|
Post by Ciao Bella on Apr 2, 2010 17:51:48 GMT -5
Bananas...I might just PM you a recipe or 2, once I've had a chance to try them out
|
|
|
Post by Lord Chatterley on Apr 3, 2010 10:53:36 GMT -5
It's hard to believe someone so smart could be so naive and get it so wrong. Sheesh, just look at our economy and what happens, seemingly inevitably, when you have deregulation. Enron, the whole financial crisis we're in, etc. There were even reports of real estate agents doing sexual favors to get higher on the lender's preferred lists. Why people oppose bureaucrats setting the price of carrots, but, at the same time, endorse bureaucrats setting the price of money, is beyond me. In fact, we don't even have any real money - all we are allowed is a fiat currency. However, the free market and a lack of regulation has little to do with the current financial crisis - the blame lies squarely with the government and the morality that underpins economic intervention. This would be Ayn Rand's view: [Part 1 of 6.] [part 2] [part 3] [part 4] [part 5] [part 6]
|
|
|
Post by Lord Chatterley on Apr 4, 2010 6:51:47 GMT -5
I think it's pure profiteering fueled by greed. There are a very small select few that can afford a $55,000 van and the market caters to that population. Everyone else can go pound sand up their collective a$$es, because "We have the product and you need it. Pay our price or stay home." Some can pay the price and they do, and there's enough of them to satisfy the market. Everyone else can go to Hell. I'm using vans as an example, but it's the same across the board with everything. We have it, you need it, pay up.... ...We have it. You need it. Bend over. Profiteering fueled by greed? Hmmm. Well, an insatiable or limitless desire for greater value , i.e. greed, is certainly one motive to maximize profits, and that in itself is surely a good thing, but a desire to some end does not necessarily determine the method of getting there and it is in the method that the problems occur. If desires alone were the source of wealth then there wouldn't be much need for economics but reality isn't like that. In a free market, businesses cannot escape the rigours and constraints of competition, and the cast-iron laws of economics prohibit 'excessive' profits through the 'uniformity of profit' principle.
You have, however, already indicated the source of the problem and it does not lie in the nasty nature of businessmen. The essential difference between the manufacture of bicycles on the one hand, and powerchairs and adapted vehicles on the other, is not some perceived economic vulnerability of the end user but the fact that bicycle manufacture is completely unregulated. If one in every 14 bicycles made were purchased by the government you could expect the same sort of problems in the market for bicycles that currently exist in the market for mobility items.
|
|
Phil
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by Phil on Apr 4, 2010 19:17:41 GMT -5
Sorry, but you are wrong. Bicycles most certainly are fully regulated in the USA. Safety Standards Bicycle safety standards developed over time in a comparatively nonstandard manner. In the 1970s, in an attempt at self-regulation, the bicycle industry developed a series of performance standards intended to enhance the safety of bicycles sold in America. The last of those voluntary safety standards was BMA-6, written by the Bicycle Manufacturers Association. The era of voluntary bicycle safety standards ended with regulations promulgated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission under authority of the Hazardous Substances Act. In 1978, the “Requirements for Bicycles”1 became law and bicycles became a regulated commodity.
The CPSC regulations, binding on all bicycles sold in the United States, set forth the performance required of many bicycle components and systems, including the frame, fork, wheels, pedals, brakes, reflectors, etc. The regulation test methods detailed the performance expected of each bicycle design, including the bicycle as a whole, once assembled according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The regulations also called for the bicycle to be provided with an owner’s manual and delineated the minimum content of that manual.
Regulations and Standards The difference between a regulation and a standard should be understood. CPSC regulations have the force of law and bicycles cannot be sold in America unless those regulations are met. Built into the regulatory procedures of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is the ability of that governmental body to impose the recall of products deemed unsafe. Indeed, products (not necessarily bicycles), are recalled on virtually a daily basis. Fines may also be imposed upon manufacturers for violations identified by the CPSC. And this: While Subcommittee F08.10 is the predominant bicycle standards activity in the United States, it also has international input from Canadian and European representatives. In addition, Subcommittee F08.96 is the U.S. technical advisory group to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee 149, Subcommittee on Cycles. Those can both be found on the following link: www.astm.org/SNEWS/MARCH_2006/mitchell_mar06.htmlAlso, bicycle tires and tubes must meet DOT (Department Of Transportation) regulations. The differences between a manual wheelchair & a bicycle (aside from the fact that an entry level wheelchair easily costs 10x's as much) aren't all that great. Both use very similar, if not identical components and materials. In fact, bikes often come with additional items like gearing, caliper brakes, etc. And yet your run-of-the-mill bike can be bought brand new for a hundred dollars or less. Try buying a new wheelchair for that. As I said earlier, the cost differences in the two are greed based on need. You don't need a bike, but you do need a wheelchair. We have it, you need it, pay the price. Who pays for it irrelevantant. You must have it, and someone has to pay. Let me give you two examples. Last year I needed f/r wheel bearings and a set of tires for a chair. My DME wanted $800.00 for this repair. I went to the local bike shop (where NO bargains can be found) and purchased the tires with new tubes and had them mounted, and a set of front wheel bearings. Cost about $65.00. Then purchased the remaining bearings online for about $40.00 or so. About $125.00 total, including shipping. Example two: When I purchased my house, I needed a platform lift to enter the house from the garage. Estimates were in the tens of thousands. I called a friend that builds automotive lifts for repair garages. We met, drew out some plans and he built it for under $300.00 total. 14 years later, it works perfectly with a minusculeule amount of maintenancence (lithium grease 2x's a year) VS the annual "service contract" the lift suppliers demanded. Frankly, his lift is far superior. It's strong enough to lift a 4,500 lb car/light truck. Wheelers get screwed at every chance. Medical supplies, equipment, you name it. It is sheer profiteering on a captive audience that often has no choice but to either pay the price or go without. When going without isn't an option, and it often is, they have us right by the short hairs and they take full advantage of that power position.
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Apr 4, 2010 21:46:16 GMT -5
randian theory does make sense in those arenas where genuine competion exists. then the consumer can indeed benefit.
problem is, businesses HATE hate hate true competition. and why wouldnt they? so they go to great lengths to eliminate it.
ayn rand hasnt much to say about cartels or price-fixing, does she? never mind manipulation of whole markets...
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Apr 4, 2010 22:21:01 GMT -5
i'd wager tho, fubbster, that the average auz. gimp is bettr assisted by their govt. than we yanks are by ours.
and we yanks are better off than many other places...
|
|
|
Post by Lord Chatterley on Apr 5, 2010 7:38:36 GMT -5
Sorry, but you are wrong. Bicycles most certainly are fully regulated in the USA. Dear Phil, Many, many thanks for that. I stand corrected. I had no idea that bicycle manufacture had been regulated in the US since 1978 when Jimmy Carter was president - though I suppose I should have guessed. I particularly enjoyed this gem: Unbelievable. However, that new information does not alter the laws of economics - a general elevation in prices in any one sector of the market cannot be attributed to "greed based on need" nor "sheer profiteering on a captive audience." Greed and self-interest are virtues that serve to reduce the level of profit in any one sector of the market as I have already indicated. I sympathise with your plight and I do acknowledge that elevated prices can result as a consequence of local business malpractice, but elevated profits cannot be sustained in any sector of the market in the absence of government intervention and regulation.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Chatterley on Apr 5, 2010 8:02:43 GMT -5
randian theory does make sense in those arenas where genuine competion exists. then the consumer can indeed benefit. To be accurate - it's not Randian Theory per se - it's Classical Theory ie every classical theorist from Adam Smith [1776] to George Reisman today. problem is, businesses HATE hate hate true competition. and why wouldnt they? so they go to great lengths to eliminate it. If the government were restricted to its proper function there would be no benefit to be gained by soliciting government favours. ayn rand hasnt much to say about cartels or price-fixing, does she? never mind manipulation of whole markets... Atlas Shrugged is full of such graft seeking parasites and there are many essays by her elsewhere, for example, in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal she wrote- A “coercive monopoly” is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand. An economy dominated by such monopolies would be rigid and stagnant. The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry—the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises. Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy. For if he attempted to set his prices and production at a level that would yield profits to new entrants significantly above those available in other fields, competitors would be sure to invade his industry.
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Apr 5, 2010 11:11:39 GMT -5
well...who is going to enforce Contracts if not some branch of law enforcement, i.e. govt.?
having an arbitrator w/police power behind it is just INCREDIBLY important to civilization and civilized life. but people don't reflect on this enough. if you break a contract w/me, i can sue you instead of sending out my enforcers to kill you...that is, if your muscle hasnt killed ME yet.
see what i mean? w/out a functioning, reasonably powerful, more-or-less incorrupt government to enforce contractual agreements, you've soon got Mafia World 2.0
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 5, 2010 18:15:49 GMT -5
Atlas Shrugged is full of such graft seeking parasites and there are many essays by her elsewhere, for example, in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal she wrote- A “coercive monopoly” is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand. An economy dominated by such monopolies would be rigid and stagnant. The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry—the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises. Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy. For if he attempted to set his prices and production at a level that would yield profits to new entrants significantly above those available in other fields, competitors would be sure to invade his industry.Just goes to show how smart people can be really dumb too. Look at the absolute words that are used: "only," "impossible," "would be sure." Yeah, right.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Chatterley on Apr 6, 2010 10:08:19 GMT -5
well...who is going to enforce Contracts if not some branch of law enforcement, i.e. govt.? having an arbitrator w/police power behind it is just INCREDIBLY important to civilization and civilized life. but people don't reflect on this enough. if you break a contract w/me, i can sue you instead of sending out my enforcers to kill you...that is, if your muscle hasnt killed ME yet. see what i mean? w/out a functioning, reasonably powerful, more-or-less incorrupt government to enforce contractual agreements, you've soon got Mafia World 2.0 That is exactly what Ayn Rand said, see “Man’s Rights,” “The Nature of Government”, and “Government Financing in a Free Society”, in The Virtue of Selfishness: Man’s Rights www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rightsThe Nature of Government” www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_governmentA position she shares with the advocates of Voluntaryism see Auberon Herbert, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State and Other Essays. [1885] tinyurl.com/yba2g87
|
|
|
Post by Lord Chatterley on Apr 6, 2010 10:24:36 GMT -5
Just goes to show how smart people can be really dumb too. Look at the absolute words that are used: "only," "impossible," "would be sure." Yeah, right. Presumably, life and death are non-absolutes too. To paraphrase Aristotle, A is A, and so is the Law of Excluded Middle, and that's why I can't go for that-
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 6, 2010 10:56:08 GMT -5
Just goes to show how smart people can be really dumb too. Look at the absolute words that are used: "only," "impossible," "would be sure." Yeah, right. Presumably, life and death are non-absolutes too. Presumably? So nothing can be non-absolute unless everything is? I can't tell if you're actually buying this stuff or just chatting about what Rand might say. I hope it's the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Ray T on Apr 6, 2010 11:12:47 GMT -5
All polititions should work for room and board plus job related expences nothing more. and be subject to all laws, health care, pention/socal security acts they put in place for the rest of us...
|
|
|
Post by Samantha on Apr 6, 2010 11:40:07 GMT -5
I know nothing about politics but that sound fair.
|
|