# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Price controls are harmful only because industry is not an operation of the state

## Boshembechle

In a free market, a government mandated price control of $25 for flat screen TVs or Cars would cause the supply of both to go to 0. IF, however, goods were produced by the state, it wouldn't matter what the price is, as profit, loss, and costs are not an issue. As long as the state can accurately determine how much of a quantity to produce, price wouldn't even matter.

----------


## Petar

> In a free market, a government mandated price control of $25 for flat screen TVs or Cars would cause the supply of both to go to 0. IF, however, goods were produced by the state, it wouldn't matter what the price is, as profit, loss, and costs are not an issue. As long as the state can accurately determine how much of a quantity to produce, price wouldn't even matter.

----------


## Boshembechle

Not exactly sure why that is pertinent to the discussion

----------


## Petar

> Not exactly sure why that is pertinent to the discussion


Price controls $#@! up the supply chain... it divorces economic activity from what people actually want, and are willing to pay for/take a gamble on...

----------


## jkr

our trollish friend neglected to consider/ mention the variable of _demand_.
*I DONT WANT WHAT THE STATE IS SELLING!*

----------


## Boshembechle

Well, too bad. When (if) the free market can show us that it can provide goods to the entire population, then I MIGHT change my views. Until then, I'll take the grocery store in the video over any american supermarket any day, for the goods in an American supermarket are not available for the vast numbers of americans

----------


## jkr

in your limited view

----------


## angelatc

> In a free market, a government mandated price control of $25 for flat screen TVs or Cars would cause the supply of both to go to 0. IF, however, goods were produced by the state, it wouldn't matter what the price is, as profit, loss, and costs are not an issue. As long as the state can accurately determine how much of a quantity to produce, price wouldn't even matter.


You are absolutely and entirely retarded.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, too bad. When (if) the free market can show us that it can provide goods to the entire population, then I MIGHT change my views. Until then, I'll take the grocery store in the video over any american supermarket any day, for the goods in an American supermarket are not available for the vast numbers of americans


Everything in the entire world is available to every single American, you idiot.

----------


## presence



----------


## Victor Grey

> In a free market, a government mandated price control of $25 for flat screen TVs or Cars would cause the supply of both to go to 0. IF, however, goods were produced by the state, *it wouldn't matter what the price* is, as profit, loss, and costs are not an issue. *As long as the state can accurately determine how much of a quantity to produce,* price wouldn't even matter.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> In a free market, a government mandated price control...


There is no such thing as government mandated price control in a free market, so I stopped reading your thread after these 9 words. 

Well, at least your short threads are getting even shorter.  Maybe they're designed for Americans with short attention spans?

----------


## Boshembechle

I meant price controls imposed on a market with private firms.

----------


## presence

WTF does this have to do with the pursuit of liberty?

----------


## Vanguard101

OP doesn't understand that the state is not an operation of the free market.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> *There is no such thing as government mandated price control in a free market*, so I stopped reading your thread after these 9 words. 
> 
> Well, at least your short threads are getting even shorter.  Maybe they're designed for Americans with short attention spans?


My first thought in reading the op.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> In a free market, a government mandated price control of $25 for flat screen TVs or Cars would cause the supply of both to go to 0. IF, *however, goods were produced by the state, it wouldn't matter what the price is, as profit, loss, and costs are not an issue. As long as the state can accurately determine how much of a quantity to produce, price wouldn't even matter*.


http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
http://mises.org/econcalc.asp
Enlighten yourself.

----------


## Boshembechle

I am well aware of the economic calculation problem put forth by Mises, and I find it to be an especially sinister excuse to justify the continued illegality of poor people owning goods. The state can keep inventory records of goods consumed, so that accurate production plans can be implemented in the future. 

What good is an "efficient allocation of goods" if an entire section of the population is unable to own certain goods? Great, a $25 dollar price for a video game ensures that supply and demand are equal. You know what else that price does? It says "$#@! you" to the poor people who have a willingness to pay of less than 25 dollars. "efficient allocation" my ass.

----------


## Czolgosz

If your claim is that a central authority is "better" at the distribution of goods, then you are ignoring thousands of years of Human history.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> *I am well aware of the economic calculation problem* put forth by Mises, and I find it to be an especially sinister excuse to justify the continued illegality of poor people owning goods. *The state can keep inventory records of goods consumed, so that accurate production plans can be implemented in the future.*


In that case, you have obviously and utterly failed to understand the very "economic calculation problem" of which you claim to be "well aware."




> What good is an "efficient allocation of goods" if an entire section of the population is unable to own certain goods? Great, a $25 dollar price for a video game ensures that supply and demand are equal. You know what else that price does? It says "$#@! you" to the poor people who have a willingness to pay of less than 25 dollars. "efficient allocation" my ass.


Go tell it to Santa Claus. Maybe you'll get a pat on the head and a candy cane ...

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> I am well aware of the economic calculation problem put forth by Mises, and I find it to be an especially sinister excuse to justify the continued illegality of poor people owning goods. The state can keep inventory records of goods consumed, so that accurate production plans can be implemented in the future. 
> 
> What good is an "efficient allocation of goods" if an entire section of the population is unable to own certain goods? Great, a $25 dollar price for a video game ensures that supply and demand are equal. You know what else that price does? It says "$#@! you" to the poor people who have a willingness to pay of less than 25 dollars. "efficient allocation" my ass.


If providing goods to poor people is something you feel is important, why do you not own a business providing goods to poor people?  Free markets mean you can set your price where you deem it to be right without any respect to supply and demand.  Good Will for instance, I'm not sure if they are local or national, sells NICE pairs of pants for 5 to 7 bucks, or even cheaper.  I seen a telescope there the other day for $20.  If you feel this is important to you you need to get off your ass and do something about it, because the greedy-$#@!s running the multi-nationals today do not give a damn.  Those greedy-$#@!s though are at least beholden to our money and continued patronage, whereas with the state, if your idea of "efficient allocation of goods" differs, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.  You wish to give up your freedom to change the things you want to change.  That is a recipe for no one to be happy.

----------


## Petar

> I am well aware of the economic calculation problem put forth by Mises, and I find it to be an especially sinister excuse to justify the continued illegality of poor people owning goods. The state can keep inventory records of goods consumed, so that accurate production plans can be implemented in the future. 
> 
> What good is an "efficient allocation of goods" if an entire section of the population is unable to own certain goods? Great, a $25 dollar price for a video game ensures that supply and demand are equal. You know what else that price does? It says "$#@! you" to the poor people who have a willingness to pay of less than 25 dollars. "efficient allocation" my ass.


Everything would be a lot more affordable if not for all of the government intervention which currently prevents us from living in a free-market.

----------


## pcosmar

> In a free market, a government mandated price control of $25 for flat screen TVs or Cars would cause the supply of both to go to 0. IF, however, goods were produced by the state, it wouldn't matter what the price is, as profit, loss, and costs are not an issue. As long as the state can accurately determine how much of a quantity to produce, price wouldn't even matter.


You do realize that Karl Marx was a total failure that had never worked for a living in his entire life.

His writings and Philosophy are those of total failure. They have failed in every place they have been tried.

Why do you support failure?

----------


## fisharmor

> Well, too bad. When (if) the free market can show us that it can provide goods to the entire population, then I MIGHT change my views. Until then, I'll take the grocery store in the video over any american supermarket any day, for the goods in an American supermarket are not available for the vast numbers of americans


Wow.  Just.......... wow.

Sometimes, just sometimes, I think giving just _one_ job to the state might be a good idea. 
That one job would, of course, be making sure that people who make such monstrously idiotic statements with the intent of affecting public policy get shepherded away to a padded cell where they can enjoy the utopia they wish upon everyone.

Of course, I resist the temptation, because I know that even with that one tiny little job, the state would metastasize in under 200 years into exactly the kind of entity that runs that grocery store.

I mean, fer $#@!'s sake, didn't you see how there were only 20 slabs of unidentifiable meat, and yet they were still sniffing them?
Or the fact that every face on that video was the face of a beaten person: that they all knew that a camera pointed in their direction meant no good for anyone, and that they only spoke in hushed tones and only to the person next to them?

Have you ever known any Russians?  _They are NOT quiet people._  Getting that whole society to the point of being that beaten was an even bigger trick than trying to feed them.

----------


## presence

> What good is an "efficient allocation of goods" if an entire section of the population is unable to own certain goods? Great, a $25 dollar price for a video game ensures that supply and demand are equal. You know what else that price does? It says "$#@! you" to the poor people who have a willingness to pay of less than 25 dollars. "efficient allocation" my ass.


If I lived under a government that ensured everyone had equal access to video games I'd insist on some rope too so I can hang myself.

----------


## pcosmar

> If I lived under a government that ensured everyone had equal access to video games I'd insist on some rope too so I can hang myself.


They would be State Produced Video Games..

----------


## Henry Rogue

> I am well aware of the economic calculation problem put forth by Mises, and I find it to be an especially sinister excuse to justify the continued illegality of poor people owning goods. The state can keep inventory records of goods consumed, so that accurate production plans can be implemented in the future. 
> 
> What good is an "efficient allocation of goods" if an entire section of the population is unable to own certain goods? Great, a $25 dollar price for a video game ensures that supply and demand are equal. You know what else that price does? It says "$#@! you" to the poor people who have a willingness to pay of less than 25 dollars. "efficient allocation" my ass.


Lol, well, reading isn't synonyms with comprehension.

 If all government could do is say $#@! you to poor people, governments would be inconsequential, unfortunately they can do much more than say $#@! you. Governments are populated with people interested in maintaining their power. If that means keeping a segment of society poor to maintain that power, they will, if it means imprisoning people to maintain their power, they will. To maintain power, government will kill you. There is nothing more sinister than the power of the state.

----------


## CaptUSA

How is it even possible to argue that restricted markets produce more prosperity than free markets?  It's like evidence is of no consequence to this troll.

----------


## oyarde

Lets see , govt wants to sell me crap for x , I am not buying crap .Govt wants me to sell them crops for x so they can dole them out for x . I am not conducting business with govt . They will get nothing from me, the land can remain fallow.

----------


## Boshembechle

> How is it even possible to argue that restricted markets produce more prosperity than free markets?  It's like evidence is of no consequence to this troll.


Free markets are GREAT for those with means to pay for goods. The problem, though, is the sinister method by which market mechanisms balance supply and demand. Those at the top are able to get the goods precisely because though at the bottom are locked out of the market entirely.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Free markets are GREAT for those with means to pay for goods. The problem, though, is the sinister method by which market mechanisms balance supply and demand. Those at the top are able to get the goods precisely because though at the bottom are locked out of the market entirely.


I have seen more 55 inch plasma TVs in "poor" homes in the US than in "rich" homes in other countries.

This is blah blah blah nonsense that was all tried in the USSR 70 years ago and resulted in abject failure and the deaths of millions of people.

I'll wager you were not even born when the Soviet Union fell. _Le Sigh_...never underestimate the ability of mankind to forget valuable lessons.

Let's see how strong my Rep Fu is today...

----------


## Anti Federalist

Hah Hah...pretty strong...join 56ktroll with another red bar.

----------


## euphemia

> Free markets are GREAT for those with means to pay for goods. The problem, though, is the sinister method by which market mechanisms balance supply and demand. Those at the top are able to get the goods precisely because though at the bottom are locked out of the market entirely.


That's not why.  It seems, though, that large televisions show a horribly misplaced priority.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Well, too bad.


Looks like it's too bad for you.  Most people are not in that habit of providing video entertainment to lazy slobs.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

OP sounds like he's from another country.  I wonder if he's one of those people who watched a lot of American TV overseas, and then came over here expecting to pick money off of trees.  I know people like that.

Sorry, it sucks over here too.

----------


## Boshembechle

I was born in a soviet Satellite country.

----------


## pcosmar

> I was born in a soviet Satellite country.


So why are you trolling here? Is it deliberate? or do you actually support the failure of Socialism?

----------


## Henry Rogue

> OP sounds like he's from another country.  I wonder if he's one of those people who watched a lot of American TV overseas, and then came over here expecting to pick money off of trees.  I know people like that.
> 
> Sorry, it sucks over here too.


Good guess, I was guessing prepubescent.

 If the soviet satellite country has a central bank, then it doesn't have anything remotely close to a Free Market. If half of every transaction is centrally planned,  it ain't freedom.

----------


## fisharmor

> I was born in a soviet Satellite country.


Yeah, but which one?  I'm guessing Romania, for the sheer irony of a Romanian continuing to hold this position.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yeah, but which one?  I'm guessing Romania, for the sheer irony of a Romanian continuing to hold this position.


It baffles me when people who are products of a different way find their way here only to be bashed and called an idiot and whatnot. There are better ways.

Assuming, of course, that it isn't just some sock puppet account to solicit a prescribed debate. Wouldn't rule that out.

----------


## Boshembechle

> Yeah, but which one?  I'm guessing Romania, for the sheer irony of a Romanian continuing to hold this position.


 Poland. And the life of an average Polish person was no doubt worse than the average life of an America, BUT there was no "denying" of goods based on price

----------


## oyarde

> Poland. And the life of an average Polish person was no doubt worse than the average life of an America, BUT there was no "denying" of goods based on price


Well , then , I guess everyone was rushing to Poland , yes ? Most of the Poles I ever knew really well were working in Germany, I never asked them .

----------


## Carlybee

> In a free market, a government mandated price control of $25 for flat screen TVs or Cars would cause the supply of both to go to 0. IF, however, goods were produced by the state, it wouldn't matter what the price is, as profit, loss, and costs are not an issue. As long as the state can accurately determine how much of a quantity to produce, price wouldn't even matter.



Yeah that worked out really well in Venezuela.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...BUT there was no "denying" of goods based on price


What about the quality of those goods?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What about the quality of those goods?


Nothing but the very best, comrade.

Why, the whole world drives Trabants.

----------


## euphemia

Here is something interesting:  Of the goods I purchase, none of them are made or built in former Soviet bloc nations.  It doesn't seem that former Soviet satellites have done much to improve their lots since communism/socialism was officially defeated.  Holding on to what has failed means the system will continue to fail.

This is what I call the small-mindedness of collective economics.  It thinks in terms of what will keep itself in power, not what will promote prosperity in its people or provide quality goods to the world.

----------

