More Than 40 Radio Stations Might Drop Limbaugh and Hannity

[numan]

Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.

You are quite right.

But it would be the beginning of wisdom to check and see who was behind the scenes organizing and funding the boycott.

.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.

Exactly. Every buying choice we make has some set of criteria. It's comical to watch those who claim to favor a free market, qualify that to "a free market as long as I like how others are using it".

Hey..............if your product sucks, your product sucks and I won't buy it.

If your product is made by slave labor, well, speaking as a person who doesn't support slave labor (nor sweatshops), and I hear that's how you're making your product, I wont buy that either.

And.......................if your ideas are stupid, well, I'm not going to listen to you either. Part of the reason why I refuse to listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Dr. Laura unless it's brought to me by other sources who think they're stupid as well.

Sorry..............but I listened to Rush Limbaugh from 1991 until 1993, because my Chief liked to listen to him, and I thought he was stupid.

I listened to Glenn Beck for a year or two while he was on CNN, and thought he was a bit over the top as well as dumb as a bag of hammers just before he got dumped and went to FAUX Nooze.

Dr. Laura? She doesn't know a single thing about relationships unless it's funneled through the lens of money and status. The only time I listen to that haggard witch is when she's brought up on the news.

Wanna know what they all have in common? Whenever someone starts to call for a boycott of their bullshit, they all scream that their First Amendment right is being trampled on because they feel their free speech is being limited.

Nope.............................it's not that your free speech is being limited (because you can be as stupid as you want), it's that other people are using their free speech to tell you what an idiot you are.

 

[Synthaholic]

Like the little bitch that he is, Liability has run away.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Like the little bitch that he is, Liability has run away.

I have bitch-slapped you enough for your dishonesty and cowardice, you rancid twat.

But, as usual, you remain wrong. I am still here.

I drop into the threads polluted by your cowardly dishonesty every once in a while to see if you have ever found your balls. Not yet. Oh well.

Better luck next month, ya stupid bitch.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.

Nonsense.

Nobody denies that people can buy or refrain from buying for any reason, including boycotts.

But an organized orchestrated boycott is clearly NOT part of the free market.

In the case of the ultra lolberal pussies attempting (and failing) to silence Rush, it is just that: an effort to manipulate the market.

A free market is driven by market forces. If you hate what Rush says, you don't listen. His radio share is thus lowered. Advertisers who want bang for their marketing dollars react to the audience share. If it is seen as "too low" they make a market-motivated decision not to buy ad time on a low rated show.

When the lolberals who detest Rush's views seek to silence him (proving their hatred of the very notion of free speech in the process) by trying to organize a boycott NOT of Rush's SHOW but of the companies who might have the temerity to place ad spots ON Rush's show, that is not even remotely akin to "market forces." It might be a force (if it were actually effective). But it would be a political force, not a market force. It isn't directed at the show or the ratings. It is directed at those who would USE the show to advertise their goods and services.

I realize why it is important to the usually dishonest lolberal hacks like Synthia to pretend that the boycott effort is somehow related to "the free market." But it plainly is not. But, I am curious why YOU would seek to join in that pretense.

 

[Synthaholic]

Like the little bitch that he is, Liability has run away.

I have bitch-slapped you enough for your dishonesty and cowardice, you rancid twat.

But, as usual, you remain wrong. I am still here.

I drop into the threads polluted by your cowardly dishonesty every once in a while to see if you have ever found your balls. Not yet. Oh well.

Better luck next month, ya stupid bitch.

No, you ran away like a pussy:

Do you denounce these conservative boycotts?


Why are you afraid to answer?

 

[Synthaholic]

Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.

Nonsense.

Nobody denies that people can buy or refrain from buying for any reason, including boycotts.

But an organized orchestrated boycott is clearly NOT part of the free market.

In the case of the ultra lolberal pussies attempting (and failing) to silence Rush, it is just that: an effort to manipulate the market.

A free market is driven by market forces. If you hate what Rush says, you don't listen. His radio share is thus lowered. Advertisers who want bang for their marketing dollars react to the audience share. If it is seen as "too low" they make a market-motivated decision not to buy ad time on a low rated show.

When the lolberals who detest Rush's views seek to silence him (proving their hatred of the very notion of free speech in the process) by trying to organize a boycott NOT of Rush's SHOW but of the companies who might have the temerity to place ad spots ON Rush's show, that is not even remotely akin to "market forces." It might be a force (if it were actually effective). But it would be a political force, not a market force. It isn't directed at the show or the ratings. It is directed at those who would USE the show to advertise their goods and services.

I realize why it is important to the usually dishonest lolberal hacks like Synthia to pretend that the boycott effort is somehow related to "the free market." But it plainly is not. But, I am curious why YOU would seek to join in that pretense.

By this twisted logic, advertising is manipulating the market forces.

Are you against advertising?

If Subway is promoting $5 subs, isn't that market manipulation?

If Planned Parenthood is promoting it's opposition to Limbaugh, how is that different?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.

Nonsense.

Nobody denies that people can buy or refrain from buying for any reason, including boycotts.

But an organized orchestrated boycott is clearly NOT part of the free market.

In the case of the ultra lolberal pussies attempting (and failing) to silence Rush, it is just that: an effort to manipulate the market.

A free market is driven by market forces. If you hate what Rush says, you don't listen. His radio share is thus lowered. Advertisers who want bang for their marketing dollars react to the audience share. If it is seen as "too low" they make a market-motivated decision not to buy ad time on a low rated show.

When the lolberals who detest Rush's views seek to silence him (proving their hatred of the very notion of free speech in the process) by trying to organize a boycott NOT of Rush's SHOW but of the companies who might have the temerity to place ad spots ON Rush's show, that is not even remotely akin to "market forces." It might be a force (if it were actually effective). But it would be a political force, not a market force. It isn't directed at the show or the ratings. It is directed at those who would USE the show to advertise their goods and services.

I realize why it is important to the usually dishonest lolberal hacks like Synthia to pretend that the boycott effort is somehow related to "the free market." But it plainly is not. But, I am curious why YOU would seek to join in that pretense.

By this twisted logic, advertising is manipulating the market forces.

Are you against advertising?

If Subway is promoting $5 subs, isn't that market manipulation?

If Planned Parenthood is promoting it's opposition to Limbaugh, how is that different?

Now there's something you see every day: Synthia saying something untrue, baseless and stupid.

There is not one thing I just posted that translates (accurately) into the bogus proposition YOU tried to twist it into.

Anybody may attempt to persuade anybody. Advertisements are free speech and not market manipulation. Even a sub-imbecile such as you isn't required to accept an ad pitch, you moron.

But the boycott isn't a matter of persuasion, you dishonest hack twat.

It is coercion. It is a threat.

"We," the sanctimonious lolberals, "hereby threaten you, you filthy capitalist pig merchants, as follows. WE have decided that Rush's voice should be silenced. By buying ad time from his show, you permit his voice to be heard and maybe even to spread. WE find this simply intolerable. Therefore, if you continue to buy ad time from Rush, WE will organize a boycott of YOUR goods and services." (Look at this, you fuckwit: http://samuel-warde.com/2013/06/another-major-advertiser-dumps-rush-limbaugh-boycotters-rejoice/ )

It often requires the use of some speech to issue a threat, but that doesn't make a threat the same thing as a component part of the free market of ideas, you dishonest lolberal hack shitbird.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Nonsense.

Nobody denies that people can buy or refrain from buying for any reason, including boycotts.

But an organized orchestrated boycott is clearly NOT part of the free market.

In the case of the ultra lolberal pussies attempting (and failing) to silence Rush, it is just that: an effort to manipulate the market.

A free market is driven by market forces. If you hate what Rush says, you don't listen. His radio share is thus lowered. Advertisers who want bang for their marketing dollars react to the audience share. If it is seen as "too low" they make a market-motivated decision not to buy ad time on a low rated show.

When the lolberals who detest Rush's views seek to silence him (proving their hatred of the very notion of free speech in the process) by trying to organize a boycott NOT of Rush's SHOW but of the companies who might have the temerity to place ad spots ON Rush's show, that is not even remotely akin to "market forces." It might be a force (if it were actually effective). But it would be a political force, not a market force. It isn't directed at the show or the ratings. It is directed at those who would USE the show to advertise their goods and services.

I realize why it is important to the usually dishonest lolberal hacks like Synthia to pretend that the boycott effort is somehow related to "the free market." But it plainly is not. But, I am curious why YOU would seek to join in that pretense.

By this twisted logic, advertising is manipulating the market forces.

Are you against advertising?

If Subway is promoting $5 subs, isn't that market manipulation?

If Planned Parenthood is promoting it's opposition to Limbaugh, how is that different?

Now there's something you see every day: Synthia saying something untrue, baseless and stupid.

There is not one thing I just posted that translates (accurately) into the bogus proposition YOU tried to twist it into.

Anybody may attempt to persuade anybody. Advertisements are free speech and not market manipulation. Even a sub-imbecile such as you isn't required to accept an ad pitch, you moron.

But the boycott isn't a matter of persuasion, you dishonest hack twat.

It is coercion. It is a threat.

"We," the sanctimonious lolberals, "hereby threaten you, you filthy capitalist pig merchants, as follows. WE have decided that Rush's voice should be silenced. By buying ad time from his show, you permit his voice to be heard and maybe even to spread. WE find this simply intolerable. Therefore, if you continue to buy ad time from Rush, WE will organize a boycott of YOUR goods and services." (Look at this, you fuckwit: Another Major Advertiser Dumps Rush Limbaugh ? Boycotters Rejoice | Liberals Unite )

It often requires the use of some speech to issue a threat, but that doesn't make a threat the same thing as a component part of the free market of ideas, you dishonest lolberal hack shitbird.

Hey................how is it coercion if they only ask you to participate? If you don't want to boycott, don't boycott.....................I mean.............it IS a free country, right?

Sorry, but there are no penalties if you do or don't participate in the boycott, it's your right to choose to participate or not. So no...................it's not coercion.

But...............thanks for showing us how conservatives try to change the meaning of things. I' bet you get all your spin from FAUX Nooze, don't you?

 

[Pogo]

By this twisted logic, advertising is manipulating the market forces.

Are you against advertising?

If Subway is promoting $5 subs, isn't that market manipulation?

If Planned Parenthood is promoting it's opposition to Limbaugh, how is that different?

Hey................how is it coercion if they only ask you to participate? If you don't want to boycott, don't boycott.....................I mean.............it IS a free country, right?

Sorry, but there are no penalties if you do or don't participate in the boycott, it's your right to choose to participate or not. So no...................it's not coercion.

But...............thanks for showing us how conservatives try to change the meaning of things. I' bet you get all your spin from FAUX Nooze, don't you?

Both good points. Nobody's forced to buy or not-buy; they make their own choices. Authoritarians can't stand the (Liberal) idea that citizens can think for ourselves; they've gotta be hovering over to make sure what we think agrees with them.

Then again we're dealing with an intellect whose arguments consistently amount to varying versions of "you dishonest lolberal hack shitbird".

 

[IlarMeilyr]

By this twisted logic, advertising is manipulating the market forces.

Are you against advertising?

If Subway is promoting $5 subs, isn't that market manipulation?

If Planned Parenthood is promoting it's opposition to Limbaugh, how is that different?

Now there's something you see every day: Synthia saying something untrue, baseless and stupid.

There is not one thing I just posted that translates (accurately) into the bogus proposition YOU tried to twist it into.

Anybody may attempt to persuade anybody. Advertisements are free speech and not market manipulation. Even a sub-imbecile such as you isn't required to accept an ad pitch, you moron.

But the boycott isn't a matter of persuasion, you dishonest hack twat.

It is coercion. It is a threat.

"We," the sanctimonious lolberals, "hereby threaten you, you filthy capitalist pig merchants, as follows. WE have decided that Rush's voice should be silenced. By buying ad time from his show, you permit his voice to be heard and maybe even to spread. WE find this simply intolerable. Therefore, if you continue to buy ad time from Rush, WE will organize a boycott of YOUR goods and services." (Look at this, you fuckwit: Another Major Advertiser Dumps Rush Limbaugh ? Boycotters Rejoice | Liberals Unite )

It often requires the use of some speech to issue a threat, but that doesn't make a threat the same thing as a component part of the free market of ideas, you dishonest lolberal hack shitbird.

Hey................how is it coercion if they only ask you to participate? If you don't want to boycott, don't boycott.....................I mean.............it IS a free country, right?

Sorry, but there are no penalties if you do or don't participate in the boycott, it's your right to choose to participate or not. So no...................it's not coercion.

But...............thanks for showing us how conservatives try to change the meaning of things. I' bet you get all your spin from FAUX Nooze, don't you?

Your premise is false.

The boycott proponents approach the advertisers and "request" that they refrain from buying ad time on Rush's show.

But, the threat they have made explicitly is that "if you don't, we will organize a boycott of your product."

You can deny it, but the boycotters themselves have not been reluctant to acknowledge as much.

For example: HERE is the "sample petition" folks are asked to direct to such sponsors, like Carbonite:

To:
Tim Wieland, Public Relations, Carbonite Inc.
David Friend, CEO, Carbonite Inc.
Envoy Medical, Envoy Medical
Pro Flowers, Pro Flowers
Mike Prusinski, Corporate Communications, Lifelock
Tami Nealy, Corporate Communications, Lifelock
It’s no secret that Rush Limbaugh’s on-air antics have sparked countless controversies over the years. Recently, however, his shenanigans have gone too far. After California State Sen. Leland Yee demanded that Limbaugh apologize for mocking the Chinese language on his Jan. 19 show, the radio shock jock not only refused to apologize but also ridiculed Yee on air. Now, an anonymous Rush Limbaugh fan has sent threatening faxes to Yee that included a crude drawing of a noose, death threats and racial slurs against Asian-Americans and blacks. In light of the recent shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, it’s imperative that Limbaugh publicly condemn the faxes and apologize to the Chinese community. If Limbaugh truly cares about America, he will not condone any fan of his threatening the life of a public official.

Should Limbaugh refuse to take action, however, you become an accomplice to his message of hate and intolerance by continuing to sponsor his show. That’s why it’s crucial that you let Limbaugh know you won’t advertise with him until he takes responsibility and makes amends. Failure to pull advertising from “The Rush Limbaugh Show” will result in a boycott of your company.

Sincerely,
[Your name]

-- http://www.change.org/petitions/tel...less-he-condemns-death-threat-chinese-mockery

OR, there's this old one:

To:
Head of Consumer Marketing, Geico
Consumer relations, Select comfort
Consumer relations, Hotwire
Rush Limbaugh's latest remarks have involved the denial of assistance to Haitian earthquake victims clearly due to his racist attitude towards the Obama presidency. The only way to end this madness is through boycotting his corporate sponsors. This man's behavior is a sickness and must not be tolerated! We buy these companies products and by doing so we employ this racist(Rush Limbaugh) if we do nothing--we share his blame.

It's time to take a stand!Chattering about this in the break rooms at our jobs,and bus stops, or living rooms is not enough. It's time to direct our attention to where it hurts--the corporation's bank accounts! Remind them that we allow them to exist!

Sincerely,
[Your name]

-- http://www.change.org/petitions/rush-limbaugh-a-boycott-of-his-corporate-sponsers

Maybe the more formal organized effort from the usual smarmy unethicl shit organization Moron.org will convince you:

Petition Statement
Stop sponsoring Rush Limbaugh's radio show. We the undersigned are informing you that we are committing to boycotting all corporate sponsors of Rush Limbaugh and his radio talk show. We will not purchase any products made, distributed, or sold by your companies until you discontinue that sponsorship. We will also inform all who will listen of what we believe to be the inflammatory and harmful quality of Rush's spiteful, hurtful, and often erroneous diatribes that divide the country, sow discontent, and run contrary to our American values of justice and fairness, peace and unity, cooperation and tolerance between all people and that through your sponsorship of Rush you are interfering with the America that we are dedicated to building.

-- MoveOn Petitions - Boycott Rush Limbaugh's Sponsors

 

[Toro]

Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.

Nonsense.

Nobody denies that people can buy or refrain from buying for any reason, including boycotts.

But an organized orchestrated boycott is clearly NOT part of the free market.

In the case of the ultra lolberal pussies attempting (and failing) to silence Rush, it is just that: an effort to manipulate the market.

A free market is driven by market forces. If you hate what Rush says, you don't listen. His radio share is thus lowered. Advertisers who want bang for their marketing dollars react to the audience share. If it is seen as "too low" they make a market-motivated decision not to buy ad time on a low rated show.

When the lolberals who detest Rush's views seek to silence him (proving their hatred of the very notion of free speech in the process) by trying to organize a boycott NOT of Rush's SHOW but of the companies who might have the temerity to place ad spots ON Rush's show, that is not even remotely akin to "market forces." It might be a force (if it were actually effective). But it would be a political force, not a market force. It isn't directed at the show or the ratings. It is directed at those who would USE the show to advertise their goods and services.

I realize why it is important to the usually dishonest lolberal hacks like Synthia to pretend that the boycott effort is somehow related to "the free market." But it plainly is not. But, I am curious why YOU would seek to join in that pretense.

Because I'm not engaging in partisan tribalism.

The free market is one where people make voluntary decisions to buy or sell for any reason. As long as the decision is voluntary, it doesn't matter what the reason is.

To say that Limbaugh losing advertisers isn't because of voluntary actions of companies is laughable.

Most boycotts don't work because participants in the market decide that the benefits of the product they're buying outweighs the reason for the boycott. Convenience almost always trumps politics. If companies are pulling ads, its because they don't want to be associated with a show that could damage their sales. Companies will generally avoid doing things that decrease their revenues or damage their reputation. That's how the free market works.

 

[Toro]

In a free market, people will buy products based on what economists call utility. Utility is whatever maximizes the individual's well-being. A multitude of factors contribute to utility. One is branding. If a consumer feels good about a product because of a brand, the consumer will buy the product to maximize their utility. Utility is maximized when all information is known.

Calls for a boycott of any product is an attempt to increase information to the consumer who can then decide whether or they want to buy the product. In a boycott, people are made aware of the reason and they decide on their own whether or not they wish to buy the product. Nobody forces the individual to not buy. Every Econ 101 student knows that an assumption behind equilibrium in a free market is that all information is known.

FTR this is true for any voluntary boycott. It was true for the Chick-fil-A boycott, which BTW, failed miserably, as most boycotts do.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.

Nonsense.

Nobody denies that people can buy or refrain from buying for any reason, including boycotts.

But an organized orchestrated boycott is clearly NOT part of the free market.

In the case of the ultra lolberal pussies attempting (and failing) to silence Rush, it is just that: an effort to manipulate the market.

A free market is driven by market forces. If you hate what Rush says, you don't listen. His radio share is thus lowered. Advertisers who want bang for their marketing dollars react to the audience share. If it is seen as "too low" they make a market-motivated decision not to buy ad time on a low rated show.

When the lolberals who detest Rush's views seek to silence him (proving their hatred of the very notion of free speech in the process) by trying to organize a boycott NOT of Rush's SHOW but of the companies who might have the temerity to place ad spots ON Rush's show, that is not even remotely akin to "market forces." It might be a force (if it were actually effective). But it would be a political force, not a market force. It isn't directed at the show or the ratings. It is directed at those who would USE the show to advertise their goods and services.

I realize why it is important to the usually dishonest lolberal hacks like Synthia to pretend that the boycott effort is somehow related to "the free market." But it plainly is not. But, I am curious why YOU would seek to join in that pretense.

Because I'm not engaging in partisan tribalism.

The free market is one where people make voluntary decisions to buy or sell for any reason. As long as the decision is voluntary, it doesn't matter what the reason is.

To say that Limbaugh losing advertisers isn't because of voluntary actions of companies is laughable.

Most boycotts don't work because participants in the market decide that the benefits of the product they're buying outweighs the reason for the boycott. Convenience almost always trumps politics. If companies are pulling ads, its because they don't want to be associated with a show that could damage their sales. Companies will generally avoid doing things that decrease their revenues or damage their reputation. That's how the free market works.

Wrong. A free market decision is a weighing of value.

Product A works better or faster than product B. Or A and B work just as well and just as quickly, but product A is less costly.

The decision making that goes on, ideally, has nothing to do with threats or coercion.

Once such things are injected into the equation, it is no longer a "free" market matter.

If companies pull ads from Rush because they do not care for his speech and think it is adverse to their economic interests to be associated with his views, that might qualify as part of a free market analysis.

But if they are themselves threatened with BEING boycotted if they refuse to participate IN a boycott (we are talking about more than one level of boycott here, by the way), then their determination is no longer a free market analysis based decision. It is capitulation (in essence) to blackmail.

None of this has anything to do with partisan tribalism ,by the way.

 

[Toro]

Nonsense.

Nobody denies that people can buy or refrain from buying for any reason, including boycotts.

But an organized orchestrated boycott is clearly NOT part of the free market.

In the case of the ultra lolberal pussies attempting (and failing) to silence Rush, it is just that: an effort to manipulate the market.

A free market is driven by market forces. If you hate what Rush says, you don't listen. His radio share is thus lowered. Advertisers who want bang for their marketing dollars react to the audience share. If it is seen as "too low" they make a market-motivated decision not to buy ad time on a low rated show.

When the lolberals who detest Rush's views seek to silence him (proving their hatred of the very notion of free speech in the process) by trying to organize a boycott NOT of Rush's SHOW but of the companies who might have the temerity to place ad spots ON Rush's show, that is not even remotely akin to "market forces." It might be a force (if it were actually effective). But it would be a political force, not a market force. It isn't directed at the show or the ratings. It is directed at those who would USE the show to advertise their goods and services.

I realize why it is important to the usually dishonest lolberal hacks like Synthia to pretend that the boycott effort is somehow related to "the free market." But it plainly is not. But, I am curious why YOU would seek to join in that pretense.

Because I'm not engaging in partisan tribalism.

The free market is one where people make voluntary decisions to buy or sell for any reason. As long as the decision is voluntary, it doesn't matter what the reason is.

To say that Limbaugh losing advertisers isn't because of voluntary actions of companies is laughable.

Most boycotts don't work because participants in the market decide that the benefits of the product they're buying outweighs the reason for the boycott. Convenience almost always trumps politics. If companies are pulling ads, its because they don't want to be associated with a show that could damage their sales. Companies will generally avoid doing things that decrease their revenues or damage their reputation. That's how the free market works.

Wrong. A free market decision is a weighing of value.

Product A works better or faster than product B. Or A and B work just as well and just as quickly, but product A is less costly.

The decision making that goes on, ideally, has nothing to do with threats or coercion.

Once such things are injected into the equation, it is no longer a "free" market matter.

If companies pull ads from Rush because they do not care for his speech and think it is adverse to their economic interests to be associated with his views, that might qualify as part of a free market analysis.

But if they are themselves threatened with BEING boycotted if they refuse to participate IN a boycott (we are talking about more than one level of boycott here, by the way), then their determination is no longer a free market analysis based decision. It is capitulation (in essence) to blackmail.

None of this has anything to do with partisan tribalism ,by the way.

Well, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with economics.

Microeconomics 101 is built on the concept of utility, not "value," whatever that means. And utility is whatever the consumer decides.

Companies are neither stupid nor craven. If they think something will benefit their market position, they'll do it. The idea that a Fortune 500 company would be bullied into something that negatively affected its revenues is silly.

Rush is to blame for his decline in ratings, no one else.

 

[Pogo]

In a free market, people will buy products based on what economists call utility. Utility is whatever maximizes the individual's well-being. A multitude of factors contribute to utility. One is branding. If a consumer feels good about a product because of a brand, the consumer will buy the product to maximize their utility. Utility is maximized when all information is known.

Calls for a boycott of any product is an attempt to increase information to the consumer who can then decide whether or they want to buy the product. In a boycott, people are made aware of the reason and they decide on their own whether or not they wish to buy the product. Nobody forces the individual to not buy. Every Econ 101 student knows that an assumption behind equilibrium in a free market is that all information is known.

FTR this is true for any voluntary boycott. It was true for the Chick-fil-A boycott, which BTW, failed miserably, as most boycotts do.

I agree with this analysis. That increased flow of information/awareness about the vendor cuts both ways: some will agree and join the boycott, others will disagree and engage in a buycott (the reverse).

Boycotts don't depress sales so much as polarize them. But either way they affect the most politically passionate only, which always represents a small slice of the general public.

 

[Synthaholic]

In a free market, people will buy products based on what economists call utility. Utility is whatever maximizes the individual's well-being. A multitude of factors contribute to utility. One is branding. If a consumer feels good about a product because of a brand, the consumer will buy the product to maximize their utility. Utility is maximized when all information is known.

Calls for a boycott of any product is an attempt to increase information to the consumer who can then decide whether or they want to buy the product. In a boycott, people are made aware of the reason and they decide on their own whether or not they wish to buy the product. Nobody forces the individual to not buy. Every Econ 101 student knows that an assumption behind equilibrium in a free market is that all information is known.

FTR this is true for any voluntary boycott. It was true for the Chick-fil-A boycott, which BTW, failed miserably, as most boycotts do.

I agree with this analysis. That increased flow of information/awareness about the vendor cuts both ways: some will agree and join the boycott, others will disagree and engage in a buycott (the reverse).

Boycotts don't depress sales so much as polarize them. But either way they affect the most politically passionate only, which always represents a small slice of the general public.

Which is exactly what happened with Chik-fil-a.

Does Liability condemn buycotts? He didn't when it was Rightwingers engaging in it, just like he doesn't condemn Rightwing boycotts.

Just the Leftwing ones.

There's a word for that.

 

[Pogo]

In a free market, people will buy products based on what economists call utility. Utility is whatever maximizes the individual's well-being. A multitude of factors contribute to utility. One is branding. If a consumer feels good about a product because of a brand, the consumer will buy the product to maximize their utility. Utility is maximized when all information is known.

Calls for a boycott of any product is an attempt to increase information to the consumer who can then decide whether or they want to buy the product. In a boycott, people are made aware of the reason and they decide on their own whether or not they wish to buy the product. Nobody forces the individual to not buy. Every Econ 101 student knows that an assumption behind equilibrium in a free market is that all information is known.

FTR this is true for any voluntary boycott. It was true for the Chick-fil-A boycott, which BTW, failed miserably, as most boycotts do.

I agree with this analysis. That increased flow of information/awareness about the vendor cuts both ways: some will agree and join the boycott, others will disagree and engage in a buycott (the reverse).

Boycotts don't depress sales so much as polarize them. But either way they affect the most politically passionate only, which always represents a small slice of the general public.

Which is exactly what happened with Chik-fil-a.

Does Liability condemn buycotts? He didn't when it was Rightwingers engaging in it, just like he doesn't condemn Rightwing boycotts.

Just the Leftwing ones.

There's a word for that.

And of course a buycott is as much (or as little) a "thumb on the scale of the free market" as a boycott is.

 

[Toro]

If people decide they want to buy American because its American even if the foreign product is better and cheaper in every way, that's the free market.

If someone wants to buy organic food even if it isn't healthier for them, that's the free market.

If someone wants to buy from his neighbor's store even though its cheaper at WalMart, that's the free market.

If people don't want to buy goods from Russia because they've granted Snowden asylum, that's the free market.

And if people don't want to buy products from companies that advertise on shows where the host calls a woman a slut, that's the free market.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If people decide they want to buy American because its American even if the foreign product is better and cheaper in every way, that's the free market.

Yup. Not all that rational in purely economic terms, but quite true all the same.

If someone wants to buy organic food even if it isn't healthier for them, that's the free market.

So far, so good.

If someone wants to buy from his neighbor's store even though its cheaper at WalMart, that's the free market.

Completely true, so far.

If people don't want to buy goods from Russia because they've granted Snowden asylum, that's the free market.

Again, not exactly a coherent economic decision, but absolutely a free one.

And if people don't want to buy products from companies that advertise on shows where the host calls a woman a slut, that's the free market.

Not exactly the same thing. But more importantly, it's a false premise.

The CORRECT premise would be "IF ADVERTISERS elect not to purchase ad time on shows where the host calls a woman a slut, that's a free market decision."

But that is not necessarily the case where ADVERTISERS are COERCED into not buying ad time on shows where the host calls a woman a slut by threat of economic sanctions.

That takes the "free" out of "free market."

The coercion is made explicit in the way the "request" for ADVERTISERS to boycott Rush's show is made. "You companies are hereby 'requested' not to buy ad time on Rush's show. IF you fail to comply with this very civil and polite request, THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE 'decide' to boycott the purchase of your products."

As I noted earlier, this is not a simple discussion about one "level" of "boycott."

Moron.org asks merchants to boycott the purchase of AD TIME on Rush's show. The THREAT is that if the merchants fail to comply, lots of folks will engage in a boycott of the merchant's products.

No matter how often you make the claim, it will still always be false to pretend that this is an example of the FREE market. It simply and clearly is not. It is a matter of coercion. Extortion. Blackmail.