Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
Everyone in this country should have to right to enjoy the same pleasures. That's right, these people want these things. It's not their fault that the price is outrageous. They'll pay but reluctantly because there is nothing they as one person can do.
let me see if i have this right. Everything in this country should be able to be purchased by anyone no matter how much or little money they have. That about right. Congratulations, you just defined socialism.
You are just so closed-minded: "Money is everything. Some people are millionaires, but many are struggling finanically. But, who cares about them...?"
Don't quote me. Especially if you're going to insist on putting words in my mouth. I never even implied any of the above. Don't do it again.
I never said that we have to give everything to people for free, but lower prices reasonably to draw in the gap between the upper and lower class. What's the harm in that: only that the extremely rich won't make as much.
Did you not take economics in high school. Here is a quick lesson for you.
! \ /s
! \ /
! \ /
! / \ e
! ----------------- price cieling
! / \ d
!------------------------- quantity supplied
That't pretty rough but bare with me. The above is supply and demand chart. What you propose is a price ceiling where no more than a certain price can be charge for certain goods and services.
The s stands for equilibrium that pt at which buyers agree to the quantity that sellers are willing to provide at a given price . If you set prices below equilibrium more people will buy the product but there is not enough supply to match it as is illustrated. This results in a shortage of the good. At this pt there are two options. The seller can increase supply to meet demand at the cieling price. This does not work becasue suppliers can't afford to supply extra goods on top of what they are already supplying at the imposed price. The alternative is to raise prices to the pt of equilibrium. It doesn't mean that everyone is happy so to speak it just means that is what both sides are willing to give up.
What you propose actually decreases the supply of the good you are trying to make affordable to poor people. Let's say the good is lamborghini's. Who do you think is going to buy those cheaper lamborghini's first? The people that can most afford them, i.e. the rich leaving less supply for us poor folk. For proof of this see what happened when a price cieling was set on rent in NY.
You never answered my questions, specifically "Why does someone NEED to make more than a million dollars a year?"
and
"Do you think that athletes, movie stars, and singers are more important to society than police officers, nurses, doctors, fire fighters, etc.?"
1) why should they not be allowed to.
2)no, but until people decide that they won't pay that much for movie, game and concert tickets there is no reason for it to change.
