| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: September 15 2010 at 14:03 |
 thellama73 wrote:
It is generally not in a monopolies best interest to charge an unreasonably high price, because there always exists some amount of price elasticity, that is, the quantity demanded goes down as price goes up. Even in the bread example (which Pat correctly states would never happen in real life) there would be some people who would be unable to pay the high price, even if they were willing. Therefore a monopoly does not increase its profits by raising prices indefinitely. A monopoly will charge a higher price than the competitive market, yes, but usually not insanely higher. |
I don't completely agree with this analysis - the price increases would be incremental and gradual so the consumer would not notice the higher price until long after their "pain" threshold have been passed - if this commodity was a staple or a necessity then non-essential items would have gradually dropped off the shopping list to compensate for the subsequent overall increase in the weekly bill.
|
|
What?
|
 |
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 14:05 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I was going to touch on that in my post, but I omitted it. So now I'll go into it.
I'll agree with your use of leverage in the second example, but not the first. In the first you willingly put yourself in an environment where you know there is a severe supply limitation. You wouldn't go to a poor tribal island which has one water source, and then accuse them of leveraging you when they demand $20 for a bottle of water. That's just the market's rationing system.
Now this "leverage" thing could arise in the case of some evil food monopoly which extorts the customer. I'll accept that, and in that situation we could discuss what rational decision the consumer makes. Surely, he values being alive and not starving to death more than the $1000 dollars for the loaf of bread. So he still gains in a technical sense from the interaction. However, without a supply shortage we would feel such a price is 'unfair'.
Fortunately, there has never been a natural monopoly on the free market. Near-monopolies have never exhibiting this pricing behavior. In fact, there's no good economic benefit for the company to do so. It's the great scare tactic you always hear, but it just doesn't exist unfortunately. Llama has more technical knowledge with regards to this than I do. Maybe he could make some things more lucid. |
I would argue that the two situations are only a matter of degree. The movie theater is not a natural supply shortage, the theater is using their ownership rights to change the nature of the monetary transaction. Which is in their rights, but is still leverage. BTW, all the theaters near here attempt to ban outside food, and of course ballparks and amusement parks include this as part of their "security" checks.
I have a vision of what "natural monopoly on the free market" means but I'm not sure if we have the same thing in mind. Similarly, entities with various level of near-monopolies inflate prices all the time, though to do so to scandalous levels would cut their own throats most of the time I agree.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Greg W
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 3904
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 17:45 |
Epignosis wrote:
Chris S wrote:
In the modern world and hopefully more tolerant world, sexual preference should have no bearing on whether military or federal parties agree or disagree. Either soldier I would be proud to stand next to in a line of battle. They deserve medals just for showing up for their country regardless whether they are gay or hetero or where they are going and why? Democarts may not agree on Iraq etc but every soldier has the governments full backing. The army should not decide on sexual preference either, that is wrong, they just need to spend their budget dollars more wisely in managing ' digs"
ps: Non citizen/permanet resident POV  |
You would stand next to a gay solider, fine.
Would you shower with one?
|
If he was hot, hell yeah!
|
|
Greg W
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 3904
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 17:50 |
JLocke wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Bullsh*t.
The military doesn't enable you to express yourself. The military teaches you to march in step, wear the same clothes as everyone else, and be on a strict schedule. If you sign up, you become a clone when you wear those army greens. And that's an important aspect of being a solider.
Did you know religious soldiers aren't allowed to proselytize while they are deployed? Should they be allowed to be who they are in the course of military duty?
|
I'm not saying we should let the gays go have gay sex whenever they feel like it while in the service. But to lie about who they are? Surely you can see the difference, here. It's not about expressing yourself, it's about feeling comfortable in your own skin during your service time. I guarantee you that a few closeted gay soldiers had a lot more inner torment going on than their openly straight brothers in arms. You don't think that can affect how you perform or your self-respect?
|
Why not. It worked for the Spartans, and they were badasses. It seems to me, if you actually LOVE your fellow soldier you would fight that more tanaciously for them.
|
|
Greg W
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 3904
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 17:57 |
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Bullsh*t.
The military doesn't enable you to express yourself. The military teaches you to march in step, wear the same clothes as everyone else, and be on a strict schedule. If you sign up, you become a clone when you wear those army greens. And that's an important aspect of being a solider.
Did you know religious soldiers aren't allowed to proselytize while they are deployed? Should they be allowed to be who they are in the course of military duty?
|
I'm not saying we should let the gays go have gay sex whenever they feel like it while in the service. But to lie about who they are? Surely you can see the difference, here. It's not about expressing yourself, it's about feeling comfortable in your own skin during your service time. I guarantee you that a few closeted gay soldiers had a lot more inner torment going on than their openly straight brothers in arms. You don't think that can affect how you perform or your self-respect?
|
You missed what I just said.
An aspect of being in the military- which people voluntarily sign up for- is conformity. If you can't handle that, you don't belong.
|
What if they're really good at being soldiers. It seems to me " A few good men" could very well be gay people as well.
|
|
Greg W
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 3904
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 18:07 |
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
My fears? I don't fear gay people.Should women and men in the military shower together? Why or why not? |
No.
Not all men in the shower would be gay, though. It's a different scenario.
It's complex. But I would've guessed freedom would be first for you, wouldn't it? What freedom is there if one's forced to hide behind a curtain of secrecy, behind a lie?
It'd be better then if there was a requisite to join the army: "be straight". |
See my previous post. When you join the military, a good bit of your freedoms go out the window. That's why I'm opposed to the draft. You know what you are getting into. Don't like it? Work elsewhere. |
Good. Then you agree with the requirement. "Be straight". It has to be written I think.
You are forcing people to lie. You know what happens when men get together? They talk about "manly stuff". All gays in the army will have to pretend they're something else, and everytime they do, they're lying, to protect themselves.
Nobody is asking "free gay sex in the army. Let soldiers f**k each other". But if a soldier wants to say "sorry I'm gay man" that should be his right. Everywhere. |
T, really? You're kind of making yourself look silly, as though you haven't been paying attention.
You go from one extreme to the other. Don't ask means you don't ask. Don't tell means you don't tell. This means when you are serving with someone else, you don't know if they are gay or straight. This is not forcing anyone to lie. It's forcing people to shut up about something. What's wrong with that? How do gay people have to pretend to be something they aren't? In other words, what must they do differently in the course of their duties as soldiers than they would if DADT didn't exist?
What if they shut up, but somehow are outed while on shore leave by being discovered sleeping with a member of the same sex. When the military finds out, it is immediate Discharge, and oftentimes DisHonourable Discharge. What if they were an exceptional soldier? Is that fair?
Don't Ask, Don't Tell means lets just sweep it under the carpet and ignore that homosexuals are all around us everywhere. Even in the military. Sugarcoat it however you like, but it is still Intolerance.
Edited by Greg W - September 15 2010 at 20:19
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 18:08 |
Epignosis wrote:
Bullsh*t.
The military doesn't enable you to express yourself. The military teaches you to march in step, wear the same clothes as everyone else, and be on a strict schedule. If you sign up, you become a clone when you wear those army greens. And that's an important aspect of being a solider.
Did you know religious soldiers aren't allowed to proselytize while they are deployed? Should they be allowed to be who they are in the course of military duty?
|
Wait, maybe I'm missing something? What you said is 100% true and isn't that why gays should be allowed to serve? You may not express yourself, you give up all to the army, become what they want and serve their purpose. Basically you are a clone. So, as long as they pass whatever physical tests are needed why not let them serve? They will be molded into what the military needs. The military service usurps all to serve their purpose. Seems like a good reason to let them serve IMHO
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 19:07 |
Dean wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
It is generally not in a monopolies best interest to charge an unreasonably high price, because there always exists some amount of price elasticity, that is, the quantity demanded goes down as price goes up. Even in the bread example (which Pat correctly states would never happen in real life) there would be some people who would be unable to pay the high price, even if they were willing. Therefore a monopoly does not increase its profits by raising prices indefinitely. A monopoly will charge a higher price than the competitive market, yes, but usually not insanely higher. |
I don't completely agree with this analysis - the price increases would be incremental and gradual so the consumer would not notice the higher price until long after their "pain" threshold have been passed - if this commodity was a staple or a necessity then non-essential items would have gradually dropped off the shopping list to compensate for the subsequent overall increase in the weekly bill. |
What do you mean people don't notice when prices go up? Of course they do. If the cheese I buy goes from $2.99 to $3.09, I will notice, and I will buy less of it. Sure, some people have enough money to disregard prices almost entirely, but I think the majority notice when there food bill goes up, even by a little.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 19:34 |
|
Blessed are the cheesemakers...
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 20:54 |
thellama73 wrote:
Dean wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
It is generally not in a monopolies best interest to charge an unreasonably high price, because there always exists some amount of price elasticity, that is, the quantity demanded goes down as price goes up. Even in the bread example (which Pat correctly states would never happen in real life) there would be some people who would be unable to pay the high price, even if they were willing. Therefore a monopoly does not increase its profits by raising prices indefinitely. A monopoly will charge a higher price than the competitive market, yes, but usually not insanely higher. |
I don't completely agree with this analysis - the price increases would be incremental and gradual so the consumer would not notice the higher price until long after their "pain" threshold have been passed - if this commodity was a staple or a necessity then non-essential items would have gradually dropped off the shopping list to compensate for the subsequent overall increase in the weekly bill. |
What do you mean people don't notice when prices go up? Of course they do. If the cheese I buy goes from $2.99 to $3.09, I will notice, and I will buy less of it. Sure, some people have enough money to disregard prices almost entirely, but I think the majority notice when there food bill goes up, even by a little.
|
People will tolerate increasing degrees of difficult or pain if it is slow and incremental (whether they consciously notice or not doesn't necessarily matter). In other words, you might grumble at the price of cheese, but if your routine is one slice on your lunch sandwich every day, you'll pay the dime and would be unlikely to change your buying habits unless someone else was selling an equivalent product for less.
In the current "free market" sellers with market share frequently try to destroy the forces of the market to decrease competition and to increase leverage. I'm still thinking about what that means.
Diversity in ecologic systems is like competition in the free market, in general the system is going to be more robust with more diversity/competition. But I think it is a natural aspect of systems that they simplify, stabilitze, and eventually stagnate. Environmental conditions change, eventually the less diverse and less adaptable system collapses, and a new period of diversity (and more chaotic phenomena) occurs. Traces of the old steady state move forward...
Just thinking out loud...long day.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 21:08 |
Negoba wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I was going to touch on that in my post, but I omitted it. So now I'll go into it.
I'll agree with your use of leverage in the second example, but not the first. In the first you willingly put yourself in an environment where you know there is a severe supply limitation. You wouldn't go to a poor tribal island which has one water source, and then accuse them of leveraging you when they demand $20 for a bottle of water. That's just the market's rationing system.
Now this "leverage" thing could arise in the case of some evil food monopoly which extorts the customer. I'll accept that, and in that situation we could discuss what rational decision the consumer makes. Surely, he values being alive and not starving to death more than the $1000 dollars for the loaf of bread. So he still gains in a technical sense from the interaction. However, without a supply shortage we would feel such a price is 'unfair'.
Fortunately, there has never been a natural monopoly on the free market. Near-monopolies have never exhibiting this pricing behavior. In fact, there's no good economic benefit for the company to do so. It's the great scare tactic you always hear, but it just doesn't exist unfortunately. Llama has more technical knowledge with regards to this than I do. Maybe he could make some things more lucid. |
I would argue that the two situations are only a matter of degree. The movie theater is not a natural supply shortage, the theater is using their ownership rights to change the nature of the monetary transaction. Which is in their rights, but is still leverage. BTW, all the theaters near here attempt to ban outside food, and of course ballparks and amusement parks include this as part of their "security" checks.
I have a vision of what "natural monopoly on the free market" means but I'm not sure if we have the same thing in mind. Similarly, entities with various level of near-monopolies inflate prices all the time, though to do so to scandalous levels would cut their own throats most of the time I agree.
|
It's not natural, but it's a supply shortage. Further, it's a supply shortage you willingly put yourself into. I don't see how it compares to the other example
I use that term to distinguish between a natural monopoly which comes about through market processes, and an artificial monopoly such as when government prevents corporations from entering the market. The Post Office's monopoly on mail delivery would be an example of the latter.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 21:10 |
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Dean wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
It is generally not in a monopolies best interest to charge an unreasonably high price, because there always exists some amount of price elasticity, that is, the quantity demanded goes down as price goes up. Even in the bread example (which Pat correctly states would never happen in real life) there would be some people who would be unable to pay the high price, even if they were willing. Therefore a monopoly does not increase its profits by raising prices indefinitely. A monopoly will charge a higher price than the competitive market, yes, but usually not insanely higher. |
I don't completely agree with this analysis - the price increases would be incremental and gradual so the consumer would not notice the higher price until long after their "pain" threshold have been passed - if this commodity was a staple or a necessity then non-essential items would have gradually dropped off the shopping list to compensate for the subsequent overall increase in the weekly bill. |
What do you mean people don't notice when prices go up? Of course they do. If the cheese I buy goes from $2.99 to $3.09, I will notice, and I will buy less of it. Sure, some people have enough money to disregard prices almost entirely, but I think the majority notice when there food bill goes up, even by a little.
|
People will tolerate increasing degrees of difficult or pain if it is slow and incremental (whether they consciously notice or not doesn't necessarily matter). In other words, you might grumble at the price of cheese, but if your routine is one slice on your lunch sandwich every day, you'll pay the dime and would be unlikely to change your buying habits unless someone else was selling an equivalent product for less.
In the current "free market" sellers with market share frequently try to destroy the forces of the market to decrease competition and to increase leverage. I'm still thinking about what that means.
Diversity in ecologic systems is like competition in the free market, in general the system is going to be more robust with more diversity/competition. But I think it is a natural aspect of systems that they simplify, stabilitze, and eventually stagnate. Environmental conditions change, eventually the less diverse and less adaptable system collapses, and a new period of diversity (and more chaotic phenomena) occurs. Traces of the old steady state move forward...
Just thinking out loud...long day. |
There are always some number of people who are already paying the maximum amount that they are willing to pay for any given good. If the price increases at all, those people will stop consuming it. Granted, most people would be willing to pay more, but not everybody. Dean seems to be claiming that a price increase (unless quite dramatic) will have no effect on the quantity of a good demanded, which flies in the face of all economic data on price elasticity ever collected.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 21:12 |
Negoba wrote:
People will tolerate increasing degrees of difficult or pain if it is slow and incremental (whether they consciously notice or not doesn't necessarily matter). In other words, you might grumble at the price of cheese, but if your routine is one slice on your lunch sandwich every day, you'll pay the dime and would be unlikely to change your buying habits unless someone else was selling an equivalent product for less.
|
People judge budgets in absolute terms. So yes they will notice incremental change.
Since substitutes exist for nearly every product on the market, people have no incentive to tolerate even incremental changes in price.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10679
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 21:42 |
thellama73 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Dean wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
It is generally not in a monopolies best interest to charge an unreasonably high price, because there always exists some amount of price elasticity, that is, the quantity demanded goes down as price goes up. Even in the bread example (which Pat correctly states would never happen in real life) there would be some people who would be unable to pay the high price, even if they were willing. Therefore a monopoly does not increase its profits by raising prices indefinitely. A monopoly will charge a higher price than the competitive market, yes, but usually not insanely higher. |
I don't completely agree with this analysis - the price increases would be incremental and gradual so the consumer would not notice the higher price until long after their "pain" threshold have been passed - if this commodity was a staple or a necessity then non-essential items would have gradually dropped off the shopping list to compensate for the subsequent overall increase in the weekly bill. |
What do you mean people don't notice when prices go up? Of course they do. If the cheese I buy goes from $2.99 to $3.09, I will notice, and I will buy less of it. Sure, some people have enough money to disregard prices almost entirely, but I think the majority notice when there food bill goes up, even by a little. |
People will tolerate increasing degrees of difficult or pain if it is slow and incremental (whether they consciously notice or not doesn't necessarily matter). In other words, you might grumble at the price of cheese, but if your routine is one slice on your lunch sandwich every day, you'll pay the dime and would be unlikely to change your buying habits unless someone else was selling an equivalent product for less. In the current "free market" sellers with market share frequently try to destroy the forces of the market to decrease competition and to increase leverage. I'm still thinking about what that means. Diversity in ecologic systems is like competition in the free market, in general the system is going to be more robust with more diversity/competition. But I think it is a natural aspect of systems that they simplify, stabilitze, and eventually stagnate. Environmental conditions change, eventually the less diverse and less adaptable system collapses, and a new period of diversity (and more chaotic phenomena) occurs. Traces of the old steady state move forward... Just thinking out loud...long day. |
There are always some number of people who are already paying the maximum amount that they are willing to pay for any given good. If the price increases at all, those people will stop consuming it. Granted, most people would be willing to pay more, but not everybody.Dean seems to be claiming that a price increase (unless quite dramatic) will have no effect on the quantity of a good demanded, which flies in the face of all economic data on price elasticity ever collected. |
This point would be more valid if you could provide the alleged "economic data ever collected", but I bet that is a fabrication.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 22:01 |
Easy Money wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Dean wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
It is generally not in a monopolies best interest to charge an unreasonably high price, because there always exists some amount of price elasticity, that is, the quantity demanded goes down as price goes up. Even in the bread example (which Pat correctly states would never happen in real life) there would be some people who would be unable to pay the high price, even if they were willing. Therefore a monopoly does not increase its profits by raising prices indefinitely. A monopoly will charge a higher price than the competitive market, yes, but usually not insanely higher. |
I don't completely agree with this analysis - the price increases would be incremental and gradual so the consumer would not notice the higher price until long after their "pain" threshold have been passed - if this commodity was a staple or a necessity then non-essential items would have gradually dropped off the shopping list to compensate for the subsequent overall increase in the weekly bill. |
What do you mean people don't notice when prices go up? Of course they do. If the cheese I buy goes from $2.99 to $3.09, I will notice, and I will buy less of it. Sure, some people have enough money to disregard prices almost entirely, but I think the majority notice when there food bill goes up, even by a little. |
People will tolerate increasing degrees of difficult or pain if it is slow and incremental (whether they consciously notice or not doesn't necessarily matter). In other words, you might grumble at the price of cheese, but if your routine is one slice on your lunch sandwich every day, you'll pay the dime and would be unlikely to change your buying habits unless someone else was selling an equivalent product for less. In the current "free market" sellers with market share frequently try to destroy the forces of the market to decrease competition and to increase leverage. I'm still thinking about what that means. Diversity in ecologic systems is like competition in the free market, in general the system is going to be more robust with more diversity/competition. But I think it is a natural aspect of systems that they simplify, stabilitze, and eventually stagnate. Environmental conditions change, eventually the less diverse and less adaptable system collapses, and a new period of diversity (and more chaotic phenomena) occurs. Traces of the old steady state move forward... Just thinking out loud...long day. |
There are always some number of people who are already paying the maximum amount that they are willing to pay for any given good. If the price increases at all, those people will stop consuming it. Granted, most people would be willing to pay more, but not everybody.Dean seems to be claiming that a price increase (unless quite dramatic) will have no effect on the quantity of a good demanded, which flies in the face of all economic data on price elasticity ever collected. |
This point would be more valid if you could provide the alleged "economic data ever collected", but I bet that is a fabrication. |
It is obvious beyond my power to produce all economic data ever, but I can produce a smattering. I think you can extrapolate from this, this, this, and this.Any good with a price elasticity not equal to zero responds to price changes, even small ones. The price elasticity is the % change in quantity demanded over the % change in price. Elasticities will always be negative numbers, but sometimes the minus sign is dropped for convenience.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 23:11 |
JJLehto wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Bullsh*t.
The military doesn't enable you to express yourself. The military teaches you to march in step, wear the same clothes as everyone else, and be on a strict schedule. If you sign up, you become a clone when you wear those army greens. And that's an important aspect of being a solider.
Did you know religious soldiers aren't allowed to proselytize while they are deployed? Should they be allowed to be who they are in the course of military duty?
|
Wait, maybe I'm missing something?
What you said is 100% true and isn't that why gays should be allowed to serve?
You may not express yourself, you give up all to the army, become what they want and serve their purpose.
Basically you are a clone.
So, as long as they pass whatever physical tests are needed why not let them serve? They will be molded into what the military needs.
The military service usurps all to serve their purpose.
Seems like a good reason to let them serve IMHO
|
Hi JJ. Didn't you notice? This thread is about economics now. 
I would encourage you to read all my posts before coming to a judgment of my opinion on the matter (unlike our new...old?... friend Greg W up there, who also doesn't know much about US military code of conduct), but since you're a pal of mine around here, I'll pass this post along to clarify what my position is:
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Perhaps some perspective on the policy:
Democrat
Harry Truman established procedures for discharging homosexuals in the
US military (The Uniform Code of Military Justice signed in 1950).
Bill
Clinton passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," meaning that the Armed Forces
could no longer inquire about a recruit's sexual orientation. Clinton
supported this measure due to the harassment and hazing of gay
personnel.
(Incidentally, Chairman of the Armed Services
Committee at the time, the Democrat Sam Nunn, favored the full ban on
gays, while his predecessor, Republican Barry Goldwater, favored lifting
the ban altogether. And then you have Nunn's successor, Strom
Thurmond... )
In
other words, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a compromise that allowed
homosexuals entry into the US military. Just as there are a plethora of
questions job interviewers cannot legally ask you, the military could
not inquire about a person's sexual preference. The main difference
here is the "don't tell" aspect.
Like it or not, political change
happens incredibly slowly most of the time. Almost nothing happens
overnight. Just a few months ago, Obama and Congress were considering a new compromise to repealing DADT. The question is, do you "laud the measure for its conciliation or vilify it for its shortcomings?"
For the record, I don't have a problem with DADT going away- I have a huge problem with how it happened.
|
No, you're going to have to forgive me for being dim and not fully understanding what you are saying.
(I get that this is not a partisan Democrats vs. Republicans thing and that LCR is a pro LGBT Republican organisation)
Do you want DADT to go away so that gays cannot serve in the US
military or do you want DADT to go away so they can server in the US
military?
The "huge problem with how it happend" ... is that a problem in how
Clinton passed the legislation, or in how LCR made it unconstitutional? |
I
think banning gays from serving in the military is outrageous. I see
DADT as a stepping stone for allowing gays to serve without fear (for
all the measure's flaws- even 6 years after the passing of DADT, Clinton
himself said it was a flawed policy). But it was progress, and I don't
see DADT as the horrific thing so many here see it as.
My
problem with how it happened is in my first post on this topic: the
judicial system here in the US. We have a Constitution that places
limits on the government. Yet unelected, government-appointed judges
have the power of interpreting the Constitution. LCR didn't make
anything unconstitutional. Something is either unconstitutional or it
isn't. DADT has been upheld 5 times in federal courts, and now a
federal judge in CA has ruled it as unconstitutional. My problem isn't
with this DADT case specifically, but with how unelected judges in this
country ultimately hold the trump card and that our checks and balances
are an illusion.
|
For those who missed it (Greg W), my position is that gay people should be permitted to serve in the military if they so choose and are fit.
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 23:16 |
Actually I did notice that Rob I would say how on Earth did you get from don't ask don't tell to economics...but it is you guys. This is why I love you. And yes, I grossly misinterpreted your beliefs. Apologies. Will I continue to read just very small parts of the convo? Yup I'm free as a bird and this bird you can not change. Lord knows I can't change! Since we agree, and yall are discussing economics...spose Im out
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 16 2010 at 01:01 |
I didn't realize people actually doubted a non-zero price elasticity of demand until this thread on the military's policy on homosexual's.
Strange how you learn things.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 16 2010 at 02:41 |
thellama73 wrote:
Dean wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
It is generally not in a monopolies best interest to charge an unreasonably high price, because there always exists some amount of price elasticity, that is, the quantity demanded goes down as price goes up. Even in the bread example (which Pat correctly states would never happen in real life) there would be some people who would be unable to pay the high price, even if they were willing. Therefore a monopoly does not increase its profits by raising prices indefinitely. A monopoly will charge a higher price than the competitive market, yes, but usually not insanely higher. |
I don't completely agree with this analysis - the price increases would be incremental and gradual so the consumer would not notice the higher price until long after their "pain" threshold have been passed - if this commodity was a staple or a necessity then non-essential items would have gradually dropped off the shopping list to compensate for the subsequent overall increase in the weekly bill. |
What do you mean people don't notice when prices go up? Of course they do. If the cheese I buy goes from $2.99 to $3.09, I will notice, and I will buy less of it. Sure, some people have enough money to disregard prices almost entirely, but I think the majority notice when there food bill goes up, even by a little.
|
Cheese is bought by weight not price - if the price per pound increases by 3% you won't buy 3% less cheese you will still buy 8oz and not 7ľoz or 0oz - this is true whether you buy your cheese loose from a cheese shop or pre-packed from the supermarket. Bread is sold by the loaf, not by the slice - you either buy bread or you don't - you cannot by 97% of a loaf. A weekly shop is not 100 minor shopping expeditions to buy 100 individual items - it's a one-stop fill the trolley, pay and leave situation - people do not price-check every item - if their bill this week is more than last week then next week they'll down-grade one or more of the luxuries (or can justify paying the higher price for bread if they have a coupon for 3˘ off a tin of baked beans), but they'll still buy bread and cheese. Of course there is still a limit on how much people will pay for bread and cheese, (notice I said "I don't completely agree" not "I completely disagree"), but they won't consciously notice which individual items have caused the overall increase in the weekly shopping bill as they occur.
|
|
What?
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 16 2010 at 02:59 |
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Deemed Unconstitutional