Mexico Will Pay For the Wall

Jan 2016
41,916
37,698
Colorado
Oh, it is the market that controls the price. LOL Thank you so much for that, after I've been TELLING YOU that about 100 times for the past 6 months, including just a few posts ago right here. But you and Minotaur and labrea, and Hollywood have insisted that the firm will raise its prices, and pass a new expense on to the consumer. Is there a doctor in the house ?

Here's your exact words (Post # 243) >> "And Minotaur was CORRECT that it is CONSUMERS who ultimately pay the costs of tariffs." And how would they do that, Leroy ? By the firm raising it's price ? (that you just said it has NO CONTROL OVER) You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. For months I've been telling you the firm can't raise it's prices an pass them on to the consumer, because doing that will trigger SALES REDUCTIONS. You're the one who said they can and will raise their prices. Now you say they have no control and its the Market that make the price Well, of course it's the market. Nice to see you've finally come around to accept that, after 101 times denying it.

Here's where I told it to you in this thread >.Post # 241....244.....245.....250......256......266.

And here's where you denied that, and said the firm will raise its prices, which the consumer will get stuck with >> 243....

If you like, we could go back through the threads, and dig out DOZENS of posts where you said that, and I countered by saying NO, the firm CANNOT raise it's price, because of SALES REDUCTIONS, because the price comes from the MARKET (what people will or will not pay).

As for your cute little quiz, you already got my response to that, as well as my quiz which you obviously couldn't pass, if your life depended on it,
Boy are you a dumb shit. You don't understand the BASIC lesson of Microeconomics 101, which is this: SOME firms have NO control over their price, and other firms DO. The firms that have NO control over their price, we call perfectly competitive firms. The firms that DO have some control over their price, which we say have some MARKET POWER, are either monopolies, or oligopolies, or monopolistically competitive firms, or some other type of market structure.

It's like you don't even understand the DIFFERENCE between a monopoly and a firm in perfect competition. Yikes.

You're flunking Economics 101 so badly that you're getting an F MINUS.
 
Jan 2016
41,916
37,698
Colorado
The MARKET PRICE is the price at which the firm sells its product. It is the highest price it can charge without triggering sales reductions that would bring about loss (reduced profit)

This can be shown graphically with a bell-shaped curve with price increasing from the origin, on the X axis, and Business income increasing from the origin on the Y axis. At the top of the bell is the market price (every price you see in the stores). You can see from the shape of the bell that once the price goes above >> that market price, you are then on the right side of the bell, and the business income begins to fall.

View attachment 20508
Ah, your stupid, mythical bell curve again, for which you CANNOT find a SINGLE link, nor a SINGLE reference in ANY economics textbook in the entire fucking world.

Hilarious.
 
Jan 2016
41,916
37,698
Colorado
I don't know, Apple has been soaking its customers on IPhones for years.
Yes, Henry. Apple has a GREAT deal of 'market power'. They are operating in an oligopolistic industry and have some near-monopoly characteristics, such as VERY strong brand-name recognition and loyalty among their customer base. So, indeed, they are gouging their customers.

That's what monopolies DO, as is explained in EVERY economics textbook on the planet. Rwb72 doesn't understand that, though. He's never actually read one. I have about 200 economics textbooks in my personal library. I used to REVIEW them and make extra money by doing so. Shrug.
 
Likes: labrea
Sep 2013
39,886
31,611
On a hill
Yeah. Yeah, he promised us "much better and much cheaper healthcare", too. I'm wondering where the hell that is.
Remember infrastructure week - what became of that?

As Jonathan Chait noted in New York, Trump's passion for infrastructure projects was a key component of the "economic nationalism" that set him apart from his fellow Republicans. When Steve Bannon was in Trump's favor, the strategist touted a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan; there was speculation that infrastructure would be a way for Trump to work with Democrats rather than Republicans and shake up the normal politics of DC.

This did not happen, not even a little. Bannon was unceremoniously kicked to the curb by his boss, who quickly embraced a traditional Republican domestic agenda of slashing taxes and gutting people's access to healthcare. Trump had promised to come out with an infrastructure plan during the first 100 days of his administration, but by December no such plan had materialized. Finally, in February, a plan did come out only to be pronounced dead on arrival. Rather than spending money directly on infrastructure projects, it mostly sought to shift costs onto state and local governments and hand out only $200 billion in grants, a fraction of what the American Society of Civil Engineers said was needed to repair America's damaged infrastructure. Democrats rejected that approach, and since Republicans in Congress have never given much of a shit about infrastructure to begin with, the proposal was largely ignored. (It didn't help that in a separate budget proposal, Trump had proposed what Democrats said amounted to cuts to infrastructure.)

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...his-biggest-campaign-pledges-and-no-one-cares
 
Likes: BigLeRoy
Jan 2016
41,916
37,698
Colorado
Remember infrastructure week - what became of that?
He was promising a TRILLION dollar infrastructure plan. At the latest word, that has been 'whittled down' to about $1.5 billion. A PITTANCE in comparison to the original promise, and a laughably small fraction of what America NEEDS to fix our decaying infrastructure, which has been given a grade of D+ by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

D+. That's not a very good grade.

Though I suspect it actually was, for some of our posters around here.

I won't name names. That could get me in trouble.
 
Jun 2018
4,057
496
Florida
He's done neither. He inherited a decent economy and in now in the process of destabilizing it with his trade war. Our foreign policy is a humiliating mess. Nobody respects that fool and you have to be a fool not to see it.
1. Bullshit ! He inherited a lousy, tanking economy, SINKING from 2.3% to 1.8% GDP, and built it back up into the 3s and 4s %s.

1546924181888.png

2. He is not destabilizing it. What you see as instability, is simply the normal strains of an economy being repaired from decades of negligence (giving the world unrestricted access to our market). Would you have expected it would be 100% smooth ? When you have a bad tooth, you go to the dentist, and you may have some discomfort, but afterwards you're glad you went.

3. Our foreign policy is quite good. North & South Korea are having friendly talks with each other. North Korean prisoners are being returned, and NK nuclear policy is at least in conversation mode. China's economic domination of the US is over. Sanctions are in place against Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and a far better relationship exists with Israel, than was the case with Obama. ISIS is contained to a much smaller degree than the Obama years, and Mexico and other Latin American countries are finally getting the scolding they deserve.

4. Obama was the fool that nobody in the world respected. His weakness and bowing has been replaced with strength.