Quote:
Originally Posted by KincLosddy
I don’t know where you got your ‘fundamental principal’ definition of supply and demand but that ain’t it. This is demonstrably provable with a basic search and not something that is solely the arena of the post-secondary educated.
Supply and demand is the amount of product or service potentially or actually supplied to a market versus the demand and any adjustment related to meet it. Demand dictates supply dictates demand.
For-profit business isn’t hamming about in supply and demand environments devaluing their products or services unless under specific circumstances. Supply and demand dictates that you raise or lower the value of your commodities or services to match the carrying capacity of the end consumer (that is the capacity and/or willingness of the consumer to buy said product or service) If a product or service is being offered in a rarified way it is not unusual for businesses to lower production and/or increase cost to maintain profits or increase demand with the same goal.
The only times where companies devalue their products or services is in a competitive environment or in the spirit of increasing sales by decreasing prices.
|
And so we agree, companies intentionally devalue their products in competitive environments which is, of course, all markets that aren't monopolized or supply managed. Supply and demand. When profits are high, producers are expected to increase supply to capture more value, and prices drop.
Quote:
Of course the housing market is supply managed. Every market is, in some way, supply managed. Housing across the world is often hampered in some way by regulatory process. Some of these regulations are in good faith, others in bad. Regulations can distort progress, yes, but in many circumstances they can also influence progress in ways that improve, not worsen distortions like the ones driving our housing crisis.
In an ideal world, yes, we could trust businesses to act in some form of altruism where they don’t take advantage of free markets to make as much money as possible and slowly rig the system to their eternal benefit but we apparently do not live in the world you think we do. If we could trust the companies to build homes and get us out of this market if they had free reign then in the same vain we wouldn’t be facing a colluded gasoline market, a colluded and expensive national cartel of telecom companies, or an ever-rising national grocery price issue (which includes huge profits for all of these companies.)
One thing I find interesting is your attitude about our government in BC pointing blame and doing nothing to fix our problems while also showing how Minneapolis has improved its housing situation. How did Minneapolis do this? One big thing they did was the same style upzoning blanket regulations that our government in BC has recently enacted across the province. All you have done is prove the point that government changes in regulation can and will lead to improvements of these issues and that the regulations our current government is enforcing can and do work.
The necessities of living, when commodfied, can be warped by monopolies and bad faith actors. Pretending otherwise hurts us all. Government regulation can disrupt the forces that create these issues if done wisely of course. All blaming the government for everything and demanding deregulation does is make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the system of economics and finance more rigged in the favour of those with at the expense of those without.
Stating anything that isn't your view of economics as "Marxian" and big government and making snide comments about basic economics and education... it's not really conducive to a discussion in good faith. We can all have an adult conversation if we act like adults.
|
Minneapolis deregulating zoning is good, we agree.
"Colluded gasoline markets" is definitely a new one, though.
Threaded Mode