Oh is nothing sacred?? Hops, Grain and now...

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
A revolutionary breakthough would be worth 100s of trillions more than oil could ever produce.
By this logic, every existing company should be investing all their profits in energy research, and because they aren't, they must be up to no good. After all, it's worth 100s of trillions more (which is a completely arbitrary number, might I add) than one of the most currently lucrative industries in America.
However what was thier profit per second when oil was $30 bbl.
You seem to fail to grasp the concept of supply, demand and market equilibrium. As I've stated before, the oil companies cannot simply lower their price back down to $30 a barrel, nor are they capable of artificially raising the price up to $100. In a competitive market, that's impossible, for reasons I've already outline.
American farming is extremely efficient.
You contradict yourself. Either American agriculture is efficient, in which case it shouldn't need subsidies, or it's inefficient, and it does need subsidies. So really, the above quote is an argument against subsidies. If they really are the image of efficiency, then lift the tariffs, subsidies, and price controls that have been babying them, and let them compete on the world market.
Nearly all governments provide similar assistance for local farmers to prevent dependency of basic staples on foreign countries.
Other governments do it, so we should do it? Also, you seem to be admitting that American agriculture is inefficient by saying that we need regulation to keep farmers in business, otherwise we'd become dependent.
The government price supports and assistance helps to maintain the agriculture in the states.[...]The government price controls work to reduce the big swings in commodity prices and many programs have the long term effect of keeping prices low by keeping farms in business.
I fail to see how price supports or how keeping clearly inefficient farms in business can reduce the price. Also, how exactly do subsidies and tariffs prevent swings in price? You could argue artificial price floors keep prices constant, but only because they're raised so high above equilibrium. So yes, if you keep the price high enough, they won't be affected by market pressures, but the upshot is that it's still more expensive, meaning they still hurt consumers more than if they simply fluctuated at a lower cost.

EDIT: mrfocus posted while I was posting. I'll respond later, but now I need to go to class. Econ midterm... oh boy...
 
beala said:
By this logic,...
You seem to fail to grasp the concept of ...
You contradict yourself... etc, etc,...
That kind of confrontation about politics, economy, and who's sheepskin is mightier is exactly why I left my comments as simple sarcasm and facetiousness.

This is a beer making forum, even if we're in the General Chit Chat area, I fail to see how you're going to change public opinion with this audience, and you're likely to be alienating people who might help you make better beer in the future.

RDWHAHB.

Matt
 
You seem to fail to grasp the concept of supply, demand and market equilibrium. As I've stated before, the oil companies cannot simply lower their price back down to $30 a barrel, nor are they capable of artificially raising the price up to $100. In a competitive market, that's impossible, for reasons I've already outline.

the Market will bear the prices- There is no problem with supply. You fail at capitalism go ahead and believe what the oil companies want you to believe.
 
That kind of confrontation about politics, economy, and who's sheepskin is mightier is exactly why I left my comments as simple sarcasm and facetiousness.

This is a beer making forum, even if we're in the General Chit Chat area, I fail to see how you're going to change public opinion with this audience, and you're likely to be alienating people who might help you make better beer in the future.
I've always interpreted responses as a sign that people were engaged in the discussion, and that I should continue posting, but maybe I'm wrong. Whatever the case, I still don't feel I have anything to apologize for, considering none of my arguments were ad hominem or offensive (in contrast, telling me that my arguments are wrong because I "fail at capitalism," whatever that means, is ad hominem), but if people (including the OP) no longer want to discuss economics, consider the matter dropped.
 
Back
Top