micro economic choice. I'm aware of what the command economist's responses are to that, but I'm certainly not going to make your points for you, or give you hints of what they are, especially when I don't agree with them.

I also would have expected you to raise in response to my comments the one thing I did not and that is central to what's wrong with large capitalist economies like that of the U.S., but you didn't even begin to mention it...didn't in spite of the fact that it's one of the "big picture" elements of rational choice theory. And no, I'm not going to tell you what it is because you're the "big picture guy," so you should have keyed on it immediately, for it's the one angle from which you could have approached the thesis that runs through the non castigatory elements of your reply to me, and for which there is no good and widely agreed upon (by economists) response, though there are mediocre responses to it and I have my own innovative (that because I have yet to see someone else present it) response to it and if raise the point, I'll share it.

Excuse my late reply. I don't have a whole lot of time for these conversations. So I have to pick and choose to which ones I'd like to respond. Let's see how far I can get on your rambling comments.

I only referred to doctor Wolff to indicate my line of thought, although the subject of socialism is covered in his videos for sure. Also, Dr. Wolff is not in favor of a command economy. He very much believes in democracy, as I do, for the control of governments and corporations- not elite elected officials. A working democracy requires that any elected official or representative can be removed from office quickly when the people discover corruption in the official's work.

As for controlling the economy, the time is coming when the "economy controllers" will be machines (computers). Resources will be obtained as needed and sent where needed. Most full scale manufacturing plants will be automated. And the new innovations will come from humans mostly. If we do not shake loose the old paradigms for economic control, we possibly will fail as a species.

In reference to your specific examples, they illustrate how our broken economies around the world work today. I am more interested in fixes for failed economic practices.

When it comes to free trade, I tend to combine "free trade" and "free market" in my thoughts. More specifically, I probably should have used free market while talking about competition. Anyway, I blend them together as unworkable using a capitalistic system because a true free market destroys itself by its very nature - the natural trend towards monopoly.

Unfortunately, the laws of supply and demand only produce high quality products at first in a young free market economy. Then as the companies grow larger and more powerful, the quality begins its process of cheapening to lower quality. I've seen this happen with one product after another through my lifetime.

My dismissal of the need for a command economy wipes out most of your remaining statements. And an automated (machine controlled) economy would probably generate monopoly production plants, each producing the highest quality product possible (due to continued human oversight). These plant operations are not in it for profit, as they are today. Obviously all this will not happen overnight, either. But with a real functioning democracy, that will be the new economic trend. The needs of the people and their demands will be the driving force.

 

[the_human_being]

The Communist Party now Officially Supports the Democrat Party - Eagle Rising

 

[Militants]

Marxism are all three spicies in this kind of magic.

Communism, Socialism and Nationalsocialism but I am two first of Marxism.

Even I like Liberalism and Cruz and Trump then Sanders my top candidates.

This 2016 election year.

I am Marxist off course you also.

 

[Militants]

Or you only socialism ?

 

[Militants]

Socialism are Communism.

 

[I amso IR]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

To begin with we will need to define "We", as in "We, the people" as stated in the Preamble to our US Constitution. Does that "We" make reference to the needs of the "many" vs the needs of the "Few" only or is it all inclusive?

 

[320 Years of History]

In reference to your specific examples, they illustrate how our broken economies around the world work today. I am more interested in fixes for failed economic practices.

The predominant failure I observe in the marketplace is people's failure to apply the very same rules of supply and demand to their labor as producers do in selecting the mix of goods and services they offer. Obviously, not every individual fails in that regard, but enough folks do that now we have millions of folks crying "woe is me," instead of tailoring their skills to those most demanded by the consumers of labor.

the laws of supply and demand only produce high quality products at first in a young free market economy. Then as the companies grow larger and more powerful, the quality begins its process of cheapening to lower quality.

I thoroughly disagree with you to the extent you've implied that the decline in quality is a necessary outcome of companies growing in size and becoming ever more powerful. One look at the mix of goods available in the marketplace shows that to be so.

• Are Levi's, Lee and Wrangler jeans any lower quality now than they were years and years ago? No, they aren't, although one can buy jeans that aren't meant to be tough and rugged, and those jeans aren't as "toughly" assembled as are some models of Levi's, Lee, or Wrangler jeans.
• Check out the Porsche factory. Go test drive a vintage Porsche and a late model one. Do you really think Porsche makes lower quality cars today than they did 50 years ago? I can assure you they do not.
• Coke and Pepsi have become very mature products. Their soft drinks are no better or worse now than they were ages ago.

Those are just three examples of differentiated products. Obviously commoditized goods for the most part don't get better or worse in quality.

an automated (machine controlled) economy would probably generate monopoly production plants, each producing the highest quality product possible (due to continued human oversight). These plant operations are not in it for profit, as they are today.

Well, if profit won't be the motivator in a nonetheless capitalist economy where much of production is machine controlled and performed, what do you propose is or could be?

 

[DonaldFG]

The predominant failure I observe in the marketplace is people's failure to apply the very same rules of supply and demand to their labor as producers do in selecting the mix of goods and services they offer. Obviously, not every individual fails in that regard, but enough folks do that now we have millions of folks crying "woe is me," instead of tailoring their skills to those most demanded by the consumers of labor.

You make learning new skills sound simple; it's not. Many laid off workers are supporting their families and can't afford to pay for more schooling. And most new graduates from high school can't afford it either, unless their parents can help. Rather than just ignoring these people, society needs to provide them the help they need. Bernie Sanders is right; we should have free education through basic college or trade school. People need to be trained for the jobs that are out there.

the laws of supply and demand only produce high quality products at first in a young free market economy. Then as the companies grow larger and more powerful, the quality begins its process of cheapening to lower quality.

I thoroughly disagree with you to the extent you've implied that the decline in quality is a necessary outcome of companies growing in size and becoming ever more powerful. One look at the mix of goods available in the marketplace shows that to be so.

• Are Levi's, Lee and Wrangler jeans any lower quality now than they were years and years ago? No, they aren't, although one can buy jeans that aren't meant to be tough and rugged, and those jeans aren't as "toughly" assembled as are some models of Levi's, Lee, or Wrangler jeans.
• Check out the Porsche factory. Go test drive a vintage Porsche and a late model one. Do you really think Porsche makes lower quality cars today than they did 50 years ago? I can assure you they do not.
• Coke and Pepsi have become very mature products. Their soft drinks are no better or worse now than they were ages ago.

Those are just three examples of differentiated products. Obviously commoditized goods for the most part don't get better or worse in quality.

All products don't get cheapened badly, but that is the general trend. Production costs are trimmed to bear bones as much as a producer can get away with and still sell. The high quality end products are only kept if their increased sale price can sustain them, while the ones for the old price are cheapened. If everyone can't afford the high price, well that's just too bad.

Cars are a good example of my cheapening point. Back in the 1950s, car bumpers had to sustain a bump of so many pounds pressure so no damage would occur on impact. With today's "plastic bumpers", forget no damage. Side impacts are worse also. The old cars were like tanks in comparison. I can tell similar stories of electronics, drugs, and other products. For example, there used to be a vaccine for poison ivy that worked very well to make you immune. The lab stopped making it because it was not profitable.

an automated (machine controlled) economy would probably generate monopoly production plants, each producing the highest quality product possible (due to continued human oversight). These plant operations are not in it for profit, as they are today.

Well, if profit won't be the motivator in a nonetheless capitalist economy where much of production is machine controlled and performed, what do you propose is or could be?

Comfortable lives for all humans in an era of mass cooperation. Money is a worthless product in itself, so I don't expect it to last; money is not necessary to our survival.

 

[320 Years of History]

You make learning new skills sound simple; it's not. Many laid off workers are supporting their families and can't afford to pay for more schooling. And most new graduates from high school can't afford it either, unless their parents can help. Rather than just ignoring these people, society needs to provide them the help they need. Bernie Sanders is right; we should have free education through basic college or trade school. People need to be trained for the jobs that are out there.

I agree in the main, and certainly with the idea of free college/trade school.

I disagree as follows:

• I don't make learning new skills sound simple. I do, however, present the idea that one can do so with relative ease provided that in one's formative years one, as one was supposed to, picked up the core skills and abilities that make learning new skills not difficult. After all, we all recognize that advanced understandings of math, physics, and other highly specialized skills aren't the types of new skills we are talking about folks needing to acquire.
• As goes affording it, given the existing rules of the game, I think that saving to finance one's retraining if/when it becomes necessary is just as important as saving to retire. I think one must, to the extent possible, save for both purposes.

The high quality end products are only kept if their increased sale price can sustain them, while the ones for the old price are cheapened. If everyone can't afford the high price, well that's just too bad.

Cars are a good example of my cheapening point. Back in the 1950s, car bumpers had to sustain a bump of so many pounds pressure so no damage would occur on impact. With today's "plastic bumpers", forget no damage. Side impacts are worse also. The old cars were like tanks in comparison. I can tell similar stories of electronics, drugs, and other products.

The two quotes above ignore price elasticity of demand and substitution.

• http://www.econ.yale.edu/~dirkb/teach/pdf/akerlof/themarketforlemons.pdf
  
• The quality of cars hasn't declined; it's increased, at least according to the only scholarly study I can find on the matter. (click on the text below to access the study documentation)
  
  "Between the years 1906 and 1940, quality-adjusted prices fell at an average rate of 5 percent per year, thus halving every thirteen years."
  
  Our measured decline can be divided into price and quality components. Prices themselves (CPI-deflated) dropped at a rate of 3 percent, whereas quality as we measure it increased at a rate of 2 percent per year."
  
  Note:
  I would expect auto industry sources to say quality has increased, and I'd expect consumer advocates and auto industry watchdogs to say it has not; so that's why I have sought something produced by an objective observer who has nothing to gain whatever be the answer they find.

Also, you seem to be implying that the '50s era bumpers, say were better parts to install on a car. Whether they were/are or not isn't the point. What is the point is that what our society has determined is important in bumper designs is finding a balance among the priorities of protection for the car and minimizing the damage an impact has to the thing/person hit, minimizing the cost of repairing the vehicle, minimizing the weight of the vehicle, providing maximum safety for vehicle occupants, and so on. Sure, if having a "damage-proof" bumper is the sole priority, then yes, the bumpers of the '50s were better at that than are modern bumpers.

For example, there used to be a vaccine for poison ivy that worked very well to make you immune. The lab stopped making it because it was not profitable.

??? Well that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that there used to be such a vaccine and now there is not. That's just not an accurate thing to say.

• URUSHIOL - National Library of Medicine HSDB Database
  
• Poison Ivy Vaccine
  
• A.A.S.J. | About Us
  
• Pill To Prevent Poison Ivy Itch Proves Elusive (I realize the article doesn't make clear whether the issue is the pill delivery method or the ability to provide a vaccine via any modality.)
  
• Polyland - Topics
  
  • Homeopathic - Viewer Suggestions for treating Poison Ivy, Oak, Sumac - (www.poisonivy.us)
• New Poison Ivy Vaccine in Testing!

Judging by some of the sites above, I can only surmise that if at one point it wasn't profitable to produce poison ivy (PI) vaccines, and some company did indeed do so, it is profitable now. That too isn't unexpected or unreasonable. We didn't begin to mine oil from oil shale (fracking) until the price of oil increased enough for it to be profitable to do so. I don't see any reason to expect the situation with the PI vaccine should be any different.

Just when was there a company producing PI vaccines? I presume it must have been prior to 1906. Even so, insofar as you say a company produced it, it stands to reason that they patented the drug seeing as patent protection isn't a new thing. Medicines have been patented since before the founding of the FDA, so profitable in the long run or not, the company that made it would have filed for patent protection to ensure the profit stream flowed its way and not toward its industry competitors. So if someone made one once, it can't be that hard to make a modernized variant of it, that is if, unlike aspirin, say, it needs to be modernized.

Comfortable lives for all humans in an era of mass cooperation. Money is a worthless product in itself, so I don't expect it to last; money is not necessary to our survival.

Money is useless in and of itself. It's only value is found in it's being the designated medium of exchange. Money is not new, although paper money, comparatively speaking is, and paper money not backed by gold is even newer. Cows, cockleshells and other object have served as mediums of exchange, and all those past mediums were money just as our bills are today.

So, again, I ask you, if not money, profit, what then will be the medium of exchange and the motivator? People are not going give up something to get nothing in return. That something doesn't need to be immediately or eminently tangible, but it does need to be apparent to the parties to the deal.

 

[DonaldFG]

• 
  
• As goes affording it, given the existing rules of the game, I think that saving to finance one's retraining if/when it becomes necessary is just as important as saving to retire. I think one must, to the extent possible, save for both purposes.

That's fine if you have an income to save. Many folks live pay-day to pay-day if they have a pay-day.

• Note:
  I would expect auto industry sources to say quality has increased, and I'd expect consumer advocates and auto industry watchdogs to say it has not; so that's why I have sought something produced by an objective observer who has nothing to gain whatever be the answer they find.

Admittedly, new innovations are usually of high quality as I indicated before about new products. But as CEOs and upper-management work to reduce production costs, invariably the product cheapens. You had to notice your own disappointment in your favorite products over the years.

For example, there used to be a vaccine for poison ivy that worked very well to make you immune. The lab stopped making it because it was not profitable.

??? Well that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that there used to be such a vaccine and now there is not. That's just not an accurate thing to say.

Well, it was not 1906. It was in the 1980s. My Wife is very sensitive to poison ivy and the doctor suggested this new vaccine. It required a booster shot every year before Spring. This vaccine worked extremely well for her. BUT then when she came in to get the shot one Spring, the doc said the lab discontinued making it because it was not profitable.

Yes, there may be other labs trying to do this. I don't know.

Comfortable lives for all humans in an era of mass cooperation. Money is a worthless product in itself, so I don't expect it to last; money is not necessary to our survival.

Money is useless in and of itself. It's only value is found in it's being the designated medium of exchange. Money is not new, although paper money, comparatively speaking is, and paper money not backed by gold is even newer. Cows, cockleshells and other object have served as mediums of exchange, and all those past mediums were money just as our bills are today.

So, again, I ask you, if not money, profit, what then will be the medium of exchange and the motivator? People are not going give up something to get nothing in return. That something doesn't need to be immediately or eminently tangible, but it does need to be apparent to the parties to the deal.

Why do we need a "medium of exchange"? That is an old world paradigm that will disappear as society becomes global and people realize that all the world's resources are the common heritage of all humanity.

Here is one article of many on the subject of money:

Valuable Without a Value - TVP Magazine

 

[320 Years of History]

That's fine if you have an income to save. Many folks live pay-day to pay-day if they have a pay-day.

Nearly everyone who has an income should have money to save, however small be the sum. If they don't:

• they are living beyond their means, or
• they failed to fully avail themselves of the foundational opportunities they were given (every citizen is given them) so they could get a job that affords them sufficient income such that they can save and spend, or
• they ignored "the writing on the wall" and now find themselves faced with hardship.

Of course, there are exceptions to that, and I'm capable of being sympathetic to folks who fit that category. What I'm not willing to do is accept I should feel more obligated to them than to feed, clothe and if need be house folks who simply were low achievers and later find themselves having a rough way to go and now sing "Woe Is Me." To those folks, I say, "Cry me a river, baby."

The fact is that for now, capitalism is the game and the players in that game need to realize it and make a point of being good at it, or find a different game to play. I will learn to adjust and play well whatever "game" is the one our nation chooses. In my mind, I should not be the exception in taking that approach. Another simple fact is that one doesn't generally get to change the "rules of the game" until one has learned how to be good at the "game."

If your point is that the "game" of capitalism is one at which it's simply too intrinsically difficult for most folks to be good at it, well, that may be. I, for now, disagree, most especially given the way the game works in the U.S.

as CEOs and upper-management work to reduce production costs, invariably the product cheapens. You had to notice your own disappointment in your favorite products over the years.

What I've noticed is the increase in sticker price for goods I've been buying for years with little to no change in the quality of the item. For example, the very same shoes my parents bought for me in the 1970s to wear to school cost ~$30 (MSRP). Today, they are ~$90. They are the same exact shoes that they were back then, yet, using the CPI index, one sees that $30 in 1970 is worth from ~$180 to ~$100 now. That equates to quality not changing and the inflation adjusted cost going down. I don't see a problem with that, for it means one's income need not even maintain pace with inflation to afford them as much now as one could in the 1970s.

About the only goods I buy and that I can identify for which that same pattern is not evident are the ones that land at the extreme end of the luxury goods spectrum. For those goods, the price has gone up more so than has the quality, but the quality has also gone up or remained the same in every cases I can identify.

• Watches -- As a hobbyist watch collector, I am keenly aware of the changes to the product itself as well as the changes in the price. There quite simply is nothing about any watch at any price point that worse now in quality; however, the prices of luxury watches have increased beyond what I think the quality has, but then again, they are luxury goods, so buying them is discretionary not necessary.
• Garments -- I happen to buy a lot of the same makes of garments I or my folks bought when I was a kid. (Boring, I know. LOL) I don't observe any functional differences in them.
• Vehicles -- They are better in nearly every way. Safer for me to drive. Safer for you be driven in them by me. Better on fuel economy. Offer more creature comforts and conveniences. The only thing they don't specifically do better is transport one from point A to point B, but then how could they get better at that given that speed limits and roads have remained more or less the same. Even so, try to find many consumer grade vehicles from the mid 1970s that could meet all the transportation-related challenges that a modern SUV can. Yes, one could buy a Range Rover or Jeep back then, but one could not go to any car dealership and get such a vehicle.
  
  Looking back to the 1970s and 1980s, one could buy a U.S. made car or a European one. The U.S. car was okay, but the quality of the European one was higher, albeit not as high as today. Then, along came Toyota, Datsun, and Honda with their efficient and very mechanically sound cars. Even now, not one of them has produced the crap that was the Ford Pinto, Chevy Chevette, or a host of other U.S.-made automobiles. Yet they have consistently also offered cars that are affordable to an average worker. Moreover, these days, there are even more such cars offered from even more producers.
• Furniture, decorative accessories for the home, and household goods -- I can't identify any change in the quality of the furniture I buy and that which my folks have in their home and that's been there for over half a century, some of it has been in use in my family literally for centuries.

When it comes to goods made available for sale, what I observe is that many goods that in my youth were the indulgences of well off folks have become accessible to average folks and at very high degrees of quality. I think that's a good thing.

Capitalism, in spite of it's harsh realities such as those I've tacitly referred to above in this post, is very good at driving prices down when someone produces a good product or finds a way to reduce cost while not reducing quality. And that's, among other things, what CEO's and their teams aim to do, especially in a monopolistically competitive market.

Why do we need a "medium of exchange"? That is an old world paradigm that will disappear as society becomes global and people realize that all the world's resources are the common heritage of all humanity.

Here is one article of many on the subject of money:

Valuable Without a Value - TVP Magazine

I've only gotten to page 15 of the essay to which you've linked (TVP). I have to say my gut says there's something amiss about the author's standards, but perhaps I haven't read far enough. I'll finish it to find out.

The one thing that immediately came to mind is that St. Jude's Children's hospital has one million volunteers who collectively contribute 37K hours annually to the hospital. There's something dramatically wrong with that. Even at just half an hour each, that'd be 500K hours a year. Are the hospital's volunteers really so uncommitted that they can only among a million of then generate 37K hours? And yet the author is touting the hospital's volunteer core as something laudable?

FWIW, I don't disagree with the general themes I've see so far in the magazine. I will reserve judgement until I've read the whole thing.

Based on what I've read so far in the book to which you linked, I suspect the author(s) are "on about" the very nature of economic competition, which I suspect they don't like. I'll find out by the time I finish reading it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why do we need a "medium of exchange"? That is an old world paradigm that will disappear as society becomes global and people realize that all the world's resources are the common heritage of all humanity.

Here is one article of many on the subject of money:

Valuable Without a Value - TVP Magazine

Okay...now I know the author of that magazine's articles isn't much of a critical or rigorously analytical thinker. S/he's coming off more like someone with a "axe to grind" than someone who's got a legit theory for how to approach economic systems, and specifically trade within those systems, that have no medium of exchange.

• Encyclopedia Britannica used 100 paid editors and contributors to produce less content than Wikipedia does. Really? I'm not raggin' on Wiki, for I think it's a reasonable place to go for basic info, and it's actually pretty good for some things, but come on. There are certainly some Wiki entries that are well researched and presented, but I have:
  • Often checked Wiki references only to find that they present as fact what is clearly (at least to a critical reader it is) presented in the reference as opinion not fact.
  • Check references to find they quite simply don't exist.
  • Checked references to find they don't don't have something to do with the topic.

The point of the above is that it's something of the "final straw" in a list of analytical failings I've come by in that magazine. I'll discuss some of the others when I finish reading it. For now, I'll say only that I suspect the author(s) is on the right track, that is his heart is in the right place, but at the very least there for the wrong reasons, and thus drawing the wrong inferences and making unsupportable hypotheses about how to deal with the problems noted. I won't concur with much from folks who put me in that position.

 

[DonaldFG]

Nearly everyone who has an income should have money to save, however small be the sum. ...

Of course, there are exceptions to that, and I'm capable of being sympathetic to folks who fit that category. What I'm not willing to do is accept I should feel more obligated to them than to feed, clothe and if need be house folks who simply were low achievers and later find themselves having a rough way to go and now sing "Woe Is Me." To those folks, I say, "Cry me a river, baby."

There are so many reasons why people find themselves at financial dead-ends including losing jobs through no fault of their own, having catastrophic illness, etc. The low achievers you mentioned may not have the smarts to do the things you think they should do. But you don't care, right? Everyone is not born with the same gifts.

If your point is that the "game" of capitalism is one at which it's simply too intrinsically difficult for most folks to be good at it, well, that may be. I, for now, disagree, most especially given the way the game works in the U.S.

Not too difficult for most folks, but for many - yes.

What I've noticed is the increase in sticker price for goods I've been buying for years with little to no change in the quality of the item.

To be clear, I never said that capitalism does not produce quality products. Yes, we have many products of high quality. But we also have cheapened products that should not be made at all. Even so, little regard is paid to the actual cost which must rightly include wasted resources and pollution without proper recycling. Actual cost would be much higher than the prices we see on things.

And then there are the car problems that should not happen. News lately has reported cheating in Volkswagen exhaust systems. Toyota the last few years had accelerator problems in which many people died in crashes. And then there is the exploding air bag shrapnel cases that killed or maimed passengers.

All is not well with capitalism's products.

Why do we need a "medium of exchange"? That is an old world paradigm that will disappear as society becomes global and people realize that all the world's resources are the common heritage of all humanity.

Here is one article of many on the subject of money:

Valuable Without a Value - TVP Magazine

I've only gotten to page 15 of the essay to which you've linked (TVP). I have to say my gut says there's something amiss about the author's standards, but perhaps I haven't read far enough. I'll finish it to find out.

Thank you for checking it out. You have probably figured out by now (if you didn't already know) that TVP stands for The Venus Project.

There is much to read at the TVP Magazine (many issues), and at their main website. The main focus is on creating a new type of economy that works for all people, literally. Rather than monetary, it is resource based.

 

[320 Years of History]

To be clear, I never said that capitalism does not produce quality products. Yes, we have many products of high quality. But we also have cheapened products that should not be made at all.

I honestly cannot identify any product that has been continuously made and that is now a lower quality product than it was in years gone by. I can't even identify any at the product class level that have those two traits.

What I have observed is that the spectrum of product qualities available in various product classes is broader than it was in years gone by. But that's as it should be and those products' existence, that is the broader spectrum of them being available, is a good thing. That, and that alone is what makes things available to folks who lacked the funds to buy them when there was only one quality grade available. Flat screen televisions are a fine example. When they were initially introduced, who could afford to buy one? (Or in economics parlance, whose elasticity of demand was such that they would not have considered a CRT TV as an acceptable substitute for a flat screen television, and given their elasticity of demand, did indeed demand a CRT TV instead of a flat screen?)

What I'm saying is that I welcome your attempt to show a decline in the quality of goods available for sale, but if you're going to do so, you must do so with full consideration of the principles of substitutes and elasticity of demand. Simply saying there exist in the marketplace goods that are low in quality is not enough. There have always been cheap goods, no matter whether one had to buy them, build them, borrow them or steal them. A hare is a cheap substitute for impala to leopard, yet a buffalo is "too expensive" a substitute for an impala.

As you can see in the preceding example, the principles of elasticity and substitution apply whether or not the medium of exchange, that is, the basis upon which one's choice options are evaluated in the face scarcity and choice, is money. In the case of the beasts in my example, the medium of exchange is life energy. Money is nothing but the human substitute for life energy. Humans invented money so as to have something to exchange, other than their lives, in the quest for resources in the face of scarcity.

Toyota the last few years had accelerator problems in which many people died in crashes. And then there is the exploding air bag shrapnel cases that killed or maimed passengers.

All is not well with capitalism's products.

Yes. Producers, in their quest to deliver products sometimes goof. Some goofs are more harmful than others. That that occurs doesn't signal flaw with capitalism; it indicates a flaw in how it's applied by specific capitalists.

 

[DonaldFG]

To be clear, I never said that capitalism does not produce quality products. Yes, we have many products of high quality. But we also have cheapened products that should not be made at all.

What I'm saying is that I welcome your attempt to show a decline in the quality of goods available for sale, but if you're going to do so, you must do so with full consideration of the principles of substitutes and elasticity of demand.

Well Tony my friend, you certainly have quite a view of capitalism through your rose colored glasses. But the average person not knowing about key phrases like "substitutes" and "elasticity of demand" have seen different results.

My comment about cheapened products not only include ones that originally were high quality, but others that never were of much quality. The capitalist incentive is mostly profit, with quality as something desirable only if profitable.

Toyota the last few years had accelerator problems in which many people died in crashes. And then there is the exploding air bag shrapnel cases that killed or maimed passengers.

All is not well with capitalism's products.

Yes. Producers, in their quest to deliver products sometimes goof. Some goofs are more harmful than others. That that occurs doesn't signal flaw with capitalism; it indicates a flaw in how it's applied by specific capitalists.

Yes, and their number one concern is profit. The quest for profit has badly distorted production and distribution of the things most people need. We can find a better way. TVP is a vision that will improve everyone's lives and allow this beautiful planet to continue sustaining us.

 

[320 Years of History]

To be clear, I never said that capitalism does not produce quality products. Yes, we have many products of high quality. But we also have cheapened products that should not be made at all.

What I'm saying is that I welcome your attempt to show a decline in the quality of goods available for sale, but if you're going to do so, you must do so with full consideration of the principles of substitutes and elasticity of demand.

Well Tony my friend, you certainly have quite a view of capitalism through your rose colored glasses. But the average person not knowing about key phrases like "substitutes" and "elasticity of demand" have seen different results.

My comment about cheapened products not only include ones that originally were high quality, but others that never were of much quality. The capitalist incentive is mostly profit, with quality as something desirable only if profitable.

Toyota the last few years had accelerator problems in which many people died in crashes. And then there is the exploding air bag shrapnel cases that killed or maimed passengers.

All is not well with capitalism's products.

Yes. Producers, in their quest to deliver products sometimes goof. Some goofs are more harmful than others. That that occurs doesn't signal flaw with capitalism; it indicates a flaw in how it's applied by specific capitalists.

Yes, and their number one concern is profit. The quest for profit has badly distorted production and distribution of the things most people need. We can find a better way. TVP is a vision that will improve everyone's lives and allow this beautiful planet to continue sustaining us.

Red:
My glasses are clear and unsmudged. I understand capitalism and what economics says about how it works. It works as advertised, both the good of it and the bad of it.

Blue:
Their observations are fully in line with what economics predicts. One's not understanding economics just means that one doesn't realize that one's observations are within exactly what's expected. They don't have to like or prefer capitalism, but to say that what they observe in the U.S. economy doesn't reflect capitalism is just wrong.

Green:
Well, what are some of them? Can you provide any specific as well as industry level examples?

I'm a fairly consumptive person, but I'm only "more knowledgeable than the average bear," so to speak, about a handful of product types: cars, garments, food, and watches.

• Watches (prices are MSRP):
  • Product: Patek Philippe time-only or time+date mechanical watch (very high price mechanical watch)
    These watches have been very high in quality since "forever." The ones offered today have build/engineering features (e.g., silicone springs) that make them operate effectively longer before needing to be serviced than did the very same models offered in the distant and not distant past, all the while also keeping time as well or better. Price: ~$10K in the early 1990s; ~$25K today.
  • Product: Counterfeit mechanical watch (pick any one you want) bought on the street in the PRC (very low price mechanical watch)
    These watches aren't as well made as those they ape, but they do keep time effectively (+/- ~4 - 30 seconds per day) enough and they can withstand typical use in non physically challenging situations. In other words, they get the job of accurately enough reporting time and are "built well enough" in that their physical build quality is comparable to that of a 1960s-1970s era Rolex, which was quite good, but Rolex have nonetheless upped the physical build quality of their products to the point that today they are "overbuilt." The thing is that a Rolex from that era cost a heck of a lot more than $50, running then from ~$1K to $3K for a basic one. Even so, the cheap counterfeits are not as accurate as higher quality and more expensive mechanical watches. Price: ~$25 if one is a poor haggler.
  • Product: Quartz watch
    These watches are no different now than they were in the 1970s when they took the consumer market by storm and created a crisis in the watch industry. They keep far more accurate time than any mechanical watch can, and they cost far less, less to buy, less to maintain. They can be had in a wide range of physical build qualities, but a simple stainless steel one costing ~$25-$50 will work just fine and hold up just fine. It doesn't matter what one pays for a quartz watch as goes timekeeping accuracy and precision, unless one is going to measure the accuracy on a machine to find out how one differs from another. Price: $5 and up.
  • Product: Hamilton mechanical watch -- time or time+date (low price mechanical watch)
    This watch is going to be well built, quite sturdy and will keep time as well as the counterfeit noted above. Some of the models offered by this maker keep better time than does the counterfeit. Nearly all of them are higher in physical build quality, but not by much. The reality is that these days, it doesn't take much to build a physically very sturdy watch. Price: ~$500 - $1800
  • Product: Deep Blue mechanical dive watch -- time or time+date (low price mechanical watch)
    These watches match the build quality of a Rolex Submariner (one of Rolex's dive watches) in every way. The only things they yield to Rolex is timekeeping, DBs are accurate to +/- ~10 - 30 seconds per day, whereas Rolexes are accurate to about +/- ~4 - 6 seconds per day. The thing with dive watches, though, is that damn near all of them are insanely well built, and the only thing that really varies is ergonomics and timekeeping, but timekeeping varies materially only insofar as whether its chronometer grade or not chronometer grade. Ergonomically, they are thicker and heavier, but then they also are rated for greater depths than is a Submariner. Rolex offers a "deep dive" watch as well, but like the Deep Blue watches, it's thick and heavy.
  • Product: Rolex Oyster model time or time+ date mechanical watch (high price mechanical watch)
    These watches are as physically well built and keep time as well as one can expect a non-specialized watch will be. There are a small handful of other watches that will keep time more accurately and more precisely than will a Rolex, but they cost a ton more. There are plenty that cost a ton more but that don't keep better time. Price: ~$5K - $45K
    
  • Product: Omega time or time+date mechanical watches (high price mechanical watch)
    What one can say about a Rolex, one can say about an Omega as goes timekeeping and physical build quality. Omega use a different type of escapement than do Rolex and that movement experiences far lower friction on the moving parts and as a result the watches can go longer without needing to be serviced, but that design inherently takes up more space, thus increasing the minimum thickness the watch case can be by a little bit. (Rolex recently countered by implementing silicone parts, as have Patek Philippe and others, while retaining the basic lever escapement design.) Price: $3500 -- $40K

When it comes to watches, one can buy a high, middle or low price one as befits one's needs, desires and willingness to spend money. Most importantly to the quality discussion, however, one can spend a small or great sum and still get a watch that actually functionally performs only a little better than anything else, in both the mechanical and quartz classes of watch. Put another way, the spectrum of functional quality is nowhere as broad as the spectrum of prices. One can literally spend millions on a watch, but doing so won't get one a watch that actually does anything better than one costing oodles less.

Capitalism is what makes all three genres (one could break the genres down to greater or by different levels of detail, but that's not necessary, IMO, for this discussion) of them exist. The reason is pretty straight forward: each of the makers can earn a profit offering the watches they offer. Marketing (pricing models, promotion, etc.) is why one observes differing price points for what, at the most basic level, is substantively and for most folks, the same functional product. Simply put, marketing is the set of techniques capitalists use to bend operation and perception of the laws of supply and demand to their favor over that of competitors in the marketplace. Regardless of what one thinks of it, it, like capitalism, works as advertised.

Capitalism is also why today, for ~$50, one can get a well built watch that will keep time as well as any consumer watch can. Prior to the invention of quartz timekeeping, that simply wasn't possible (using inflation adjusted money). In other words, in the early 20th century, or perhaps late 19th, $5 - $10 could buy one as good a watch as one could obtain in the marketplace, but only rich folks were buying them because that was expensive then. Today, one needs to spend at least $50 to get that, but $5 from the early $20th century is worth far more than $50 today, so relatively speaking, the price of a good watch has gone down.

Economics tells us why some people will spend thousands for a watch and others no more than a few dollars. The reason is each individual's price elasticity of demand (simply put: one's assessment of how much is "too much" to spend given what they want to obtain) when confronted with having to choose among the various substitute products that will do whatever it is they want a watch to do.​

Throughout the capitalist marketplace, the same thing goes on as goes on with watches. I bid anyone to show how that same phenomenon is not what one observes for every other product offered that is not a Veblen or Giffen good.

Pink:
Nobody is going to deny that to be so.

Purple:
I think you may misunderstand what it is that producers sell. They produce and sell goods. They sell those goods at various price points on the basis of the argument (marketing) they present to potential buyers. One of those lines of argument is the quality argument. For some goods, governments mandate minimum quality standards, but for others, they do not. Where no standards are mandated, producers offer what they offer and take the risk that enough buyers will find whatever quality it is be sufficient enough for the buyer to purchase that product. Make no mistake, however. Producers are not selling the intangible thing we call quality.