What are the pros and cons of state owned businesses?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If people think they are cool becuase they cost more, that is conspicuous consumption.

NO NO NO! You are not getting it! People think it is cool because it is...

but the things that MAKE it cool MAY also drive up the price. For example, you aren't going to find a Ferrari's engine and handling in a Ford . And also you won't find the 'cool' styling in a Ford either.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
But some people (40% for instance) do not spend all their income; they save a portion of it. After a few months there are differences in the personal wealth of citizens; if Kiditious let the things go this way, after a few years, big inequalities will appear again. How can we prevent this horror?

This isn't an inequality. If someone saves their money to make a bigger purchase instead of making imediate small purchases how is that inequality.

If the savings results in unemployment you just lower prices.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If people think they are cool becuase they cost more, that is conspicuous consumption.

NO NO NO! You are not getting it! People think it is cool because it is...

but the things that MAKE it cool MAY also drive up the price. For example, you aren't going to find a Ferrari's engine and handling in a Ford . And also you won't find the 'cool' styling in a Ford either.

You don't have a point again Imran, because you changed the argument again. Go back to the original context.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I didn't change the argument. I'm AT the original context. People don't think things that cost more are cooler, things they think are cool rise in price because of that cool factor. Thus lower price doesn't always equal higher demand... which is what Spiffor said.

Remember, I said the things that make it cool MAY also drive up the price... but don't always have to. Just being cool may drive up the price.

One of the things economics doesn't do well is incorporate people's irrational desires.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I didn't change the argument. I'm AT the original context. People don't think things that cost more are cooler, things they think are cool rise in price because of that cool factor. Thus lower price doesn't always equal higher demand... which is what Spiffor said.

Remember, I said the things that make it cool MAY also drive up the price... but don't always have to. Just being cool may drive up the price.

Fine, but you aren't arguing against any of my points then.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fine, but you aren't arguing against any of my points then.

I wasn't in the first place! I was agreeing with Spiffor, and then you wanted to argue with my agreement!

[Spiffor]

30+ posts of active arguing to notice both contenders were in agreement from the beginning !

Gotta love 'Poly

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Fine, but you aren't arguing against any of my points then.

I wasn't in the first place! I was agreeing with Spiffor, and then you wanted to argue with my agreement!

You were agreeing with Spiffor when he made a argument with me. But you brought up the point that people would pay more for something because of it's price, not because of the demand.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But you brought up the point that people would pay more for something because of it's price, not because of the demand.

No, not because of its price. But it may BE pricier.

Like I said in support of Spiffor:

Demand doesn't solely depend on price.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But you brought up the point that people would pay more for something because of it's price, not because of the demand.

No, not because of its price. But it may BE pricier.

Like I said in support of Spiffor:

Demand doesn't solely depend on price.

I support Spiffor there too . So what's the argument.

[Az]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Are those politicians of a different stripe? And who appoints this commitee? What happens when one dies?

They're as much politicans as are Judges. There are a variety of solutions available to elect them. They can be appointed by the government, and the whole proccess could be overseen by the State Auditor, they can be elected... etc. etc.

Perhaps, but it'd be SUPER expensive. Remember, you cannot take private property under the US Constitution without just compensation (ie, amount of money it is worth). And saying it is being taken by the state's 'police power' ain't gonna work here.

It can be instituted with a 100% tax on dead people's stocks' and cash assets. What's it's name? estate tax, right? The government will begin to slowly buy up the economy. Heck, if you'd cut the defence budget in half, you'd be able to buy Microsoft in a year, or something.

Ming is gonna hurt you now!

Btw, how much do you think those commericals actually influence people to buy things? Commercials that are more tied to the product themselves will help sell goods.

I honestly don't know. But if they do, it's obviously wrong, since basically, not the most suitable product is bought, but the one that messes up with your brain the most. If they don't work, it's all effort lost anyway, and is a waste of time. I think that commercials are stupid. With the technology today, people could access all the products via the internet, for example, to evaluate them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They're as much politicans as are Judges.

Obvious you don't know my opinion on Judges (basically they are politicians in robes )

It can be instituted with a 100% tax on dead people's stocks' and cash assets. What's it's name? estate tax, right?

Perhaps... but it'd STILL be mad expensive. Like really freaking expensive!

And of course a 100% tax will just cause all the companies to leave anyway .

[Imran Siddiqui]

I support Spiffor there too . So what's the argument.

Hence Spiffor's last post .

[Az]

And of course a 100% tax will just cause all the companies to leave anyway

That's the real problem. That's why I think a revolution is needed. I think that way too many money is lost on the rich.