So what is to be done about the people who can't afford the equilibrium price?

[TheGrinch]

Actually that's bull. I have found it incredibly difficult to buy food in the past, and obviously that is not a singular experience (hence soup kitchens, food stamps, food pantries, etc.).

A car is not a damned necessity. "Even the lowest wage" can afford to walk or take the bus from time to time (a lot of churches will provide you with a bus pass, actually, so it's totally free of charge).

Not to mention, I didn't even think about used cars. You can buy one for $500 that runs if you shop right. But bitching that not everyone can afford the engineering and production of a two ton steel machine that can transport you long distances at high speeds and burns costly gasoline, well ummm, no $#@!! You gotta work if you want that luxury, but the highways show very clearly that it is not the elite privelege of the 1930s.

Homes? You want to make them more accessible? Call 2009 and ask them how it worked out.

[erowe1]

but a demand curve does essentially measure the amount of people willing and able to purchase at a particular price,

That is not true. Even if there were only two people in the world, one buying something and the other selling it, the supply curve and demand curve for that product (measuring the quantity of it sold versus the price charged for it) would still look the same. The one person buying would demand more of the product as the price got lower and the one person selling would supply more as the price got higher.

Q in the supply and demand curves is not quantity of people, but quantity of the product.

[HVACTech]

Pardon my rudeness. Nice to meet you. I'm erowe1.

I command a high price, in case you are unaware.
and it is not my problem if you do not.
I am still trying to figure out how this site works.

[erowe1]

I command a high price, in case you are unaware.
and it is not my problem if you do not.
I am still trying to figure out how this site works.

I don't see how this has anything to do with this thread. And not knowing how the site works only goes so far as an excuse.

[pcosmar]

"I’m not a libertarian. I’m not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot."

I am libertarian. in that I believe in liberty and oppose authoritarianism.

I do not advocate that anyone dress any particular way,, and the use of any substance is up to individual choice.

I have no opposition to nudity,, though it is impractical at times.. and I do believe that the plant Marijuana(cannabis) is a gift from God,, and has many benefits and uses.

As to the OPs advocacy for entitlement.. it is more socialist crap.

My ancestors worked and earned what they had,, carved out homes from the wilderness and gathered food from the forest.

I have started over several times.. from nothing, with nothing. I have been poor and homeless.

When I met my wife in 88 I had the pack on my back and the clothes I wore..(and could not even use my real name) She had nothing. We lived together and worked together.

We own a home on 20 acres.. That we earned.
No one is entitled to anything,, beyond Life, Liberty and the pursuit of,,,,

[Boshembechle]

What is the moral difference between being denied a good based on ability to pay, and being denied a good because there is a shortage (as was common in Russia)? To me, there is no difference. Both practices are despicable.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What is the moral difference between being denied a good based on ability to pay, and being denied a good because there is a shortage (as was common in Russia)? To me, there is no difference. Both practices are despicable.

Why don't you get a job already?

Oh yeah, you get a neg rep for all-purpose sucking. Sorry, Holmes.

[erowe1]

What is the moral difference between being denied a good based on ability to pay, and being denied a good because there is a shortage (as was common in Russia)? To me, there is no difference. Both practices are despicable.

Why is either despicable?

[Henry Rogue]

Come to Michigan. I will buy you a house for $1.00.



http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...85-64818?row=2

That house looks nice compared to some of the pictures I have seen of Detroit.

[Henry Rogue]

What is the moral difference between being denied a good based on ability to pay, and being denied a good because there is a shortage (as was common in Russia)? To me, there is no difference. Both practices are despicable.

How is it moral for me to be forced to be your personal slave?

[Boshembechle]

How is it moral for me to be forced to be your personal slave?

Who is asking anyone to be a slave? I am just wondering why it is outrageous to libertarians/free marketers that planned economies suffer from shortages, thus restricting access to goods, but NOT outraged at Capitalism, which does the exact same thing in a sneaky,sinister manner called equilibrium price.

[Cabal]

Who is asking anyone to be a slave? I am just wondering why it is outrageous to libertarians/free marketers that planned economies suffer from shortages, thus restricting access to goods, but NOT outraged at Capitalism, which does the exact same thing in a sneaky,sinister manner called equilibrium price.

Your OP seems to suggest that demand alone should entitle people to goods/services, regardless of ability to satisfy consensual exchange for those goods/services. Goods/services are essentially a tangible representation of time, labor, and energy of others, just like money is. Thus, to suggest entitlement to goods/services is to suggest entitlement to time, labor, and energy of another. To take (particularly by force, or threat thereof) the time, labor, and energy of another on the basis of entitlement without consent is tantamount to slavery.

The shortages that occur under a centrally planned economy are a result of barriers to entry, coercive monopolization, cronyism, regulation, IP law, and the like--in essence, they are shortages that occur as a result of interference and intervention of otherwise consensual activity. In a theoretically free market, no one is necessarily being restricted access by way of violence or coercion; rather, the only thing standing in the way of their ability to acquire a good/service is their capacity and willingness to satisfy consensual exchange for it.

[Boshembechle]

Your OP seems to suggest that demand alone should entitle people to goods/services, regardless of ability to satisfy consensual exchange for those goods/services. Goods/services are essentially a tangible representation of time, labor, and energy of others, just like money is. Thus, to suggest entitlement to goods/services is to suggest entitlement to time, labor, and energy of another. To take (particularly by force, or threat thereof) the time, labor, and energy of another on the basis of entitlement without consent is tantamount to slavery.

The shortages that occur under a centrally planned economy are a result of barriers to entry, coercive monopolization, cronyism, regulation, IP law, and the like--in essence, they are shortages that occur as a result of interference and intervention of otherwise consensual activity. In a theoretically free market, no one is necessarily being restricted access by way of violence or coercion; rather, the only thing standing in the way of their ability to acquire a good/service is their capacity and willingness to satisfy consensual exchange for it.

That's a sneaky way of saying "money". Without money, you have no chance to get the goods.

[euphemia]

We all know what a supply and demand curve graph looks like. The price at which they intersect determines what the price of a commodity will be and how much is produced. BUT, what should a society do about the people who fall on the right side of the point (looking at the demand curve)? Are they just completely left out of economic transactions? Why is if morally just that they are the ones who bear the brunt of the "scarcity" issue, rather than others?

Having been relatively poor most of my adult life, I would say people who are able should get creative. Learn to do without luxuries. Learn to barter. Take on extra work. Learn to make food from scratch rather than buying processed food. Work where there is a meal benefit and a uniform. Adopt a lifestyle of simplicity.

I am happy to share the little I have with those who are incapable of caring for themselves. That is the responsibility of community. It is not my responsibility to support people who want more than they have.

[Cabal]

That's a sneaky way of saying "money". Without money, you have no chance to get the goods.

I don't see how that is sneaky, but it doesn't necessarily mean money, strictly speaking. In any case, what is your point?

[MelissaWV]

That's a sneaky way of saying "money". Without money, you have no chance to get the goods.

Not really, no. You can barter, trade, work, or any number of things to get your goods.

[osan]

We all know what a supply and demand curve graph looks like. The price at which they intersect determines what the price of a commodity will be and how much is produced. BUT, what should a society do about the people who fall on the right side of the point (looking at the demand curve)? Are they just completely left out of economic transactions? Why is if morally just that they are the ones who bear the brunt of the "scarcity" issue, rather than others?

What in hell are you talking about? If I cannot afford something, I don't buy it and I don't whine about it, either.

I'd really like to have a Gulfstream IV, but guess what? It's too fookin' expensive for me. It was too $$ when I took home $500K+ per year. I would have gladly settled for a Citation X, but guess what? THOSE were too expensive as well. Never cried boo hooty hoo to force the manufacturers to offer them at prices I could afford.

If you cannot afford, you go without.

Seriously, what is your point? This post smells like troll-$#@!. You ask leading questions about what "society" should do. That is a load of bull$#@!. "Society", as it were, should do absolutely NOTHING and allow individuals to dope out their lives for themselves. To turn the question back at you, how it is morally just to force me and other private individuals to subsidize those who cannot or, more likely, WILL NOT make their own ways through life?

We each have an equal right to life. That does NOT mean we hold the right to be provided WITH our lives. The right to life implies naught but the right to make of it what we will within the constraints of what we are able to accomplish, provided we impose no harm upon others. My stealing from you, regardless of the avenues though which the violation occurs, constitutes a direct harm to your being and it is not acceptable under any circumstance. If you are starving, I am under no obligation to feed you. Whether it is your gun that affects the theft or that of the "government", the result is the same.

If you cannot make it on your own, you may find charitable aid, or you may simply be $#@! out of luck, but you are NEVER entitled to violate others just so you can take one more breath. If you do not see why this is so fundamental a truth, then you are beyond help.

[tod evans]

So what is to be done about the people......

What in the world leads you to even think for a moment that something must be done?

If you're able to address that issue then who, specifically, do you believe should be responsible for the doing, and why?

[TheGrinch]

I become more convinced by the day that people like this cone here and do this just to be a distraction.

But noble or not, after a certain amount of time, if someone is still being combative, they did not come here to learn or have a rational discussion, that much is clear.

Best to just ignore those who only exist to be a contrarian.

[Boshembechle]

What in hell are you talking about? If I cannot afford something, I don't buy it and I don't whine about it, either.

I'd really like to have a Gulfstream IV, but guess what? It's too fookin' expensive for me. It was too $$ when I took home $500K+ per year. I would have gladly settled for a Citation X, but guess what? THOSE were too expensive as well. Never cried boo hooty hoo to force the manufacturers to offer them at prices I could afford.

If you cannot afford, you go without.

Seriously, what is your point? This post smells like troll-$#@!. You ask leading questions about what "society" should do. That is a load of bull$#@!. "Society", as it were, should do absolutely NOTHING and allow individuals to dope out their lives for themselves. To turn the question back at you, how it is morally just to force me and other private individuals to subsidize those who cannot or, more likely, WILL NOT make their own ways through life?

We each have an equal right to life. That does NOT mean we hold the right to be provided WITH our lives. The right to life implies naught but the right to make of it what we will within the constraints of what we are able to accomplish, provided we impose no harm upon others. My stealing from you, regardless of the avenues though which the violation occurs, constitutes a direct harm to your being and it is not acceptable under any circumstance. If you are starving, I am under no obligation to feed you. Whether it is your gun that affects the theft or that of the "government", the result is the same.

If you cannot make it on your own, you may find charitable aid, or you may simply be $#@! out of luck, but you are NEVER entitled to violate others just so you can take one more breath. If you do not see why this is so fundamental a truth, then you are beyond help.

Then you are just accepting your own oppression. There is no reason why you should be barred from owning something because you cannot 'afford ' it. That is BS.

[Cabal]

Then you are just accepting your own oppression. There is no reason why you should be barred from owning something because you cannot 'afford ' it. That is BS.

[tod evans]

Then you are just accepting your own oppression. There is no reason why you should be barred from owning something because you cannot 'afford ' it. That is BS.

[Occam's Banana]

There is no reason why you should be barred from owning something because you cannot 'afford ' it. That is BS.

"I take what is mine. I pay the iron price." - Boshembechle Greyjoy

How is it moral for me to be forced to be your personal slave?

I bet yer one of them pansies who pays the gold price, ain't'cha?

[MelissaWV]

Then you are just accepting your own oppression. There is no reason why you should be barred from owning something because you cannot 'afford ' it. That is BS.

Then you are accepting your own tyranny. There is no reason why I should be forced to produce something because you cannot 'afford' it. That is BS.

[Cleaner44]

I think this applies to about every thread this troll has started.