Record Stock Market

[Michael Tee]

<<You may not see it possible because you have a lacuna in your vision. >>

plane, my vision's fine.  You've got a lacuna in your thinking.  If you don't do something about that, you'll soon have a big lacuna in your wallet.  Trust me on this, plane, if you are the buyer, a rise in the price of whatever you are buying is definitely NOT good for you.  And don't let anyone tell you different. 

Similarly, if you are a seller - - for example, of your labour - - a decrease in the price of your labour is NOT good for you, although it probably is good for your boss.  Don't let your boss convince you or your union otherwise, plane.  Try to keep this simple thought in mind: pay raise GOOD; pay cut BAD.

<<The best possible price for any item is a price that fully supports its production but does not drain the consumor unduly.>>

I don't really know where this nonsense comes from, plane, but you really should ask yourself, "best for whom?"  The best possible price for my beans if I am selling is whatever the market will bear and if I am buying it is the lowest I can get away with paying.  There's a subjective element in all of this that you, as a capitalist, should be well aware of.  If you don't know that, you really shouldn't be allowed into stores with money in your pocket, someone else had better do all your shopping for you.

[Plane]

<<You may not see it possible because you have a lacuna in your vision. >>

plane, my vision's fine.  You've got a lacuna in your thinking.  If you don't do something about that, you'll soon have a big lacuna in your wallet.  Trust me on this, plane, if you are the buyer, a rise in the price of whatever you are buying is definitely NOT good for you.  And don't let anyone tell you different. 

Similarly, if you are a seller - - for example, of your labour - - a decrease in the price of your labour is NOT good for you, although it probably is good for your boss.  Don't let your boss convince you or your union otherwise, plane.  Try to keep this simple thought in mind: pay raise GOOD; pay cut BAD.

<<The best possible price for any item is a price that fully supports its production but does not drain the consumor unduly.>>

I don't really know where this nonsense comes from, plane, but you really should ask yourself, "best for whom?"  The best possible price for my beans if I am selling is whatever the market will bear and if I am buying it is the lowest I can get away with paying.  There's a subjective element in all of this that you, as a capitalist, should be well aware of.  If you don't know that, you really shouldn't be allowed into stores with money in your pocket, someone else had better do all your shopping for you.

" pay raise GOOD; pay cut BAD"


Hahahahahahaha

Oh you Liberals !

Always everything in stark black and white , no shades or nuances , no complexity ,  no intrest in potentials .


You might as well say Hot water good cold water bad , with no qualifiers this statement is not really true , how hot is good and for what?

A pay raise that does not equal inflation or taxes or unavoidable cost is inflation =good?

Every one of us is actually on both sides of the equation, pay raises that are unreasonable for any reason can be bad for the economy and an unhealthy economy is not good for anyone .

Imagine you and I both getting a doubbleing in pay for no reason tomorrow, then another doubbleing in pay the next day , and so on ad infinitem , such a set of pay raises would stop the worlds economy within a month for just us two.


I want to get paid what my work is worth to my employer , wanting otherwise is dishonest and harmfull.
My employer ought to reciprocate with wanting to pay what my work is worth in reality , not just for the sake of his self respect , but also because he wants to participate in a healthy economy.

When some foolishness or misfortune prevents this conflict from being freindly it can still work just as well in an advesarial mode, (only with uneeded extra indigestion ), because the participants do not have to understand how it works for it to work anyway , just as a stupid swimmer does not have to understand bouyancy to swim , if he does it right it works anyway.


Now about a pay cut being bad , I ought to let you discuss that one with Brassmask , he thinks I could get along well enough with a 100% pay cut.

[Plane]

"The best possible price for my beans if I am selling is whatever the market will bear and if I am buying it is the lowest I can get away with paying."


This is what makes the market work so well.

If you are offering me beans and I am offering you money we will agree or not to a deal.

If you want a dollar a bean they had better be magic beans like Jacks , for eating beans I might offer you a penny a pound.

Of course you will not want to give up your beans for less than it took you to produce them so you will not agree to the penny a pound unless you are getting out of the bean business.

As long as there are other bean sellers And other bean buyers in the market we both have reason to be reasonable and there is a race to the CENTER that Marx was too preoccupied to notice.(Boils on the seat you know)

A bad situation occurs when Monopolys or Primadonnas or Cartells or Governments operate without real competition , a monopoly can demand an unreasonable price , a person with wildly rare talent can demand a huge wage, a cartell can controll availibility , and a Government can skim the profit of everything till everyone is starving.

The best role of government is to ensure competition is as fair as can be without allowing monopoly.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Actually, "just in time" inventory control does nothing for quality control.

======================================================
Actually, it sure as hell does. Parts held awaiting assembly can rust.

Non-metal parts can deteriorate. Parts stacked on top of one another can warp or be damaged.

Parts in a warehouse where you have guys tooling around in forklifts are at risk of being damaged. A damaged part installed will make a big difference on quality control.

One rusty brake cylinder could cause the brakes on a new car to fail with catastrophic results.

[Amianthus]

Actually, it sure as hell does. Parts held awaiting assembly can rust.

Non-metal parts can deteriorate. Parts stacked on top of one another can warp or be damaged.

Parts in a warehouse where you have guys tooling around in forklifts are at risk of being damaged. A damaged part installed will make a big difference on quality control.

One rusty brake cylinder could cause the brakes on a new car to fail with catastrophic results.

Parts being shipped can be damaged. Many times, "just in time" inventory means it's stored offsite, and delivered on time, rather than being produced just before it's needed (this is true of parts that require significant retooling). None of those are eliminated by "just in time" inventory.

I was involved with a "just in time" project at Homelite (at a manufacturing facility that is now owned by John Deere). We still had bad parts delivered in the door. So, if we had bad parts delivered, we had a production slowdown rather than a dip in inventory levels.

Of course, you're changing the argument from "just in time" not causing quality control to increase to an actual decrease in quality control on the manufacturing floor. Bad parts (whatever the source) should not be installed. And every part delivered (regardless of the inventory control system used) is not guaranteed to be a good part. Quality control should filter out the bad parts, regardless of inventory control systems being used.

[Brassmask]

And before the condition was determined to have existed??  Sorry Brass, they can still purchase insurance, it's simply going to cost more for a pre-existing condition.  The laugable part is how you'd advocate that you, I, and everyone here in the saloon & country needs to pony up additional tax dollars to pay for Rush Limbaughs' health care coverage, Bill Gates' insurance coverage, anyone and everyone.  That's the epitome of laughable

Look what you're saying and think for a minute will you?  You're saying that someone who has a pre-existing condition and maybe can't work can just pay a little more for insurance!!!  Do you ever use your head for something besides a hat rack?

Limbaugh, Gates and the like would be putting in a lot more than you and me.  It's not about who is paying for someone else's health care.  It's about everyone getting health care.  Why are you so filled with hate for your fellow man?  What do you care if a percentage of your money goes to the government if you know that EVERYONE in the country has health care?  Why is it sooooo horrible that hundreds of thousands of people will not have to choose between having something more than PB&J for dinner and having their medicine that keeps them alive?  How is it that you are so ready to refuse to help those people? 

What kind of human being are you that you can think of hundreds of thousands of AMERICANS are choosing between food and medicine because they can't work and just say, "Oh well, they shoulda done (X)." or "I gave to the Salvation Army."  What are you gonna do with the measly amount of money that is so god damned important that you don't want to help out Americans who can't work anymore and are every day having to make sure they didn't spend more than X amount because if they do, they'll have to try and make it a day or two with excruciating pain or the horrid discomfort of diabetes that sets in without their medication?  WHAT IS IT?  WHAT'S SO FUCKING IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAN JUST DISREGARD PEOPLE WHO BREAK THEIR LEGS AND CAN'T WORK AND FALL INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO PAY FOR THEIR KIDS TO HAVE CLOTHES AND SHOES AND COATS AND EVERY DAMNED THING ELSE THAT KIDS NEED BUT THEY COULDN'T AFFORD INSURANCE?

Tell me.  I want to know. What's so goddamned important that the money that you might be paying for insurance for just yourself, might then go away in the form of taxes rather than monthly payments taken from your check or sent off in the form of a check that you wrote while YOU STILL HAVE INSURANCE AND EVERYONE ELSE DOES TOO?  What fucking difference does it make?

You know, I suspect I already know how you'll want to respond so let me make it harder for you so you'll have to come up with something different because you could never write something that I have written and say that I'm absolutely right and understand how you think.  You'll want to say, "It doesn't MATTER what I want to do with the money because IT'S MY FUCKING MONEY!  I should be able to throw it in the street if I want to!!"

[/quote]
I see.  So you're assuming someone is going to be too dumb, or too stubborn, or too focused on "gimmee gimmee gimmee" to make any effort what-so-ever to progress beyond a simple day laborer.  I've got news for you Brass...most folks, at least at one time, actually cared about taking care of themselves, and even found it demeaning to constantly rely on others.  No one is stopping simple day laborers from becoming Managers, Foremen, Supervisors, Directors, EMPLOYERS.  Bottom line remains that the more money EVERYONE can keep, means the more money EVERYONE has to purchase their own health insurance
[/quote]

You know, if you think that people always move up and always become the bosses or foremen or supervisors or employers then you're about the goddamnedest stupid person I've ever met.  I'm sorry to shatter your blessed vision of American capitalism and how great everything is and how much opportunity there is in America but you're a fucking idiot.  LOTS of people stay at the same job they got in high school or just after and never have a crew or their own business.  I would say millions of Americans stay at the same level forever.  Sure, there are cost of living increases when the government gets off their asses and realizes that inflammation has made literally slaves of Americans and raises the minimum wage but that does little more than allow them to eat better or catch up on their rent.

The sad truth that dumbasses like you don't understand is that there are people in this country who just can't face the idea of improving themselves or becoming something more than a day laborer.  And guess what?  They still matter because someone has to be the day laborer.  Someone has to pick up the loose trash on a site.  Someone has to drag the stuff out from the trucks and set it all up and then tear it all down again.  Someone has to hold the ladders and hand the tools.  But there are Americans who do that stuff forever.  And there's nothing wrong with it.  Sure some you might classify as just plain lazy or skating the system, but that's just some. 

The reality, sirs, is that there are some Americans who have problems.  I'm not talking about crying-on-the-Montel-show, my-dad-hit-me problems with every one of them.  Some people have defects.  Physical (you should know about) defects that are no fault of their own.  Mental and emotional defects that they haven't surmounted and sabotage their ambition perhaps without them even knowing it.  And there is a wide swath of Americans who haven't been taught to improve themselves.  These are the people that I'm sure you look upon with the most disdain for they usually appear to "not know how good they have it to have been born in America".

In the African-American community for years, anyone who sought to improve themselves or get smarter was derided and jeered and call a house nigger or Uncle Tom.  Why do you think that is?  Do AA's just want to stay poor and unintelligent?  No, it's because of slavery.  Our race made them that way by buying and selling them, by beating them and killing them, by ignoring them and exploiting them.   As a race, they would rather not think of themselves as free Americans who work with their fellow Americans because of our race's actions over several hundred years.  Like an abused spouse who has abandoned hope and trust of their spouse, the AA community for a long time would not accept the help of white America because of what we had done to them.  Who could blame them?  I"m sure you can.  Perhaps they are finally taking the conservatives' advice and are "getting over it".

When you're whining about that fraction of money that the government starts taking from you in leiu of you giving it freely to someone for health insurance, maybe you should consider it as atonement or aid or charity or whatever it is that you need to think of it as so you can just shut the fuck up and let this country be like every other industrialized nation in the world who has made the decision that it is better to be kind, decent human beings who kick in a little so that everyone in society can have a better way of life and the nation be a moral and just beacon for the world.

[Michael Tee]

<<Imagine you and I both getting a doubbleing in pay for no reason tomorrow, then another doubbleing in pay the next day , and so on ad infinitem , such a set of pay raises would stop the worlds economy within a month for just us two.>>

sigh . . .

When was the last time that ever happened to you, plane?

I guess I should have some kind of macro for right-wingers that prefaces any remark of mine with "Confining ourselves to the real world . . ."

<<A pay raise that does not equal inflation or taxes or unavoidable cost is inflation =good?>>

Sure, it's always better than a pay cut, it's just not as good as a bigger raise.  Pay raise good, pay cuts bad, remember that, plane.

<<I want to get paid what my work is worth to my employer , wanting otherwise is dishonest and harmfull.
My employer ought to reciprocate with wanting to pay what my work is worth in reality , not just for the sake of his self respect , but also because he wants to participate in a healthy economy.>>

This is starting to sound weirdly like the arguments I used to have about communism when I was a university student.  I would argue that a new socialist man was being born, one who would not compete but was content to work selflessly for the common good, and my friends would laugh at the naievete and claim that human selfishness and greed would never allow it to work, the slackers and non-cooperators would just make fools of the "new socialist man" and in the end he would only wind up being taken advantage of.  (I felt that with enough firing squads, the problem could be solved.)  You are starting to remind me of my teenage me.  Even if you were dumb enough to really believe that shit, it wouldn't work in the real world because you or the guys who think like you would be ripped off by unscrupulous employers, who would actually be rewarded for their baser instincts by prospering due to their ability to undersell the competition.  I suppose in your theory, the bad employers would lose their workforce to the good employers who pay a fair wage and so would ultimately fail - - another example of the fallacy in your "long-run" thinking, because before the bad guys fail , they have profited by pocketing the proceeds of your unfairly exploited labour and you on the other hand have nothing to show for your time spent with them but years of underpaid work which you can never get back.


Cutting through all the blather and rationalizations about what's good for today might not be good in the long run (as I think it was John Kenneth Galbraith who said, "In the long run, we're all dead.") the fact of the matter is that a pay raise is good for you today and bad for the boss today.  A pay cut helps the boss today and hurts you today.  A rise in the price of bread today is good for the store today and bad for the housewife today.

There is no such thing as a fluctuation in market price that is simultaneously good for both buyers and sellers of the same commodity.  All you are really doing with your long-term rationalizations is pointing to a later fluctuation which  reverses the benefits and burdens of the first one.

[sirs]

yada...rant....blather...rant

Boy, I do appreicate the time you put into that rant Brass.  Harnass that and we could do away with fossil fuels altogether.  The point remains 2 fold:

A) You have no frellin clue how generous or not generous, how caring or not caring, how compassionate or not compassionate I am towards those who are less fortunate, uninsured, poor, etc.  You ask ANYONE that personally knows me, and they'll blow your grossly pathetic misconceptions about me right out of the water

B) It all comes down to how you and I define and practice FREEDOM.  To me it's a support of individual responsibility, and for me to keep the hell out of other people's pockets, & demanding that they pay for what I THINK is the right thing to do.  Mind you that's different than what the Constitution says we're to do, as in providing for the common defense.  You obviously have a different definition of freedom, hiding behind "noble intentions" while demanding what others are to do with their miney, to make you feel better about yourself. 

Why don't you keep your hands out of my pockets, and I'll refrain from trying to convert you to Christianity.  Oh wait, I'm already doing that

[Plane]

[[" I suppose in your theory, the bad employers would lose their workforce to the good employers who pay a fair wage and so would ultimately fail - - another example of the fallacy ..."]]


And why would workers prefer a bad employer to a good one?

I have had fly by night employment , I did not prefer it and did not stay with it .


[[[<<Imagine you and I both getting a doubbleing in pay for no reason tomorrow, then another doubbleing in pay the next day , and so on ad infinitem , such a set of pay raises would stop the worlds economy within a month for just us two.>>

sigh . . .

When was the last time that ever happened to you, plane?

I guess I should have some kind of macro for right-wingers that prefaces any remark of mine with "Confining ourselves to the real world . . ."]]]

Ok, fair enough , to make it more realistic, instead of just two people getting an impossible raise of a million times their present wages, imagine 400 million (US + Canada) getting a 15% wage increase. It is not as simple but it works out to be about the same amount of imaginary money created and dumped into the economy to no purpose. This is pretty much what we will have after the Mini Wage goes up next time.


[[[the fact of the matter is that a pay raise is good for you today and bad for the boss today.  A pay cut helps the boss today and hurts you today.  A rise in the price of bread today is good for the store today and bad for the housewife today. ]]]


You are leaveing out the element of competition entirely. This is makeing you entirely wrong.

If a Store were to raise the price of bread while the store across the street did not, which store will really benefit? If a store were to raise the price of bread enough to give its customers to the other store I would guess that the store that sold all of its bread would benefit more than the one that wound up throwing all that stale bread away.

This principal works for almost any product or service , as long as there is a reasonable competitor , includeing employment , yes an employer that treats its employees better does enjoy certain benefits , if, there is another employer that could be stealing all the talent. If not, the monopoly on employment can pay as little as it takes to keep the worker alive.

Just Yesterday I read a story of an employer who learned that his newly hired Jewish engineer feared to return to his native Italy in 1940. "Why should I be paying you $300 a month ?" So the engineer had to put up with a wage of $160 a month untill the Manhattan project picked him up.

I don't think that this employer was a nice guy , I do not think that we have to all become nice for Capitolism to work well I do not think that your accusation of nievitie is accurate. This particular employer shows the reason. He was paying $300 a month for an engineer during a depressed economy because he needed an engineer , but when he learned that he had this particular engineer over a barrell he got mean on him and paid him half the going rate for his level of skill. This was not cured by the employer or anyone elese becomeing nicer but by the engineer looking out for himself  once a competeing employer became availible.

I like capitolism because it can force the mean to do right without resort to multiple fireing squads .

[Michael Tee]

<<You are leaveing out the element of competition entirely. This is makeing you entirely wrong.

<<If a Store were to raise the price of bread while the store across the street did not, which store will really benefit? If a store were to raise the price of bread enough to give its customers to the other store I would guess that the store that sold all of its bread would benefit more than the one that wound up throwing all that stale bread away.>>

I didn't leave it out completely.  I was speaking of general price rises.  If there's a crop failure and the price of farm products rises, it rises for everybody.  Within that rise in price, there is room for price competition but the overall effect is a rise in price for everyone, but for some more than others.  Like gasoline - - the rise is steady.  (with minor fluctuations along the way)  This is good for Big Oil, bad for drivers.  You cannot have a rise or fall in prices that is good for both seller and buyer.  It's absurd on the face of it.

The original thread was the stock market.  If stock prices rise, there is no competition, a share of GM costs the same for all buyers (subject to volume buys, broker discounts, etc.) but there is really not much room for competition here.

[Amianthus]

The original thread was the stock market.  If stock prices rise, there is no competition, a share of GM costs the same for all buyers (subject to volume buys, broker discounts, etc.) but there is really not much room for competition here.

For shares on public exchanges, this is true.

There are also OTC markets where buying and selling is done without an exchange regulating the prices. This is common with bond and FOREX markets, for example.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Insurance depends on the principle of shared risk. We all pay a small amount, so that when someone has a major problem, it is affordable.  It is not at all a bad idea, but when the company is allowed to cherry-pick its customers, then those rejected are left with a major burden. People do not choose to be sickly or to have congenital diseases, after all.

[_JS]

It all comes down to how you and I define and practice FREEDOM.  To me it's a support of individual responsibility, and for me to keep the hell out of other people's pockets, & demanding that they pay for what I THINK is the right thing to do.  Mind you that's different than what the Constitution says we're to do, as in providing for the common defense.  You obviously have a different definition of freedom, hiding behind "noble intentions" while demanding what others are to do with their miney, to make you feel better about yourself. 

Why don't you keep your hands out of my pockets, and I'll refrain from trying to convert you to Christianity.

Out of curiosity, where in Christianity does it discuss "keeping the hell out of other people's pockets" and "individual responsibility" as a definition of freedom? I don't seem to recall this libertarian view of society from the teachings of Christ or the Apostles.

[Plane]

<<You are leaveing out the element of competition entirely. This is makeing you entirely wrong.

<<If a Store were to raise the price of bread while the store across the street did not, which store will really benefit? If a store were to raise the price of bread enough to give its customers to the other store I would guess that the store that sold all of its bread would benefit more than the one that wound up throwing all that stale bread away.>>

I didn't leave it out completely.  I was speaking of general price rises.  If there's a crop failure and the price of farm products rises, it rises for everybody.  Within that rise in price, there is room for price competition but the overall effect is a rise in price for everyone, but for some more than others.  Like gasoline - - the rise is steady.  (with minor fluctuations along the way)  This is good for Big Oil, bad for drivers.  You cannot have a rise or fall in prices that is good for both seller and buyer.  It's absurd on the face of it.

The original thread was the stock market.  If stock prices rise, there is no competition, a share of GM costs the same for all buyers (subject to volume buys, broker discounts, etc.) but there is really not much room for competition here.

You are leaveing the dimention of competition out of the picture entirely , and this is giveing you a two dimentional view of a three dimentional situation. If production costs rise for all producers the effect on competition is nutral , but when the cost of supply rises across the board no system will cushion the effect on the consumor better than capitloism , as long as there is real competition.

When the price of a commadity is unavoidably riseing, is there no advantage to a company that finds a clever way to reduce the rate of rise to its consumors?

The Price of fuel has hit all airlines hard but has not hit all of them equally hard , the rise of fuel is actually going to be good for Boeing because it is bringing a more fuel efficient aircraft to market ...
http://www.boeing.com/...

 What makes me worry about Boeing is that they are being so succesfull that their competition is failing to thrive in the reduced market. If Boeing becomes a practical monopoly it will loose the impetus to improve and produce a better product at a better price. I hope that Airbus gets well and that some of the presently reduced airframe builders grow.


I begin to think that you cannot see competition , as if you are colorblind to it . If I want to buy into a Car building stock and Ford seems to be a poor value to me I would look at buying GM or Toyota or Chery. If I can manage to learn what the real value of the plants are worth and see trends of sales and developments , why should I buy a company that is less than the best value? I would shop for a Car company stock with the same sort of diligence that I use shopping for a car. Since the stock market is an auction with literally millions of bidders eager for information and comparison , there is literally no better system for priceing the value of a company possible.

[Brassmask]

If a Store were to raise the price of bread while the store across the street did not, which store will really benefit? If a store were to raise the price of bread enough to give its customers to the other store I would guess that the store that sold all of its bread would benefit more than the one that wound up throwing all that stale bread away.

Raising the price of a loaf of bread at one store is not going to make people go to another store.  Nobody changes their routine shopping for stuff like bread.  If everything in the store went up suddenly, then people would go somewhere else.  I would, in fact, say that people may not even change then.

My mother is all the time telling me that so and so product, like ham or chicken is on sale at Kroger this week or at so and so this week.  And every time, I say, "So?  Am I supposed to go do my regular grocery shopping at the place I like and then stop at Kroger on the way home to buy a ham?  I can buy ham at Super-lo even if it is a few pennies more a pound and not have to make an extra stop."

I don't know anybody (other than my mother) who compares prices regularly.  Everyone I know finds a place they like and sticks with it till they get screwed somehow or hears of some kind of awesome experience that someone else had somewhere else.

A loaf of bread is a loaf of bread, wheat or white or whatever.