If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Anyone who understands economics knows that President Obama's green jobs initiative is snake oil   (townhall.com) divider line 356
    More: Obvious, President Obama, green jobs, green economy, Environmental Defense Fund, secondary sector of the economy, Al Gore, green  
•       •       •

1617 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 May 2012 at 11:05 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



356 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-02 12:55:18 PM
Anyone who understands economics knows that President Obama's green jobs initiative almost every mainstream politicians' economic plans are snake oil so they and their donors can keep robbing the rest of society blind while utterly failing to prepare for the challenges of the future


FTFY subby
 
2012-05-02 12:55:30 PM

Friction8r: Stopped in to see whether the Fark Liberal Circle Jerk Clique was in full effect to begin this thread...leaving fulfilled.


Sorry. GOP idiocy really makes me hot.
 
2012-05-02 12:55:31 PM

monoski: He got a big payout from that and admits his ear quit ringing the day he got paid


John Stossel lie for money? Given his work at Fox News, TownHall, et al, I'm shocked, I tell you!
 
2012-05-02 12:55:32 PM
I like getting my snake oiled more than most men but nothing compares to the great taste of


encrypted-tbn1.google.com
 
2012-05-02 12:55:41 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: In an interview with the authors, Tim Benton discussed whether anyone should be able to sell any item at just any price. His reply sheds some interesting light on the topic of below-cost pricing and intent: "If it is the intention of [Merchant A] to run [Merchant B] out of business to raise the prices, then the law says that [Merchant A] is in violation of the law and shouldn't do it." According to Benton, predatory intent on Wal-Mart's part was proven by shopping different Wal-Marts in the area. "When the competition was gone," he said, "the price went up." He went on to add that "the higher prices were in little towns that no longer have anything [in terms of competition]."

Of course, Wal-Mart didn't sell everything below cost; it couldn't stay in business and do so. Rather, it priced certain products in the time-honored tradition of the loss-leader: Lose money on some items to pull customers into the store, then make money on other items they buy. It's a regular retail practice. But harbored in Arkansas's law, like some time-delayed computer virus, was an old statute that seemed to say Wal-Mart's loss-leading was illegal. The law said products could not be sold below cost to injure competition. That is what Goode, Hendrickson, and Benton claimed in their lawsuit, and that is what Faulkner County' Chancery Judge David L. Reynolds ruled in November 1993.


That's a pretty good example; better than anything else posted here. However, looks like it was overturned on appeal, and there's this tidbit:

"Moreover, he pointed out, the 12 pharmacies operating in the area prior to Wal-Mart's presence are still open today. And the addition of two pharmacies and 20 pharmacists in the county since the arrival of Wal-Mart further supported the company's position."

So, even if that was Wal*Mart's intent (beyond industry standard loss leaders), it didn't work. Which is why I am saying this never happens, because this tactic doesn't work.
 
2012-05-02 12:55:45 PM
This is the reason why Fark political threads are a joke.

I've read half the thread and the almost total summation of the thread is a large ad hominem on Townhall and Republicans and no actual discussion about the issue. Conversely, oddly enough, when it's a Kos or MediaMatters link, you get almost the exact same responses usually from the same people. Every thread is exactly the same.

Fark political threads are just a support group for angry lefties and other associated Democrats.
 
2012-05-02 12:56:36 PM

clambam: NewMax's business plan is apparently based on preying on conservatives and Tea Partyers.


Fools, money, etc.
 
2012-05-02 12:57:40 PM

Mrbogey: This is the reason why Fark political threads are a joke.

I've read half the thread and the almost total summation of the thread is a large ad hominem on Townhall and Republicans and no actual discussion about the issue. Conversely, oddly enough, when it's a Kos or MediaMatters link, you get almost the exact same responses usually from the same people. Every thread is exactly the same.

Fark political threads are just a support group for angry lefties and other associated Democrats.


And yet, here you are, asserting that you know better, but here just the same. Something, Obi-Wan, something, something, he who follows the fool.
 
2012-05-02 12:57:58 PM
Did we learn nothing from the 20th century. You can't drive a market with central planning. Green energy is coming. The market is slowly growing, the technologies are slowly improving. Let it do it's thing naturally. Trying to force it has done nothing but squander tax payer dollars on businesses that didn't have the right model to work.
 
2012-05-02 12:59:01 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Can we just add TownHall to the "Fark won't link to this" list?


Add Breitbart to that, and you have a deal.

\he's dead - get with the program
 
2012-05-02 12:59:37 PM

Mrbogey: This is the reason why Fark political threads are a joke.


Well, that and Fark is a joke site.
 
2012-05-02 12:59:55 PM

skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: wrong - a complaint which was not proven nor admitted is not evidence.

Hehe yeah. When one side is completely in the right, they tend to settle rather than fight it out anyways. I mean, of all people you would know this, you always just settle rather than continue on with your arguments when you think you're right, no matter how stupid or pedantic! BOOM gutshot.

You're right. Instead of paying no fines and admitting no wrong doing in a settlement they should have spent the time and money in court to pay no fines and admit no wrongdoing. I don't know why you get so angry with me. It is not my fault you are an idiot.

Good point. WalMart may have been really worried about spending time and money in court. They can't really afford a lawyer right now, it would drive them bankrupt or something. BOOM legshot.

yeah, successful companies spend money because they can afford to, not because they have to. Are you trolling yourself now?

Walmart legal counsel: We can settle the case and achieve the same results as we would have if the case proceeded.
Walmart executive: yeah, but we aren't bankrupt! We can afford to litigate!
Walmart legal counsel 1: Didn't you hear me? We can settle, pay no fines and admit no wrong doing and save ourselves the trouble of a court case
Walmart executive: SHUT UP! I went to lennavan Business School for Kids Who Don't Think Good. NO SETTLEMENT!


is it possible that the settlement was due to the deep pocketed walmart assuring their opponent that they would be willing to draw litigation out for years and drive legal costs for both sides as high as possible, and when faced with either guaranteed legal fees and only the possibility of an advantageous verdict, the opposition instead agreed to a settlement?
 
2012-05-02 01:00:29 PM

Mrbogey: a large ad hominem


Mrbogey: a support group for angry lefties and other associated Democrats.


(gfy)
 
2012-05-02 01:00:37 PM

Geotpf: KhanAidan: Geotpf: Felgraf: Geotpf: Give a real world example where this actually happened. You won't be able to, because, in the real world, such a thing almost never happens. The amount of money you have to spend to drive the competitor out of business (by lowering the price of your products) is almost always greater than the amount of money you would gain by driving them out of business.

Basically, your professor is right.

Perhaps not by lowering prices, but by utilizing vertical integration, yeah, one could lower prices enough that no one else can compete.

Rockefeller Standard Oil, for instance.

Or are you alleging that things such as predatory pricing are a myth, and that a company cannot be driven from a location due to a competitor artificially lowering prices on some of its goods?

That's different than the example given that I said doesn't exist.

This scenario basically never happens:

1. Big company A suddenly has a new competitor, Small company B.
2. Big company A lowers prices so much they take a big loss on every item sold until Small company B goes out of business either trying to match the prices or not getting any business.
3. Big company A then raises prices back up.


...actually this does occur, fairly often. There's a MASSIVE amount of literature in industrial organization about entry/exit deterrence.

Give a real world example.


http://www.econ2.jhu.edu/People/Harrington/2611/Goolsbee-Syverson.pdf
http://idv.sinica.edu.tw/kongpin/teaching/strategic/chevalier.pdf
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mshum/gradio/bresreiss_jpe.pdf

Yes, it does happen. There's plenty of theoretical and empirical arguments to suggest that it may not be effective for firms to do so (the first one being a good example), which is likely why don't see firms consistently attempting to deter entrants.

Now if you're going to be a stickler on the 'every item' thing, I don't know of any evidence to suggest that does happen, but then again, that would be unrealistic as well. A firm that is attempting to deter entry by a firm B may cut prices on only the goods those two firms compete over. If we use that as our definition of 'every item' which I believe is a more accurate representation, then the point still stands; yes it does happen.
 
2012-05-02 01:01:22 PM
Hey, look! A Townhall link! I have an inverted erection already!
 
2012-05-02 01:01:37 PM
Anyone who understands economics doesn't read Townhall
 
2012-05-02 01:03:07 PM

thomps: is it possible that the settlement was due to the deep pocketed walmart assuring their opponent that they would be willing to draw litigation out for years and drive legal costs for both sides as high as possible, and when faced with either guaranteed legal fees and only the possibility of an advantageous verdict, the opposition instead agreed to a settlement?


perhaps but the case was brought by the Wisconsin Dept of Agriculture
 
2012-05-02 01:03:10 PM

PlatinumDragon:

/headdesk
//headdesk
///headdesk


i301.photobucket.comi301.photobucket.com
i301.photobucket.comi301.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-02 01:03:44 PM

clambam: I've been waiting for a NewsMax link to unload this, but under the circumstances... sorry for the threadjack.

I signed up for a NewsMax email because I like to keep an eye on what the derpsters are up to. As a result, FaceBook pushes NewsMax ads to me. One day I saw this:

"Get USS Ronald Reagan Cap for $2.99 and save $22 for a limited time only."

I thought "Ronald Reagan cap for three bucks? Sure, that's worth it" and I clicked the link. The cap is $19.95, plus S&H. But wait, click here to get the cap for free! Free, if you... sign up for a one year print subscription for $39.95. Wow, bait and switch much? So I sent them an angry email:

"I went to my Facebook page and there was a sponsored link from you guys offering a 'Ronald Reagan USS cap for $2.99 (save $22 for a limited time only).' I clicked the link and the cap is listed for $19.95. There is also a link to a 'Free Offer' which turns out to be subscribe to NewsMax for $39.95 and get the cap for free. I'm sorry guys, but this strikes me as a bait and switch. Are you a bunch of Democrats over there trying to give conservatives a bad name? Shame on you."

NewsMax wrote back:

"If you would like to place an order for the special promotion item, please contact NewsMax Customer Service at the number listed below."

I responded:

"Given that you were attempting to defraud me, I would think it only fair that you send me a free cap."

After a few more back-and-forths, NewsMax sends me this email, and this is where it gets interersting:

"If you would like to place the order for a USS Reagan cap you may use this link.

"***

"If you have any further questions call customer service at the toll free number below."

I clicked the link and my antivirus software lit up like a Christmas tree. The page they sent me to delivered a Trojan onto my computer. Accident? I wonder. I contacted a knowledgable friend who directed me to this site:

Scambook.com

Five pages of complaints about false advertising and unauthorized credit ...


Only a liberal would turn NewsMax in to authorities for violating "the law".
 
2012-05-02 01:03:50 PM

Geotpf: Give a real world example.


Gas prices. Walmart, the club stores and even large convince store chains use gas as a loss leader to drive foot traffic to their stores. When you get a bunch of these stores together, they'll undercut each other to drive each other out of business. Around here it's local chain Wawa which is winning out, but to win, they're closing any store that doesn't have room for gas pumps.
 
2012-05-02 01:05:54 PM

skullkrusher: thomps: is it possible that the settlement was due to the deep pocketed walmart assuring their opponent that they would be willing to draw litigation out for years and drive legal costs for both sides as high as possible, and when faced with either guaranteed legal fees and only the possibility of an advantageous verdict, the opposition instead agreed to a settlement?

perhaps but the case was brought by the Wisconsin Dept of Agriculture


oh, well can i blame governor walker then?
 
2012-05-02 01:07:18 PM

mrshowrules: WhoIsNotInMyKitchen: mrshowrules: Felgraf: That said, damn, how awesome would it be if we could capture more than the tiny, tiny amount of sunlight that hit our planet ?
(Compared to how much the sun outputs, I mean)

Although new energy solutions are exciting and would perhaps make things easier. They are completely unnecessary. All the renewable energy technology we need already exists. The only barriers are political.

I totally disagree with you. Alternative energy is in its pretty early days still (like computing in the early 80s?). To suggest that no further value in investing in R&D in these areas is pretty silly if you ask me.... why do you think most other forward thinking countries (ie. China) are prioritizing investment in alternative energy research ahead of other investments?

The problem in the US is the conservative baby boomers in charge feel like they've got theirs, so they just want to stop investing in long term things like alternative energy, infrastructure, and education, so they can not pay taxes and slurp up the last of their savings (and the world's assets) before they kick the bucket. Its great that the most powerful and fortunate group of people in the history of the world are also one of the few who really don't give a damn about future generations.

I didn't say research into new green energy technology wasn't a good idea. I'm saying , you don't need to wait for it to start fixing the problems. Also, the barrier for research is also political. So the primary barrier is political no matter how you look at it.

There is enough hydro/wind energy potential alone to meet 100% of US electrical power generation requirements if people were willing to make the sacrifices necessary to build the infrastructure. This is a socio-economic/political barrier, not a technological one. Cheaper and more efficient green technology would make the pill easier to swallow but only to a degree.


Ahhh ok then yes I agree... but today's technology is still pretty expensive, making the migration less desirable due to overall cost. It needs to get to the point ideally where it is not only cleaner energy, but cheaper energy when all the costs are factored in.

Not only is sucking sludge out of the ground and burning it cheaper and easier right now, its true overall costs are hidden due to no penalties for pollution and other subsidies. I believe this is what the whole concept of cap and trade was meant to help address.
 
2012-05-02 01:09:03 PM

thomps: skullkrusher: thomps: is it possible that the settlement was due to the deep pocketed walmart assuring their opponent that they would be willing to draw litigation out for years and drive legal costs for both sides as high as possible, and when faced with either guaranteed legal fees and only the possibility of an advantageous verdict, the opposition instead agreed to a settlement?

perhaps but the case was brought by the Wisconsin Dept of Agriculture

oh, well can i blame governor walker then?


hehe sure but it was long before him
 
2012-05-02 01:09:23 PM

Mrbogey: This is the reason why Fark political threads are a joke.

I've read half the thread and the almost total summation of the thread is a large ad hominem on Townhall and Republicans and no actual discussion about the issue. Conversely, oddly enough, when it's a Kos or MediaMatters link, you get almost the exact same responses usually from the same people. Every thread is exactly the same.

Fark political threads are just a support group for angry lefties and other associated Democrats.


Since others have attacked you for making hypocritical statements in the same post, I will just point out, in bold, that your comment is worse than hypocritical, it's retarded.

//hint, based on what you wrote in the exact phrasing you gave us, us lefties are attacking MediaMatters and Kos.
 
2012-05-02 01:10:10 PM
Anyone who understands economics

Known in America as "not Republicans".
 
2012-05-02 01:11:38 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Anyone who understands economics

Known in America as "not 99%er Republicans".


FTFY.
 
2012-05-02 01:11:50 PM
Fortunately for Obama, even economists don't really understand economics.
 
2012-05-02 01:13:19 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Can we just add TownHall to the "Fark won't link to this" list?


Contrarian views bad! Joseph smash!
 
2012-05-02 01:14:06 PM
I love that the new conservative argument about solar not being a good solution is that China is now decreasing subsidies instead of increasing them like they had been for years. At face value you could argue this is because they're not working out. Or you could take 10 seconds and look into it and you would find the truth.

China, the world's biggest producer of solar panels, cut subsidies for demonstration sun-power projects approved in 2011 and this year after the cost of components declined.

The cost of solar panels fell 47 percent last year as Chinese manufacturers increased production, leading to excess capacity after European governments cut back on subsidies. The price declines has led some some companies including Trina Solar Ltd. (TSL) to predict that solar technology is nearing parity with fossil fuels to supply power to national electric grids at a competitive price.


What a bunch of snake oil. DRILL BABY DRILL!
 
2012-05-02 01:15:06 PM

lexslamman: Actually, here in northern New York, the president's green jobs initiative has translated directly into more employment, more tax revenue and a healthier environment. Don't know where TownHall gets their bullshiat from, but they need to try harder.


Oh. A small localized government funded project works? Then it must work nationally! Let's look at Spain and their green jobs efforts... Oh shiat.
 
2012-05-02 01:16:52 PM

JAYoung: The "free" nature of renewable "fuels," solar, wind and geothermal, terrifies the fossil fuel industry because sustainable energy sources are also free from inflation -- something Exxon/Mobil is counting on for its future profits. Once the life-cycle cost is calculated, renewables win every time against the uncertainties of future fossil supplies.
The oil industry is now shutting refineries right and left and blaming it on the EPA, but what they're really doing is tightening future supplies for refined products to maximize their profits. With China, India and Brazil adding thousands of first-time car buyers to the mix every week, demand will continue to exceed world supply and prices will inevitably climb upward.
Americans being Americans, we'll come up with a better idea. For example, my savings from those "Commie plot" energy-efficient light bulbs now provide my monthly beer budget.


Lol. Free? Free? There are no Costa to infrastructure or maintenance? Liberals truly do believe anything.
 
2012-05-02 01:17:07 PM
Not reading anything posted from Town Hall. Life is too short to waste minutes reading that collection of spew.
 
2012-05-02 01:19:32 PM

MyRandomName: Lol. Free? Free? There are no Costa to infrastructure or maintenance? Liberals truly do believe anything.


the fuel itself is free
 
2012-05-02 01:20:44 PM

MyRandomName: JAYoung: The "free" nature of renewable "fuels," solar, wind and geothermal, terrifies the fossil fuel industry because sustainable energy sources are also free from inflation -- something Exxon/Mobil is counting on for its future profits. Once the life-cycle cost is calculated, renewables win every time against the uncertainties of future fossil supplies.
The oil industry is now shutting refineries right and left and blaming it on the EPA, but what they're really doing is tightening future supplies for refined products to maximize their profits. With China, India and Brazil adding thousands of first-time car buyers to the mix every week, demand will continue to exceed world supply and prices will inevitably climb upward.
Americans being Americans, we'll come up with a better idea. For example, my savings from those "Commie plot" energy-efficient light bulbs now provide my monthly beer budget.

Lol. Free? Free? There are no Costa to infrastructure or maintenance? Liberals truly do believe anything.


I'll help you out here since I read and understood the argument and you had trouble.

The bolded part had quotes surrounding "free" and "fuels" because the operating fuels of renewables essentially are free. That's why this was in reference to fuel costs as a comparison between fossil and renewable and not fixed costs.

The more you know. Don't you feel better now?
 
2012-05-02 01:21:17 PM

CPennypacker: Republicans still think they understand economics?


Obviously Obama does! I guess spending money we dont have and spending more in 3 years than Bush did in 8 is smart!

Spend more, tax more...

Thats the liberal motto.
 
2012-05-02 01:22:31 PM

TIKIMAN87: CPennypacker: Republicans still think they understand economics?

Obviously Obama does! I guess spending money we dont have and spending more in 3 years than Bush did in 8 is smart!

Spend more, tax more...

Thats the liberal motto.


And the conservative motto, as you've been the latest to remind us, is when all else fails, make shiat up.
 
2012-05-02 01:22:52 PM
Sorry tree huggers, but green energy is dead.

It's just not a viable industry that could grow exponentially, creating thousands of jobs in manufacturing, installation and research/development.

what we really need is innovation... in oil/gas production
 
2012-05-02 01:23:14 PM
I have a side biz selling photovoltaics for residential. Part of that biz is offering free seminars at Home Depot stores about solar. A main point that I make about it that without the fed tax credit, solar is not a good investment. The problem with that is that to get the gov money, one must pay federal income tax.

Without the gov dough, I would have little chance of ever selling an array. Granted I only emplor a handful of people in that company but they would be without jorbs.
 
2012-05-02 01:23:48 PM
All jokes aside, this guy's argument seems to be that spending money for X will hurt competing business Y.

For example, building the Interstate highway system took business away from rail lines. And winning World War II took business away from sellers of German language audio books.

For that matter, you can say the same for businesses, not just government: Intel developed integrated circuits, and took business away from manufacturers of tubes and SSI components. A polio vaccine hurt manufacturers of crutches and kiddie-sized wheelchairs.

Stossel's logic isn't simply that this happens, but that it's bad. That it's bad to build an interstate highway system or invent an integrated circuit or create a nationwide solar smart grid or vaccinate the population, because it will hurt some existing business sector.

Ironically, this seems to be exactly the mindset he is railing against: that we should choke our economy in order to preserve an existing landscape.
 
2012-05-02 01:24:06 PM

TIKIMAN87: CPennypacker: Republicans still think they understand economics?

Obviously Obama does! I guess spending money we dont have and spending more in 3 years than Bush did in 8 is smart!

Spend more, tax more...

Thats the liberal motto.


yes government spending during a recession shows you know something about economics, spending 5 trillion during the housing boom shows you are a moran.
 
2012-05-02 01:25:02 PM

D135: Sorry tree huggers, but green energy is dead.

It's just not a viable industry that could grow exponentially, creating thousands of jobs in manufacturing, installation and research/development.



Yet.

D135: what we really need is innovation... in oil/gas production


Yes, let's innovate how to make more of it when we run out.
 
2012-05-02 01:25:59 PM

EyeballKid: TIKIMAN87: CPennypacker: Republicans still think they understand economics?

Obviously Obama does! I guess spending money we dont have and spending more in 3 years than Bush did in 8 is smart!

Spend more, tax more...

Thats the liberal motto.

And the conservative motto, as you've been the latest to remind us, is when all else fails, make shiat up.


What's a motto? Nothing, whatsamotto with you?
 
2012-05-02 01:26:42 PM

WhoIsNotInMyKitchen: Ahhh ok then yes I agree... but today's technology is still pretty expensive, making the migration less desirable due to overall cost. It needs to get to the point ideally where it is not only cleaner energy, but cheaper energy when all the costs are factored in.

Not only is sucking sludge out of the ground and burning it cheaper and easier right now, its true overall costs are hidden due to no penalties for pollution and other subsidies. I believe this is what the whole concept of cap and trade was meant to help address.


You can't compete economically with oil. Just impossible. It is an incredibly dense/efficient form of energy that can be literally pumped out of the ground. Nothing can compete with a gallon of liquid that can produce 17 kWh of electricity (or much more in heat or mechanical energy) and there are lakes of it underground. It is the cat's ass. Nothing is likely to become cheaper than that in the near future.

We have to accept the pain economically to get away from it because it is a bad thing and can't be part of the future. An odd analogy would be slavery. Slaves were awesome. Free, inexpensive labor that the country's economy was largely based on. They didn't stop using slaves because technology advanced or alternatives were figured out, they stopped because it was wrong and we had to take a harder path for the sake of what was right.

Solutions exists. Sacrifice is required now. Better solutions can follow to help.
 
2012-05-02 01:29:08 PM
Clearly the problem is that liberals are all atheistic muslin heathens praying to the moon god and they haven't prayed hard enough to Republican Jesus to place more sweet crude under red states. The solution is obviously to slant drill from Florida straight under Africa and to the Middle East oil fields. Now THAT'S innovation.
 
2012-05-02 01:29:56 PM
Anyone who understands economics...

Bwahahahahaha, wut? I found your problem, subby, you think there are people who understand economics.

Why don't you take a single econ course, ever - that'll help you get over that particular delusion.
 
2012-05-02 01:31:18 PM

skullkrusher: EyeballKid: TIKIMAN87: CPennypacker: Republicans still think they understand economics?

Obviously Obama does! I guess spending money we dont have and spending more in 3 years than Bush did in 8 is smart!

Spend more, tax more...

Thats the liberal motto.

And the conservative motto, as you've been the latest to remind us, is when all else fails, make shiat up.

What's a motto? Nothing, whatsamotto with you?


(In Bullwinkle voice) You leave my alma mater out of this!
 
2012-05-02 01:31:24 PM

KhanAidan: Geotpf: KhanAidan: Geotpf: Felgraf: Geotpf: Give a real world example where this actually happened. You won't be able to, because, in the real world, such a thing almost never happens. The amount of money you have to spend to drive the competitor out of business (by lowering the price of your products) is almost always greater than the amount of money you would gain by driving them out of business.

Basically, your professor is right.

Perhaps not by lowering prices, but by utilizing vertical integration, yeah, one could lower prices enough that no one else can compete.

Rockefeller Standard Oil, for instance.

Or are you alleging that things such as predatory pricing are a myth, and that a company cannot be driven from a location due to a competitor artificially lowering prices on some of its goods?

That's different than the example given that I said doesn't exist.

This scenario basically never happens:

1. Big company A suddenly has a new competitor, Small company B.
2. Big company A lowers prices so much they take a big loss on every item sold until Small company B goes out of business either trying to match the prices or not getting any business.
3. Big company A then raises prices back up.


...actually this does occur, fairly often. There's a MASSIVE amount of literature in industrial organization about entry/exit deterrence.

Give a real world example.

http://www.econ2.jhu.edu/People/Harrington/2611/Goolsbee-Syverson.pdf
http://idv.sinica.edu.tw/kongpin/teaching/strategic/chevalier.pdf
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mshum/gradio/bresreiss_jpe.pdf

Yes, it does happen. There's plenty of theoretical and empirical arguments to suggest that it may not be effective for firms to do so (the first one being a good example), which is likely why don't see firms consistently attempting to deter entrants.

Now if you're going to be a stickler on the 'every item' thing, I don't know of any evidence to suggest that does happen, but then again, that would be unrealistic a ...


No, I won't be a stickler on the every item thing. And airlines fares occurred to me as the most likely example of such occurring-it's a better example than the Wal*Mart nonsense, at the very least. It gets complicated in the sense that airlines frequently charge wildly different prices for the same seat on the same flight, so I guess you'd have to average out the entire plane load to determine if the company was actually taking a loss-that's how I would look at the "every item" thing for that example. It's also complicated by the fact that an empty seat isn't something you can "store"; that is, an individual plane will fly even if it's only one quarter full, so, if that happens, charging anything (beyond the additional cost of the additional fuel of carrying an additional passenger plus the peanuts you give them) is better than an empty seat.

And I don't doubt that prices decrease when additional competition enters any market. I just don't see that prices drop below costs.
 
2012-05-02 01:31:42 PM
OBAMA

GREEN JOBS CZAR

MORE CZAR'S THAN USSR
 
2012-05-02 01:31:58 PM

Headso: TIKIMAN87: CPennypacker: Republicans still think they understand economics?

Obviously Obama does! I guess spending money we dont have and spending more in 3 years than Bush did in 8 is smart!

Spend more, tax more...

Thats the liberal motto.

yes government spending during a recession shows you know something about economics, spending 5 trillion during the housing boom shows you are a moran.


Holy shiat man! i had coffee in my mouth when i read that.
 
2012-05-02 01:32:13 PM

Xcott: All jokes aside, this guy's argument seems to be that spending money for X will hurt competing business Y.

For example, building the Interstate highway system took business away from rail lines. And winning World War II took business away from sellers of German language audio books.

For that matter, you can say the same for businesses, not just government: Intel developed integrated circuits, and took business away from manufacturers of tubes and SSI components. A polio vaccine hurt manufacturers of crutches and kiddie-sized wheelchairs.

Stossel's logic isn't simply that this happens, but that it's bad. That it's bad to build an interstate highway system or invent an integrated circuit or create a nationwide solar smart grid or vaccinate the population, because it will hurt some existing business sector.

Ironically, this seems to be exactly the mindset he is railing against: that we should choke our economy in order to preserve an existing landscape.


It's as though there are markets for things and companies are free to sell things in those markets. And when markets change, companies are free to change things they sell....If only there were some economic concept that covered this.....
 
Displayed 50 of 356 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report