It's a given that there was opposition, but to my limited knowledge Canada's supply managed dairy and poultry sectors worked fairly well ... on a domestic scale. [Once international trade was considered, being next to the USA didn't work in our favor.] One of our drawbacks was that management didn't [maybe couldn't ???] prevent value being placed on quota, under-the-table. The Canadian Dairy Commission apparently knew enough about producers' costs to make it work [at least domestically] ... it prevented what, at the time, was euphemistically called a "race to the bottom."
It was before my time, but I've heard of producers shooting their calves because the open-market didn't pay enough to cover the shipping costs... so IF that's true .... ??? The producer controlled grain co-operatives in Western Canada came about largely due to the jiggery pokery of the private grain companies, so far as I know.
It seems to me that both the open market and price/wage controls have their flaws.
I kinda recall some rural wisdom (?) something to the effect that: Farmers are the world's greatest capitalists in good times, and its greatest socialists when times are bad.
Edited by - Owen on 10/05/2024 10:04:45
quote:
Originally posted by Owen
It was before my time, but I've heard of producers shooting their calves because the open-market didn't pay enough to cover the shipping costs... so IF that's true .... ??? The producer controlled grain co-operatives in Western Canada came about largely due to the jiggery pokery of the private grain companies, so far as I know.
Steve would know better than I, but if I recall correctly, much of the Maine lobster industry involves cooperatives, and may very well have come about for much the same reason.
I have only passing familiarity with co-ops, but they do strike me as a reasonable way for producers (farmers, fishermen) to get a reasonable share of the pie.
“ It was through this period that farmers mounted a critique of the status quo in grain marketing, handling and transportation, and eventually forged both a new and almost unique Western Canadian cooperative philosophy and new institutions to give expression to that philosophy. The movement began in earnest with the formation of the Territorial Grain Growers Association (TGGA) in 1902, and culminated in the formation of the Canadian Wheat Board in 1935. The provincial Grain Growers Associations to which the TGGA gave birth were, at their inception, peopled by classic liberals. Sharp correctly identifies their goals, shared by their American counterparts, as being “to strengthen capitalism by saving small enterprise from destruction [and] to wrest possession of the government from plutocracy, and to use it for democratic ... ends.” (p. 42)
Later, however, these same groups began to see the open grain market as being manipulated by speculators and exploitive of farmers. Deeply influenced by the market control exercised by the federal government during the First World War, farmers began to develop a cooperative philosophy that was largely hostile to market economics and highly interventionist in approach. (p. 81) Increasingly, they saw a “single desk” seller of western grains as a means to circumvent the market and establish a stable price reflecting the “true” value of their product. ”
https://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/37/agrarianrevolt.shtml
Edited by - chuckv97 on 10/05/2024 12:10:47
quote:
Originally posted by eagleislandquote:
Originally posted by steve davisThere need to be limits on what can be charged for something.
Anything allowed with no parameters is extremely reckless and unfair.
We can't set our own limits because this can disregard the needs of our neighbors.
When we set prices it should be done with everyone's interests at heart.Steve, that's been tried numerous times in the past, in a variety of different product/service categories.
It almost never works over the long haul. In fact, it often results in scarcity of the products and services with the price controls set upon them. It also tends to create great power for those doing the controlling, which all-too-often leads to corruption.
What you're advocating is morality and human decency. That's noble. Market forces aren't immoral - they're AMORAL. They work irrespective of philosophical values. Although that can seem cruel, history shows them to be the most efficient way to get things where they're wanted or needed.
Since they've tried in the past maybe they can learn how to improve their effort.
quote:
Originally posted by steve davisquote:
Originally posted by eagleislandquote:
Originally posted by steve davisThere need to be limits on what can be charged for something.
Anything allowed with no parameters is extremely reckless and unfair.
We can't set our own limits because this can disregard the needs of our neighbors.
When we set prices it should be done with everyone's interests at heart.Steve, that's been tried numerous times in the past, in a variety of different product/service categories.
It almost never works over the long haul. In fact, it often results in scarcity of the products and services with the price controls set upon them. It also tends to create great power for those doing the controlling, which all-too-often leads to corruption.
What you're advocating is morality and human decency. That's noble. Market forces aren't immoral - they're AMORAL. They work irrespective of philosophical values. Although that can seem cruel, history shows them to be the most efficient way to get things where they're wanted or needed.
Since they've tried in the past maybe they can learn how to improve their effort.
Who sets the prices of yer banjo bridges..?
When I’m busking I give my product (banjo music) freely , and consumers are free to pay (donate) what they want or not at all. A perfect utopian balance.
I set the price,Al.
I figure how much time it takes to make one.
Right now I'm not making any because of the major issues with my sight.
6 hospital visits by the end of January and hoping to get back in business.
I would like to raise the price to help make up for the down time,but that wouldn't be the right thing to do.
quote:
Originally posted by steve davisSince they've tried in the past maybe they can learn how to improve their effort.
I could reply with a point that I won't make because it would violate the BHO rules regarding politics.
Instead, I'll simply state that there have been many, many attempts at price controls over time - even entire nations and governance systems - and they pretty much universally fail. Sometimes the results are disappointing. Sometimes, they are truly catastrophic.
Economics is an interesting field. Economics experts don't just look at the numbers - they look at the human behaviors that drive, and subsequently, result from the numbers. And they draw conclusions accordingly.
There's a reason that the field of economics is called "The Dismal Science." However much we might argue an economic policy based on our personal ideals, the results often prove dismal because they fail to consider they myriad factors in play. And history shows that price controls have proven among the most dismal of all.
Edited by - eagleisland on 10/05/2024 15:58:35
Gotta Love Skip... :0)
quote:
Originally posted by steve davisI set the price,Al.
I figure how much time it takes to make one.
Right now I'm not making any because of the major issues with my sight.
6 hospital visits by the end of January and hoping to get back in business.
I would like to raise the price to help make up for the down time,but that wouldn't be the right thing to do.
But it would be good fer the Magistrate..deemed that you could do them at zero proffit.. or tell you what you are worth ..that would be good ..no..
N..i know..that you know ..i think you make great bridges.. n are worth more than you ask for them... ;0)
Skip: " Market forces aren't immoral - they're AMORAL."
I'm no economist ... are "market forces" the result of actions/decisions by people? ...or are they an independent entity?
quote:
Originally posted by OwenSkip: " Market forces aren't immoral - they're AMORAL."
I'm no economist ... are "market forces" the result of actions/decisions by people? ...or are they an independent entity?
I'm not an economist either, though I take have several economics classes in school. I found them very interesting.
As to your question: I would say they are the result of actions and decisions by people. Let me add that the very idea of an independent, mystical entity of some sort controlling transactions makes my head hurt.
Market forces are the sum total of all the decisions made by buyers and sellers. The "invisible hand" is no mystical entity; if is called that because the result of millions of independent decisions always produces better outcomes than that of central planing, as if there were some wise entity managing the outcomes, which of course is the opposite of what is happening.
quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-eMarket forces are the sum total of all the decisions made by buyers and sellers. The "invisible hand" is no mystical entity; if is called that because the result of millions of independent decisions always produces better outcomes than that of central planing, as if there were some wise entity managing the outcomes, which of course is the opposite of what is happening.
In a world where 3 investment firms have a majority stake in 90% of fortune 500 companies, and large mega-corporations control the vast majority of international commerce and information outlets, the idea of "market forces" is quite quaint. This is the epitome of central planning. In fact, the only thing that prevents "market forces" from ending in indentured servitude is some level of oversight as humanity has routinely demonstrated. Up until recently, when legislation was used as a tool, Asthma medication that was $35 over the counter in Canada was over $600 in the US. Market forces ask the question "how much can we force someone to pay for something that they absolutely need?" The effective elimination of competition leaves that answer to the actuaries to determine where the best profit margin is between drug costs/saving lives.
Edited by - South Jersey Mike on 10/06/2024 14:11:56
quote:
Originally posted by South Jersey Mikequote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-eMarket forces are the sum total of all the decisions made by buyers and sellers. The "invisible hand" is no mystical entity; if is called that because the result of millions of independent decisions always produces better outcomes than that of central planing, as if there were some wise entity managing the outcomes, which of course is the opposite of what is happening.
In a world where 3 investment firms have a majority stake in 90% of fortune 500 companies, and large mega-corporations control the vast majority of international commerce and information outlets, the idea of "market forces" is quite quaint. This is the epitome of central planning. In fact, the only thing that prevents "market forces" from ending in indentured servitude is some level of oversight as humanity has routinely demonstrated. Up until recently, when legislation was used as a tool, Asthma medication that was $35 over the counter in Canada was over $600 in the US. Market forces ask the question "how much can we force someone to pay for something that they absolutely need?" The effective elimination of competition leaves that answer to the actuaries to determine where the best profit margin is between drug costs/saving lives.
This is the epitome of central planning. In fact,
Sounds like a conspiracy..
N..you are..
Probly correct...
Another recent novelty with all these venture capitol firms is buying up mobile home parks and jacking up the rents ... because they know full well the tenants are unable to afford to go anywhere, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. No market forces at work, just greed. Do some homework and you'll find a very small number of VC firms gobbling them up all over the US. The same goes for homes (not mobile) ... VC firms are gobbling up houses in large quantities throughout the US ... for the same reasons ... it seems that the only "market forces" at work are their billions of dollars to spend.
Price gouging? You bet.
How does the invisible hand decide when to move manufacturing plants to Mexico/Asia/?? ? 
quote:
Originally posted by OwenHow does the invisible hand decide when to move manufacturing plants to Mexico/Asia/?? ?
When the Labor is cheaper..n the rules are ..less..?
....yes, when labor is cheaper and/or where rules are less stringent; but how does the invisible hand make that decision? What process guides the invisible hand? 
quote:
Originally posted by Owen....yes, when labor is cheaper and/or where rules are less stringent; but how does the invisible hand make that decision? What process guides the invisible hand?
The answer was delivered by Banjo Bill-E in a previous post.
We are all driven by self-interest - specifically, the preservation of our species. Each species needs sufficient nutrition, each needs to live long enough the ensure reproduction, thence continuance of the species.
All successful forms of life are like this; some are in a position to do something about it. Trees and funguses, for example, don't have the ability to pack up and move if growing conditions are unfavorable due to drought. So over time, successful ones adapt the ability to store genetic material in such a way that once the rains come, the deserts bloom and the cycle repeats. Small bait fish species develop the instinct to form what are called bait balls: you get to the center of the cluster of fish when the predators come. The closer you are to the center, the less likely you are to become dinner. And so on.
Humans are the only (or one of the few - I don't know enough about other higher-intelligence species to speak definitively on this) species that act in ways beyond mere survival: we want a say in HOW we survive, and if given our druthers, we'll generally choose comfort and wealth.
But why? The answer is constant: because survival is easier when you've got both.
Our species is physically weak, and slow by comparison to that which would eat us. We evolved to take advantage of certain aspects of intellect and cunning that enable us to survive. It has worked pretty well, so far.
The decision to move plants to Mexico - or China - evolves from that, IMO. And it's no guarantee. We humans, as a species, may not always recognize that short-term gain doesn't necessarily mean long-term success - just as a a thirsty gazelle might have watched a riverbank for a long time and, having noted no ripples on the water that would indicate the presence of a crocodile, moves in for a drink.
Edited by - eagleisland on 10/06/2024 17:32:14
My rent’s gone up another 8%,, every year I have to sign a new lease and the 8% gets tacked on,, not 8% of my initial rent costs 4 years ago,, but 8% on top of last year’s rental cost…. Like compound interest. Like banjoy’s point,, shooting fish in a barrel cuz there are no cheaper places in town.
Thanks Skip ... I was kinda thinking that it was akin to saying things are in the state they are because of "the system." Eg. our health care is in a precarious position due to the system, our education is questionable because of the system, things in policing are less than optimal because of the system, you have mucho trouble getting a straight answer about a product because of the system, etc., etc.
Edit: When it comes to discussions on economics, what stands out for me is that apparently it's either/or .... there can be no middle ground. I don't see why that has to be ... forever. Why can't some dude that's just a wee bit smarter than me come along and figure out something better? How can it be that there is no scope for improvement over what we have?
Edited by - Owen on 10/06/2024 18:14:51
quote:
Originally posted by OwenThanks Skip ... I was kinda thinking that it was akin to saying things are in the state they are because of "the system." Eg. our health care is in a precarious position due to the system, our education is questionable because of the system, things in policing are less than optimal because of the system, you have mucho trouble getting a straight answer about a product because of the system, etc., etc.
Edit: When it comes to discussions on economics, what stands out for me is that apparently it's either/or .... there can be no middle ground. I don't see why that has to be ... forever. Why can't some dude that's just a wee bit smarter than me
Because human behavior has an infinite number of variables. On the macro scale, it's known what panics us - which can make a big bag of cash - and it's known what we desire. Which can also make a big bag of cash. What's far less-understood is the mixes of the two between the extremes. Those skilled in assessing aspects of the sub-groups can make.... well, if not BIG bag of cash, certainly a comfortable one.
In discussions like these, I always think of British author Alan Moore, and his brilliant quote:
If I wasn't lost before, I sure am now. We have no chance for improvement because human behavior presents an infinite number of variables? Nobody was in control when the ____X____ manufacturing plant was moved from Ohio to Mexico??
W.r.t. Moore's analysis, I don't question his assessment that no one entity is in control of the whole she-bang. But I don't see that it is [or has to be??] an all/nothing issue. Can some entities effectively control certain aspects of what goes on in parts of the world?
When you say "those skilled in ..... " I presume you're talking people ... not the invisible hand. It seems to me that when people are involved the likelihood that decisions are amoral decreases. [But now we're getting into philosophy where I might be less knowledgeable than in economics. 
]
quote:
Originally posted by eagleislandquote:
Originally posted by Owen....yes, when labor is cheaper and/or where rules are less stringent; but how does the invisible hand make that decision? What process guides the invisible hand?
The answer was delivered by Banjo Bill-E in a previous post.
We are all driven by self-interest - specifically, the preservation of our species. Each species needs sufficient nutrition, each needs to live long enough the ensure reproduction, thence continuance of the species.
All successful forms of life are like this; some are in a position to do something about it. Trees and funguses, for example, don't have the ability to pack up and move if growing conditions are unfavorable due to drought. So over time, successful ones adapt the ability to store genetic material in such a way that once the rains come, the deserts bloom and the cycle repeats. Small bait fish species develop the instinct to form what are called bait balls: you get to the center of the cluster of fish when the predators come. The closer you are to the center, the less likely you are to become dinner. And so on.
Humans are the only (or one of the few - I don't know enough about other higher-intelligence species to speak definitively on this) species that act in ways beyond mere survival: we want a say in HOW we survive, and if given our druthers, we'll generally choose comfort and wealth.
But why? The answer is constant: because survival is easier when you've got both.
Our species is physically weak, and slow by comparison to that which would eat us. We evolved to take advantage of certain aspects of intellect and cunning that enable us to survive. It has worked pretty well, so far.
The decision to move plants to Mexico - or China - evolves from that, IMO. And it's no guarantee. We humans, as a species, may not always recognize that short-term gain doesn't necessarily mean long-term success - just as a a thirsty gazelle might have watched a riverbank for a long time and, having noted no ripples on the water that would indicate the presence of a crocodile, moves in for a drink.
Call me crazy if ya want..
But i am willin to bet that there is a small group of top..Top..wealthy people..that knoweningly manipyoulate things to thier advantage..
Why do i think so..
I have been approached..by competitors..
To engage in price fixing..
( i want..n..wanted no..part of that )
The .."Club"..or group..of me competitors..
Really let me know how little they thought of me..after that..
N..it runs Deep in this industry..
Lotta Large names in the Exsposives World...
What...would make one think..that..That..
Would stop at me industry..n be nowhere eles..?
Nuckin Futzs...
Edited by - STUD figmo Al on 10/07/2024 04:54:01
