New higher Tariffs from trade talks - Page 76
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 76 of 76 FirstFirst ... 2666747576
Results 1,501 to 1,520 of 1520
  1. #1501
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    suffice to say and for the umpteenth time, the point is a free market does NOT mean there is no friction, fees, rules, laws, tax, whatever, Who gives a shit about the example, but change it to rutabagas at vegetable stand if it makes you happy
    Scholars "give a shit about the example". Bad examples can be misleading.
    And "cabotage" not "rutabaga", please.

    One of the more famous "examples" from history may illustrate.

    Soviet Union. Long ago. Dirt track, normally used for horse racing. An automobile race was staged.

    Soviet headline after it was over:

    Moskvitch takes second place in auto race. Ford finishes next-to last!
    Which was a 100% true and accurate statement.

    However.. the Ford had LAPPED the Moskvitch. Three times.

    "Next to last" is not a bad score.
    "second place" is not a good score.

    Not when there were EXACTLY TWO cars in that race.

    How's that for telling perfect truth. To a HIGHLY biased perception, 180-degrees reversed?

    "Masters of Deceit" john Edgar Hoover called the Soviets.

    He would surely know. He was one himself! A master of deceit. Not a Soviet.

  2. #1502
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    Perhaps its different environment in Australia, or you missed the point or are trying to be difficult, but in NA supply and demand sets price and where the airilines want to fly, that makes it a free market.
    They have those cabotage laws in the US. It is not a free market. Foreign carriers cannot fly domestic routes. It is a protected market, not a free one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    I don't see said friction being relevant to a comparison with tariffs.
    This is even worse than a tariff, because it outright bans imports/foreign competition altogether. This is what's called a "non-tariff barrier". People talk about tariffs, but there are NTB's that are far greater than a tariff imposed. We're all getting taxed in the US because of these cabotage laws. Yet I see no one dying from paying airfares nor complaining about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    the current free market model, vs the old regulated model (that is when there was regulation of price and routes)
    We don't have a free market model. We have a protected and regulated market model. Everyone does. Free markets are like free lunch; there is no such thing. The only place they exist is in a textbook.

  3. #1503
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,695
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3129
    Likes (Received)
    3539

    Default

    you do not understand what the term means, whatever, can't be bothered.

  4. #1504
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    you do not understand what the term means, whatever, can't be bothered.
    Can't be bothered can be bothersome.

    Losing an argument does not brand you a bad person. Only overly careless in selecting your premises.
    Also stubborn-foolish for doubling-down in the face of facts to the contrary.

    You CAN improve that, next go. Try it. We might ALL like it.

    Last edited by thermite; 08-16-2019 at 01:09 AM.

  5. #1505
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,090
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1814
    Likes (Received)
    2016

    Default

    Deregulation did create a ‘free market’ for the carriers distributing services domestically.
    Excluding outside agents might effect the market dynamics but can’t change that the existing pool is market driven.

    To put it another way limited competition through exclusion does not invalidate the ability of the remaining participants to offer service based on market pressures so long as there are two or more operations which are not coordinating effort.

    This is NOT to say that more competition will have no effect.
    Only that the existing pool is in fact market based and is a ‘free market’.

    Try marrying into a family someday- you will understand immediately

  6. #1506
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    Deregulation did create a ‘free market’ for the carriers distributing services domestically.
    Excluding outside agents might effect the market dynamics but can’t change that the existing pool is market driven.
    By that logic, any country with 100000% tariffs across the board is a 'free market' because it only protects the domestic participants. You guys are using a very funny way of phrasing these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    To put it another way limited competition through exclusion does not invalidate the ability of the remaining participants to offer service based on market pressures so long as there are two or more operations which are not coordinating effort.

    This is NOT to say that more competition will have no effect.
    Only that the existing pool is in fact market based and is a ‘free market’.
    Idk about that. If there are regulations more onerous on smaller carriers, or costs that make them less competitive, or vice versa, then it isn't. I'm not an air industry expert, but my point is there is no free market. It is not simply supply and demand. Not to mention that this doesn't even consider the inability of domestic carriers to sponsor anyone they please overseas that is willing to work for less. That would actually be a free market. There are also sweeteners that larger participants get for shipping, like using ePacket over in China. Not everybody can take advantage of that.

  7. #1507
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,090
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1814
    Likes (Received)
    2016

    Default

    So let’s say DPRK is totally excluded from entering international markets with their products.
    Does that invalidate the market dynamics for the remaining supplier/consumer pool?

    I think not.

    The aggregate has less diversity and hence and different result but is still market based and is operating as a free market in the remaining pool.
    In the case of US airlines the market is domestic.
    If international in scope like beans sold abroad domestic protections are a market distortion.

  8. #1508
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    So let’s say DPRK is totally excluded from entering international markets with their products.
    Does that invalidate the market dynamics for the remaining supplier/consumer pool?

    I think not.

    The aggregate has less diversity and hence and different result but is still market based and is operating as a free market in the remaining pool.
    In the case of US airlines the market is domestic.
    If international in scope like beans sold abroad domestic protections are a market distortion.
    So a free market just means any two suppliers can compete - we're just going to leave out all the other barriers to competing? Like, we will just forget that the playing field is not necessarily level even within the protected market, and still call it a free market?

    I don't really see where you're going with this, or how you even got there.

  9. #1509
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    In addition to the last comment, I just looked to entertain what's out there on this. Here's an article from someone who used to work in the airline industry.

    So you want to start an airline?

  10. #1510
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    In addition to the last comment, I just looked to entertain what's out there on this. Here's an article from someone who used to work in the airline industry.

    So you want to start an airline?
    Good one. Thanks!

    Mind.. if a body had clocked a coupla million airmiles, over 50 countries, all but one US State, having started when the DC-3, Convair 440, Martin 4-0-4, Lockheed L88, and Super-G Connie were all still in scheduled commercial service, had to pay landing fees for the four-seater he had personally left-seated in on his own "ASEL" to over 400 landings worth, 200 in full dark, owed shares in some of the "players"..... it might not exactly be "news".

    As with MANY industries, "the general public" have but the most superficial sight of what is actually afoot. Yah have to dig.. at least a LITTLE.

    Mact of the Fatter, the only examples of true "free trade" I can readily cite?

    The regular exchange of insults.

    More reading. Less "free trade".

    Sound like a plan?


  11. Likes nyc123 liked this post
  12. #1511
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,462
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    543
    Likes (Received)
    2611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    you do not understand what the term means, whatever, can't be bothered.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

    PDW

  13. Likes Trboatworks, TeachMePlease liked this post
  14. #1512
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,090
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1814
    Likes (Received)
    2016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post

    I don't really see where you're going with this, or how you even got there.
    It's just a basic vocabulary question.
    EVERYONE understands that a true "free market" is a theoretical construct and only exists on a graded scale in the real world.
    The phrase is nonetheless used accurately the describe systems which are far enough towards the features of that scale of unrestricted trade.
    The United States for instance is accurately called a free market while it in whole is not, deregulation of the airlines is a shift towards free market structure from one which certainly was not.

    "Free Market" proponents work for fewer restrictions to trade not none.
    So, in (I think Bills) declaration that the term only exists in textbooks - he wins a price.
    For being pedantic.

    I can see why Mcgyver bowed out- he might have said however "you don't seem to know how the word is used".....

  15. #1513
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,090
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1814
    Likes (Received)
    2016

    Default

    Oops...

    PDW beat me to it- damn southern hemisphere..

  16. #1514
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    2,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    194
    Likes (Received)
    1974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    Dude. You have been proven wrong here. All his theory is is that there is a revenue-maximizing tax rate between 0% and 100%. That's literally all it is. It has not been disproven. At all. The only thing "disproven" here is you. It is a theory that is widely accepted and is taught in economics. You've made it obvious now over 2 posts that you don't even understand the issue being talked about. The only reason they don't like the guy is because his interpretation of what that curve looks like in reality is skewed in favor of lower taxes. Some economists like low taxes, others want higher taxes. Laffer is in the former group. They have even made this clear - they did not themselves say that his theory is wrong. You look like an idiot at this point. Read on this to at least get an idea of what you're talking about before you look dumber, if that's even possible at this point. I'm not arguing that we should have lower taxes or that I supported Trump's ideas to lower income taxes; I personally believe they should have higher taxes. I'm simply stating the obvious: he made widely-taught and accepted theory, they gave him a Nobel Prize for it. There is nothing vastly different here than for any other economist awarded this. The only thing different here is bias from Bloomberg.
    Dude, you have proven nothing
    Dude, telling the truth is not bias
    Dude, pretending you are not biased is foolish, all trolls are biased

  17. Likes Greg White liked this post
  18. #1515
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,695
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3129
    Likes (Received)
    3539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PDW View Post
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

    PDW
    i thought I was using the expression as its commonly, er, universally used in economics and did define it, but hey, you may know more than I.

  19. #1516
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    It's just a basic vocabulary question.
    EVERYONE understands that a true "free market" is a theoretical construct and only exists on a graded scale in the real world.
    The phrase is nonetheless used accurately the describe systems which are far enough towards the features of that scale of unrestricted trade.
    The United States for instance is accurately called a free market while it in whole is not, deregulation of the airlines is a shift towards free market structure from one which certainly was not.
    I think you're trying to defend the indefensible. The United States is not a free market, even within its own market. My point here is that the word "free market" needs to stop being used like this. It's meaningless. If what you're trying to say is that the US is more liberalized in some respects, then that could be true. Even then, not all. I'm trying to make it clear that, from the beginning of this thread, there is no such thing as free trade or free markets. It's a misnomer. If people want to have a discussion on the topic of this thread, then we can't be using theoretical ideas that don't hold in the real world. We have to discuss this as it is in reality. When whoever it was brought in "free market free market" to this discussion, that's where it went wrong.

  20. #1517
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    Dude, you have proven nothing
    Dude, telling the truth is not bias
    Dude, pretending you are not biased is foolish, all trolls are biased
    You said his "theory was disproven". It was not. Also, everyone is biased. Mistake number two.

  21. #1518
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,442
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    455
    Likes (Received)
    4913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    It's just a basic vocabulary question.
    EVERYONE understands that a true "free market" is a theoretical construct and only exists on a graded scale in the real world.
    The phrase is nonetheless used accurately the describe systems which are far enough towards the features of that scale of unrestricted trade.. ......
    This. The world isn't divided into "free" and "unfree" markets -- it's all shades in between. McGyver, I think, has it right as well.

    Best way to look at free markets, IMO, is from the perspective of the customer rather than the producer. A totally "free" producer might build dangerous crap, hire the Mafia to put their own competitors out of business, etc.

    There's some optimum level of just enough safety and environment oversight, reasonably low barriers to entry, free and transparent markets, contract law, safety regulation, etc. -- that customers get a variety of choices, lower prices, and products that don't kill them. Suppliers have the assurance they're competing on a level playing field and that when they innovate, they'll have things like patent protection -- or that contracts will be enforced.

    That's what I'd consider a relatively free market. As opposed, say, to some state-run businesses with a monopoly -- and often as a consequence less innovation, higher prices, and just generally crappy products or services. Most of us (I think) would imagine that foreign companies should have a level playing field to compete as well. We made add compensating tariffs if, say, they're polluting the environment or otherwise undercutting industry/world norms, but not simply to give one or two favored suppliers the market.

    With respect to air travel - the US market has far more competition and lower prices than when I first started flying. It also has lots of competitors trying to vacuum the spare change out of their customers with various fees. Meanwhile, in light of Boeing's 737 Max problems, once could argue that our airline market wasn't regulated quite enough. A "free" customer doesn't expect to die on their next flight. A totally "free" producer, of the sort some seem to be advocating for (or at least defining as "free"), might not care.

  22. #1519
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    2,792
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3967
    Likes (Received)
    12841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    Also, everyone is biased.
    I'm not. Don't know about everyone else though

  23. Likes Trboatworks liked this post
  24. #1520
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    At stake, in his mind, is a world that has been more or less governed by by rule of law for the past 70 years -- and perhaps something less free under Chinese domination.
    You gotta get them glasses fixed, Pete. Rule of Law ? When you put Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein behind bars for the rest of their miserable existences, then you can say "rule of law" with a straight face.

    Until then, forget it. You are making a ninny of yourself.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •