Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
When I was explaining how firms in a capitalist economy must satisfy consumers to stay in busness you said:
This is true theoretically, but not always true realistically.
You have told me several times that you are talking about reality. I am only left to guess that you assume I am talking about theories, not reality, ie, theories from a textbook.
|
Sometimes in discussions of economic systems, one advocating a certain system pays too much attention to how that system should work
ideally and not necessarily realistically. Maybe I thought you were doing this when I said that,I honestly can't remember.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
Ok, I know what you have said. You have said it a lot. You have said it when I showed you why this is, as you desrcibe it, untrue. Yet, you continue to argue this point. And, you havn't provided a single example of either of the two things I have asked.
|
Heres an example: An entrepreneur starts a company that produces and sells TV sets. They seem pretty nice, and are being sold at a reasonable price. 100,000 people each buy a set in the span of a few weeks. The people are satisfied with the cost and performance of the product and people continue to buy them. However, after about a month's use, the sets overheat and break down internally (don't ask my why; they just do.) People become angry with the company and over a period of time, the entrepreneur takes what he made off the venture and buys a mansion in the Caribbean and retires. He was able to profit off of a product that, in the end, did not satisfy consumers (although they were satisfied initially.) Yes, the business ceases to exist, but a profit was still made in its short period of existence. This is what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
No, slavery is forced labor at a price for which you would not have otherwise worked. By your definition of slavery, the American "slaves" were not slaves at all. They consumed much of what they produced.
|
A slave is "a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another" according to Merriam-Webster. I wouldn't say this is the case in our military. Even still, our country's military does not force citizens to serve unless the country is in an intense war situation. It hasn't happened since Vietnam. Even then, they are not the "property of" or "wholly subject to" another person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
No, I am not calling you stupid. Even if I thought you were stupid, I know that college will not make a person any smarter. I was just wondering what your major was. And NEVER go around telling people that they are smarter than you, unless you are certain it is true. There is no evidence that suggests I am smarter than you or anyone. The only thing we can learn from this argument is that I am correct, and you are incorrect, but this is not, in any meanigful way, a reflection of our intelligence.
|
Okay. I still wouldn't consider you correct or myself incorrect though. I suppose that is to be expected, otherwise we wouldn't be debating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
I know, the post of mine to which you responded was a response to tamperproof.
|
My bad.
