ANOTHER TAKEOVER

[motoman]

Well, boobala , you really know how to push buttons. Doesn't this belong on the "front porch" section. At least the responders are putting a little glitter into the "dismal science." :smile:

 

[Shughes717]

According to what I found with a little searching there was $84 billion in corn subsidies and $12 billion in direct payments to farmers from 1995-2012. That doesn't include other subsides such as cotton.

One farmer that I had found had received $3.6 million is government subsidies from 1995-2012

As I have said, my entire family has farmed for generations. Never received any money from the government. Only money paid was for the crops we harvested. There are some tax breaks for items purchased for farm purchases, but other than that I don't recall my grand father, father, uncles, or brother ever receiving a check from the government. My great grandfather was retired by the time I was old enough to work on the farm, so I can't say about him.

I do understand that subsidies are out there, but not all farmers get them. As a matter of fact the vast majority of farmers don't receive them. The subsidies are there to encourage farmers to grow crops by guaranteeing a price floor on the crop.

 

[Lohman446]

The Free Market may very well be a myth in Australia; I wouldn't know.

But here in the States, with the exception of our health care system, it is alive and well, in spite of those who try to stop it.

I'm suspicious of just how true that statement is. Adam Smith in originally discussing the principles of a free market argued that a market would regulate itself when both the seller and buyer could enter and exit the market with minimum costs and interference. I do not think he could have imagined a market-place where the cost of entry (both financial and in terms of regulation) was as high for the seller as many of the markets today (it's not likely that I can compete with the Briggs and Stratton group by making zero-turn mowers in my garage to sell). I don't mean to advocate for something else but the statement that the US operates in a truly free-market is highly suspect.

 

[cpurvis]

I'm suspicious of just how true that statement is. Adam Smith in originally discussing the principles of a free market argued that a market would regulate itself when both the seller and buyer could enter and exit the market with minimum costs and interference. I do not think he could have imagined a market-place where the cost of entry (both financial and in terms of regulation) was as high for the seller as many of the markets today (it's not likely that I can compete with the Briggs and Stratton group by making zero-turn mowers in my garage to sell). I don't mean to advocate for something else but the statement that the US operates in a truly free-market is highly suspect.

Have you not made any free market purchases lately? Have you not bought or sold a good or service from someone off of, say, craigslist, in which you two arrived at a mutually agreed upon price?

What kind of market is that, if not free?

I'm not getting the connection that, because you personally can't open up a business that will be competitive with Briggs and Stratton, that the market is 'rigged.' Nowhere in any economics book will you find a definition of 'Free Market' which insists that any person, no matter how poor, should be able to open a business and compete with all businesses in that field, no matter what size those businesses may be. But there are examples of it happening if you care to look. Southwest Airlines, Apple, Microsoft and Walmart come to mind.

You're right in that government interference is a factor. But the market forces are alive and well and many startups succeed in spite of the government. Government interference rarely affects personal transactions which is where a HUGE portion of the economy takes place.

 

[Lohman446]

Have you not made any free market purchases lately? Have you not bought or sold a good or service from someone off of, say, craigslist, in which you two arrived at a mutually agreed upon price?

What kind of market is that, if not free?

I'm not getting the connection that, because you personally can't open up a business that will be competitive with Briggs and Stratton, that the market is 'rigged.' Nowhere in any economics book will you find a definition of 'Free Market' which insists that any person, no matter how poor, should be able to open a business and compete with all businesses in that field, no matter what size those businesses may be. But there are examples of it happening if you care to look. Southwest Airlines, Apple, Microsoft and Walmart come to mind.

You're right in that government interference is a factor. But the market forces are alive and well and many startups succeed in spite of the government. Government interference rarely affects personal transactions which is where a HUGE portion of the economy takes place.

Perhaps the market is, to some degree, free. The argument is that for the market to self regulate (the term I should have used) that the costs to enter, or exit, have to be relatively minimal. If the barriers to new sellers entering the market are too high (and that includes financial barriers) than the market will not regulate because those who would increase the supply do not have the resources to enter the marketplace. My argument is that the free market system described my Adam Smith did not account for massive players that could use financial resources (either resources they had or an extremely high entrance cost for the sellers) to keep other players from entering the market.

/I'm new here and likely finding the edge of the allowance in the rules for lack of political discussion. I have tried to keep the discussion about historical references to how a free market works in comparison to today's marketplace (driven largely by an increase in technology which is useful). It is not my intent to take any political stance on the subject other than to note that what we perceive as a self regulating free market may not be to the degree we think it is.

 

[cpurvis]

In every example I cited above, there were massive players who could have (and some tried) to keep others out of their field.

 

[Kial]

It's probably not a bad idea. I think more and more companies like these are being driven towards mergers to try and remain competitive. I know people assume that there will be less competitive pricing because of it but the reality is that getting products from China is easier than ever so these local companies still need to sharpen their pencils if they want to make sales.

 

[willys55]

I never buy anything that is made in china, I only buy USA, Germany and England...in that order. I believe in quality not quantity and I never buy from companies who only focus on profits above consumer.

 

[cashman]

One way the big guys run the smaller guys out is through Government safety and emission regulations. You go back thirty or forty years ago there are a small percentage of manufacturers now as then.

 

[primerbulb120]

My mowers are made in the US, my trimmer and one blower are made in Sweden, edger made in Germany, hedge trimmer in Japan and chainsaw in Mexico.

I buy lots of parts from China though.