I'm not even reading anymore.
I’ll put this at the top to reiterate that I’m not responding for you, you’re hopeless. But some nieve onlooker will understand that which apparently escapes you.
But you are just repeating the same lie over and over again, without ever demonstrating it is true
I haven’t demonstrated your ignorance, you have. Some examples include:
On the role of business management:
”Management is the type of labour where you sit on your arse and other people do all the work for you”
”…management jobs would be no more popular than labour jobs. Since that clearly is not the case…”
On mistaking value for money:
”This has absolutely no relationship to who gets the money”
”If there is one dollar profit then that dollar can't be owned by two different groups”
On value and scarcity:
”How about charging me a dollar every time I need a gulp of air”
” If I'm thirsty then it doesn't make it fair to charge me 10,000 dollars for a glass of water simply”
On trade:
” If you make a cup for 10 cents and sell it to me for a dollar then I don't gain. I lose 90 cents you fucking clown.”
And of course you will show your ignorance again when you pretend that these things are true rather than responding to my correct economic rebuttals.
It is your responsibility to ensure I know what you are arguing, since that is the only way two people can have an argument.
I can’t fix stupid. I can, and have, accurately present correct economic principles in an easily comprehensible manner so that a broad readership can understand what I am saying. If you can’t or won’t, it isn’t my problem.
You seem to be under the impression that you win a debate if you are more illegible than the other person
The font is perfectly legible.
Writing is about communication and if you cannot communicate your ideas coherently then that is nobody else's fault but your own.
Pretending that these simple principles are incoherent will not make them incoherent to everyone else, who can see their coherency.
The person who sold me the glass of water for 10,000 dollars would make a tremendous profit. Since I need water to survive it is more important to me than the 10,000 dollars
This again shows your lack of understanding of value and how it functions with scarcity. There is too much water for anyone to pay $10,000. If you don’t believe me, go try to sell a glass. Diamonds are essentially worthless as a matter of function in most contexts, but with scarcity and appeal, they become worth more than the water that everyone needs.
Incidentally, you were originally buying a paper cup from me for $1 after I made it for 10 cents. That profit margin is likely too high for me to avoid being undercut by the competition. That is, unless I convince you to value my cup more than the next option.
Exactly, which is why it is fair to charge people 10,000 dollars when they want a glass of water, right?
There’s plenty of water out there for you. You aren’t entitled to MY water. My water costs $10,000. So far there are no buyers.
I have just demonstrated that the trade is not voluntary.
Your need for water does not make your purchase of a paper cup involuntary. Did you really think you showed voluntary trade to be involuntary? Incidentally, if you took my water from me because you feel intitled to it by your need, that would be an involuntary transaction, the hallmark of Communism.
You need things, other people have them, therefore they exploit you and you have no choice but to accept.
Of course I have a choice. First, I can choose who to patronize with my business. Second, I can produce the things I need myself.
This is really basic stuff. Your helping me create a decent basic econ Q&A for 4th graders.
You literally began your stupid essay by saying I wouldn't make any money if I sold you a glass of water for 10,000 dollars
I said you wouldn’t make a profit charging $10,000. Seriously, go try it right now.
How much do you think water costs?
Depends. If I get it myself, it’s more expensive than what I pay for it. Hence, what I pay is of less value to me than getting someone else’s water that’s for sale.
But capitalism is the reason the cup costs a dollar in the first place
No. Because of capitalism, paper cups don’t cost a dollar. That’s why I said that if you are paying a dollar, you need more capitalism.
Socialists don't charge you for cups.
Someone always pays. That’s why socialists eventually run out of things without capitalists to steal from.
In response to the demonstrable and constantly observable fact that competition brings prices down, you responded ”False. This is another lie disseminated by greedy capitalist liars” and then cited a story in which companies colluded to avoid competing. Price fixing does not disprove the economic law of competition, it avoids it. That’s why it is illegal in capitalist systems.
You incentivise price fixing and.. People fix prices...
There is not much incentive to price fix. First, if the allegations are true, the pennies they put on the gallon will cost them 10% of their annual turnover plus the cost of class action lawsuits. That’s a disincentive. There’s also a market disincentive that is illustrated in the short time frame of the alleged collusion. The supposed scam occurred between 2002 and 2003. If they maintained too high of prices for very long, non-colluding competition would have undercut them.
One the other hand, if the allegations are false, and the stores upped prices to avoid shortages, as happens all the time without price fixing, then consumers had milk because of profit incentive.
Why would anybody sell cups for 50 cents when he could sell them for a dollar? You haven't thought this through, have you
If Jace sells his cups for 50 cents, why would anyone buy cups from the guy selling them for a dollar? I fully believe you have thought this as far through as you are capable.
Just ask Gucci, Rolex, Coca Cola and all the other millions of companies who do it (overcharge) every single minute of every day.
Those goods aren’t overcharged. I have a watch that I didn’t buy from Rolex. My wife has clothing and accessories that she didn’t get from Gucci. I am currently drinking a Coca Cola that I paid more for because their effective marketing makes me value their coke over the less expensive alternative. Brands sell their names as much as their products, and people value status symbols. The goods are not overcharged.
Poor purchase choices? PAPER IS NOT WATERPROOF!!
Your clearly not a paper cup salesman. Printer paper works fine as a one use cup. Try it after you have all that free time from selling water for $10,000. No they are not waterproof. Nor are they a dollar. Your poor purchasing choice was in failing to buy the cheaper cup from some other guy.
