So then what point is he making with the comment about plastic straws?
OK, yes, this is true in the general sense. Now, specifically, how do you determine that the current sock supply equilibrium is the best one and that further lowering the price to consumers will be bad?
He can obviously answer himself, just pointing out that you’re accusing him of bad faith while employing a similar problem.
really? the argument started because costco was trying to lower the profit made by the sock suppliers, which was somehow bad.
Oh my lord. So now it’s not all as simple as you were econ-101ing it out to be, but despite all of your ridiculous absolutism you think you get to be right if I don’t research and write a book on the global supply chain and Costco’s and Amazon’s effects on everything everywhere.
Like, rewind the tape. That was the point YOU were making. You were implicitly making the “socks are killing the environment” argument, just completely begging the question. How are cheaper socks ruining the environment?
hey man I didn’t force you to take the losing end of the argument, you did that yourself.
Jesus Christ. I didn’t bring up socks in the first place and it was fucking obvious to everyone including me and you that they were just an example of the whole phenomenon that is happening with these giant retailers.
As PVN said, this discussion started about profit margins of vendors. I don’t see how a few points either way has anything to do with your arguments.
right, you didn’t bring up socks but if you want to make the argument that making things cheaper for people is bad then yeah, you need to do a little work. I guess you’re making a “well if everyone in the world wore socks one time and then threw them away that would probably be bad” argument but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
I don’t know what you’re saying exactly. My point is not that his almost literal straw-manning in and of itself invalidates everything he said, but still it was either in bad faith or stupid. It’s the kind of thing that makes debating people almost always impossible in this format. How can this possibly be anything like one person actually having a hope of convincing anyone of anything rather than just stupid posturing if that’s how people are going to argue?
How are you sure that making socks cheaper for the people who want them but often don’t need them at the cost of lower wages for the people involved in their manufacture and distribution etc is a net positive?
Because some book about how Capitalism works well for everyone tells you so?
You rewind the tape and tell me that your first set of posts here didn’t just make the assumption that it’s theoretically impossible for this type of consumerism, competition, and monopolism that drives prices down for consumers to be anything other than good.
-
people don’t need socks??? that’s just like, your opinion, man
-
where is it written than lowering wages is the only way to make socks cheaper?
the 2nd and 3rd sentences do not follow from the 1st.
-
Many socks are bought that aren’t necessary (and many thrown away that needn’t be). Agree/disagree?
-
Lowering wages is one of a limited number of ways in which companies often reduce costs. Agree/disagree?
given the overwhelming track record of productivity improvements over the course of human history, I am OK with assuming that new productivity improvements having similar effects. I won’t say that it is theoretically impossible for any particular improvement in productivity to be bad, but you’re going to have to do something more than “well it’s possible everyone is just going to burn all their socks”
-
yes
-
yes
Very, very few companies have to sell at Costco. They do so because it is profitable. It is not the only game in any town.