# Start Here > Guest Forum >  So what is to be done about the people who can't afford the equilibrium price?

## Boshembechle

We all know what a supply and demand curve graph looks like. The price at which they intersect determines what the price of a commodity will be and how much is produced. BUT, what should a society do about the people who fall on the right side of the point (looking at the demand curve)? Are they just completely left out of economic transactions? Why is if morally just that they are the ones who bear the brunt of the "scarcity" issue, rather than others?

----------


## erowe1

> We all know what a supply and demand curve graph looks like. The price at which they intersect determines what the price of a commodity will be and how much is produced. BUT, what should a society do about the people who fall on the right side of the point (looking at the demand curve)? Are they just completely left out of economic transactions? Why is if morally just that they are the ones who bear the brunt of the "scarcity" issue, rather than others?


I don't get the question. People don't fall to the right of any point on a demand curve. People don't fall anywhere on a demand curve. Demand curves and supply curves chart the quantity of a good or service against its price.

----------


## angelatc

We've told him over and over that he doesn't understand what equilibrium price means.  And it's painfully obvious he has never taken a single economics class, Keynesian or otherwise.

But that doesn't stop him from starting another troll thread.

----------


## Boshembechle

> I don't get the question. People don't fall to the right of any point on a demand curve. People don't fall anywhere on a demand curve. Demand curves and supply curves chart the quantity of a good or service against its price.


But the very reason why more is demanded at lower prices if precisely because people of lower and lower means begin to demand the product at prices that are now feasible for them.

----------


## angelatc

> But the very reason why more is demanded at lower prices if precisely because people of lower and lower means begin to demand the product at prices that are now feasible for them.


Is English not your first language?  Or are you a product of those "free" schools you advocate for?

----------


## Boshembechle

> Is English not your first language?  Or are you a product of those "free" schools you advocate for?


What's wrong with my English?

----------


## TheGrinch

Then they will not demand what they cannot afford or don't want to pay, and will demand something else that they can afford and that someone will therefore supply to meet the demand.

Basically what you're saying is that poor people can't afford to shop at whole foods, so they shop at more affordable establishments with perhaps lesser quality goods.  Yep, that's how the world works.  You don't get steak for doing hamburger work.

There is nothing immoral about it, until you get into why more people can barely afford prices at normal grocery stores (inflation of the money supply).

----------


## HVACTech

> I don't get the question. People don't fall to the right of any point on a demand curve. People don't fall anywhere on a demand curve. Demand curves and supply curves chart the quantity of a good or service against its price.


classic irony here folks. of course people fall on a demand curve.
unless...

 "I’m not a libertarian. I’m not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot."

now that right there... is some good advice.

----------


## TheGrinch

> But the very reason why more is demanded at lower prices if precisely because people of lower and lower means begin to demand the product at prices that are now feasible for them.


Look, if they really demand the product, then the price will come down as much as it can to still retain profits while growing the business with more customers. Prices generally go down on everything as the newness wears off and competitino arises anyway... 

But I don't know what you're looking for if you want businesses to not make sufficient profits just so that more people have access to it. It simply cannot work that way, and few would want to own a business if they had that burden of sacrificing their profit for others to gain in theirs. 

The equilibrium price is set there because that's what it takes for the business to be most sustainable. These people who take enormous financial risk cannot simply act as a charity, or they'll go out of business.

----------


## angelatc

> What's wrong with my English?


Seriously?




> But the very reason why that more is demanded at lower prices if is precisely because people of lower and lower means begin to demand the product at (a) prices that are is now feasible for them.

----------


## erowe1

> But the very reason why more is demanded at lower prices if precisely because people of lower and lower means begin to demand the product at prices that are now feasible for them.


False.

----------


## erowe1

> classic irony here folks. of course people fall on a demand curve.


No they don't. One axis is quantity, the other is price. That's it.

----------


## HVACTech

> We've told him over and over that he doesn't understand what equilibrium price means.  And it's painfully obvious he has never taken a single economics class, Keynesian or otherwise.
> 
> But that doesn't stop him from starting another troll thread.


OK. my bad....
 I am new/old here.

----------


## Root

> classic irony here folks. of course people fall on a demand curve.
> unless...
> 
>  "I’m not a libertarian. I’m not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot."
> 
> now that right there... is some good advice.


I'm not a libertarian either, but I do advocate running around with no clothes and smoking (vaping) pot.

----------


## TheGrinch

> No they don't. One axis is quantity, the other is price. That's it.


Say what? A supply/demand curve is just that, supply vs. demand. Demand represents the amount who desire the product at that price. Where the two interest determines equilibrium price (theoretically anyway, and vastly oversimplified without other factors, but if we're talking Econ 101).

It's not even up for debate, here's just one of thousands of images:

----------


## Boshembechle

> Then they will not demand what they cannot afford or don't want to pay, and will demand something else that they can afford and that someone will therefore supply to meet the demand.
> 
> Basically what you're saying is that poor people can't afford to shop at whole foods, so they shop at more affordable establishments with perhaps lesser quality goods.  Yep, that's how the world works.  You don't get steak for doing hamburger work.
> 
> There is nothing immoral about it, until you get into why more people can barely afford prices at normal grocery stores (inflation of the money supply).


What about for things like cars or houses? Sure cars vary widely in price, but even the cheapo ones are still out of reach for people. You can't compare food prices to car prices. No one that makes even the lowest wage finds it difficult to buy food.

----------


## MelissaWV

"What is to be done..."

Since I have no power to take over someone else's life, those who cannot afford the price of healthcare (and let's face it, that's what ALL of these threads by this OP are about) will have to decide for themselves what is to be done.

Will they work to get a different job?  Will they pool resources?  Will they buy cheaper insurance (catastrophic... well... at least if it's allowed, which it kind of isn't anymore)?  Will they seek alternative medical treatments they can conduct at home for less serious injuries/illnesses?  Will they approach a teaching or charitable hospital for care?  Will they fundraise?  Will they work together with the drug companies to get free/reduced medication?  Will they forego care?  Will they ask for help?

Strangely, all of your threads seem to assume that people aren't still going to have to do that very thing under ObamaCare.

Your new insurance is not a blank check.  There are limits to its use --- a lot of them.  You don't get billions of dollars in free care or something.  It's still a policy and it still has a lot of clauses and restrictions.  What on earth are people who can't afford insurance supposed to do to meet a deductible in the thousands?  Or an out of pocket that goes on and on and on?  What happens when you reach your maximum or your doctor mysteriously isn't covered even though the policy said they were in network when you signed up?

----------


## erowe1

> Say what? A supply/demand curve is just that, supply vs. demand. Demand represents the amount who desire the product at that price. Where the two interest determines price (theoretically anyway).
> 
> It's not even up for debate, here's just one of thousands of images:


Notice that the labels of the two axes on that image are exactly the same two things I said in the quote you just gave.

No, demand does not represent "the amount who desire the product at that price." It represents the amount of the product desired, not the amount of the people who desire it. Quantity is the quantity of the product, and price is the price of the product.

You were right about this not being up for debate.

----------


## angelatc

> What about for things like cars or houses? Sure cars vary widely in price, but even the cheapo ones are still out of reach for people. You can't compare food prices to car prices. No one that makes even the lowest wage finds it difficult to buy food.


Come to Michigan.  I will buy you a house for $1.00.



http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...85-64818?row=2

----------


## HVACTech

> I'm not a libertarian either, but I do advocate running around with no clothes and smoking (vaping) pot.


pot can be vaped? 

methinks your physics classes...  missed something.

----------


## MelissaWV

> What about for things like cars or houses? Sure cars vary widely in price, but even the cheapo ones are still out of reach for people. You can't compare food prices to car prices. No one that makes even the lowest wage finds it difficult to buy food.


Actually that's bull.  I have found it incredibly difficult to buy food in the past, and obviously that is not a singular experience (hence soup kitchens, food stamps, food pantries, etc.).  

A car is not a damned necessity.  "Even the lowest wage" can afford to walk or take the bus from time to time (a lot of churches will provide you with a bus pass, actually, so it's totally free of charge).

----------


## TheGrinch

> What about for things like cars or houses? Sure cars vary widely in price, but even the cheapo ones are still out of reach for people. You can't compare food prices to car prices. No one that makes even the lowest wage finds it difficult to buy food.


Owning car isn't a right.

 Cars aren't cheap to make. 

There are companies like Kia that cater to the lower-end car buyers, but they can't give them away for less than their desired profit to make it worth their while.  Many of these smaller companies probably are foregoing big profits in the name of getting their name out there by selling cars, but they can't jsut give them away.  If you could profit making cars that are affordable for everyone, then someone will. That's the beauty of competition.  

Consumers also determine what they're willing to pay. If they don't buy it at a price, then the price will have to come down for them to sell it. That's how a demand curve works, not however it is you think it does.

----------


## Root

> pot can be vaped? 
> 
> methinks your physics classes...  missed something.


Oh hell yeah it can. 

Physics class??

----------


## TheGrinch

> Notice that the labels of the two axes on that image are exactly the same two things I said in the quote you just gave.
> 
> No, demand does not represent "the amount who desire the product at that price." It represents the amount of the product desired, not the amount of the people who desire it. Quantity is the quantity of the product, and price is the price of the product.
> 
> You were right about this not being up for debate.


Okay, you're talking about axes. We're talknig about a demand curve on those axes, which includes people and does exist on a supply/demand curve. I'm not sure what you think it is you're arguing.

----------


## erowe1

> We're talknig about a demand curve on those axes, which includes people


No it doesn't. The variables of those two axes are the only ones on the graph. It's quantity of the product versus price of the product. That's it. There's no measure of number of people of any kind doing anything, who want anything, who buy anything, who sell anything, or anything else, anywhere on the graph in either the supply curve or the demand curve. The only two variables are p and q. You want something that has people on it, you need a different graph.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not sure what you think it is you're arguing.


The OP made reference to "people who fall on the right side of the point (looking at the demand curve)."

Well, there is no such thing, as you can see on the graph you provided. That's what I'm arguing.

----------


## mad cow

Is this your YouTube channel?  http://www.youtube.com/user/boshembechle

Are you trolling there or are you trolling here?


boshembechle commented
There is not one person in the world that regrets leaving a communist country.

boshembechle commented
What ever happened to personal responsibilty? Liberals and Europeans (who have no right to say anything about America or its politics) love to say that high health care costs are a result of greed and the "evil insurance companies". What they conveniently fail to mention is that the health industry IS THE MOST REGULATED private industry in America. Since the early 1990's, the government has passed regulation after regulation on our health care providers, and the cost has increased ever since.

boshembechle commented
Socialism fails because it goes against human nature. It is also, morally speaking, the most evil philosophy to ever emerge out of human thought.

boshembechle commented
If Socialism and Communism work, why aren't people immigrating in droves to Cuba or North Korea. Why weren't people risking their lives trying to get to East Berlin? If communism works, why has it never been successful. If Capitalism doesn't work, why did it never need modifications or multiple tries. Bottom line, the liberal myth that Socialism is good for the working class is the biggest myth in the history of Humanity.


And so on...

----------


## HVACTech

> No they don't. One axis is quantity, the other is price. That's it.


in case you did not notice. 

I am HVACTech.

----------


## erowe1

> in case you did not notice. 
> 
> I am HVACTech.


Pardon my rudeness. Nice to meet you. I'm erowe1.

----------


## TheGrinch

> The OP made reference to "people who fall on the right side of the point (looking at the demand curve)."
> 
> Well, there is no such thing, as you can see on the graph you provided. That's what I'm arguing.


I gotcha now. It was incredibly poorly phrased, and yes he does not understand how it works, but a demand curve does essentially measure the amount of people willing and able to purchase at a particular price, because you cannot have quantity sold without people buying at that price.  Products sold are people buying, same thing essentially.

Anyways, not worth arguing about.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Actually that's bull.  I have found it incredibly difficult to buy food in the past, and obviously that is not a singular experience (hence soup kitchens, food stamps, food pantries, etc.).  
> 
> A car is not a damned necessity.  "Even the lowest wage" can afford to walk or take the bus from time to time (a lot of churches will provide you with a bus pass, actually, so it's totally free of charge).



Not to mention, I didn't even think about used cars. You can buy one for $500 that runs if you shop right. But bitching that not everyone can afford the engineering and production of a two ton steel machine that can transport you long distances at high speeds and burns costly gasoline, well ummm, no $#@!! You gotta work if you want that luxury, but the highways show very clearly that it is not the elite privelege of the 1930s.

Homes? You want to make them more accessible? Call 2009 and ask them how it worked out.

----------


## erowe1

> but a demand curve does essentially measure the amount of people willing and able to purchase at a particular price,


That is not true. Even if there were only two people in the world, one buying something and the other selling it, the supply curve and demand curve for that product (measuring the quantity of it sold versus the price charged for it) would still look the same. The one person buying would demand more of the product as the price got lower and the one person selling would supply more as the price got higher.

Q in the supply and demand curves is not quantity of people, but quantity of the product.

----------


## HVACTech

> Pardon my rudeness. Nice to meet you. I'm erowe1.


I command a high price, in case you are unaware.
and it is not my problem if you do not.
I am still trying to figure out how this site works.

----------


## erowe1

> I command a high price, in case you are unaware.
> and it is not my problem if you do not.
> I am still trying to figure out how this site works.


I don't see how this has anything to do with this thread. And not knowing how the site works only goes so far as an excuse.

----------


## pcosmar

> "I’m not a libertarian. I’m not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot."


I am libertarian. in that I believe in liberty and oppose authoritarianism.

I do not advocate that anyone dress any particular way,, and the use of any substance is up to individual choice.

I have no opposition to nudity,, though it is impractical at times.. and I do believe that the plant Marijuana(cannabis) is a gift from God,, and has many benefits and uses.

As to the OPs advocacy for entitlement.. it is more socialist crap.

My ancestors  worked and earned what they had,, carved out homes from the wilderness and gathered food from the forest.

I have started over several times.. from nothing, with nothing. I have been poor and homeless.

When I met my wife in 88 I had the pack on my back and the clothes I wore..(and could not even use my real name)  She had nothing. We lived together and worked together.

We own a home on 20 acres.. That we earned.
No one is entitled to anything,, beyond Life, Liberty and the pursuit of,,,,

----------


## Boshembechle

What is the moral difference between being denied a good based on ability to pay, and being denied a good because there is a shortage (as was common in Russia)? To me, there is no difference. Both practices are despicable.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> What is the moral difference between being denied a good based on ability to pay, and being denied a good because there is a shortage (as was common in Russia)? To me, there is no difference. Both practices are despicable.


Why don't you get a job already?

Oh yeah, you get a neg rep for all-purpose sucking.  Sorry, Holmes.

----------


## erowe1

> What is the moral difference between being denied a good based on ability to pay, and being denied a good because there is a shortage (as was common in Russia)? To me, there is no difference. Both practices are despicable.


Why is either despicable?

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Come to Michigan.  I will buy you a house for $1.00.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...85-64818?row=2


That house looks nice compared to some of the pictures I have seen of Detroit.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> What is the moral difference between being denied a good based on ability to pay, and being denied a good because there is a shortage (as was common in Russia)? To me, there is no difference. Both practices are despicable.


How is it moral for me to be forced to be your personal slave?

----------


## Boshembechle

> How is it moral for me to be forced to be your personal slave?


Who is asking anyone to be a slave? I am just wondering why it is outrageous to libertarians/free marketers that planned economies suffer from shortages, thus restricting access to goods, but NOT outraged at Capitalism, which does the exact same thing in a sneaky,sinister manner called equilibrium price.

----------


## Cabal

> Who is asking anyone to be a slave? I am just wondering why it is outrageous to libertarians/free marketers that planned economies suffer from shortages, thus restricting access to goods, but NOT outraged at Capitalism, which does the exact same thing in a sneaky,sinister manner called equilibrium price.


Your OP seems to suggest that demand alone should entitle people to goods/services, regardless of ability to satisfy consensual exchange for those goods/services. Goods/services are essentially a tangible representation of time, labor, and energy of others, just like money is. Thus, to suggest entitlement to goods/services is to suggest entitlement to time, labor, and energy of another. To take (particularly by force, or threat thereof) the time, labor, and energy of another on the basis of entitlement without consent is tantamount to slavery. 

The shortages that occur under a centrally planned economy are a result of barriers to entry, coercive monopolization, cronyism, regulation, IP law, and the like--in essence, they are shortages that occur as a result of interference and intervention of otherwise consensual activity. In a theoretically free market, no one is necessarily being restricted access by way of violence or coercion; rather, the only thing standing in the way of their ability to acquire a good/service is their capacity and willingness to satisfy consensual exchange for it.

----------


## Boshembechle

> Your OP seems to suggest that demand alone should entitle people to goods/services, regardless of ability to satisfy consensual exchange for those goods/services. Goods/services are essentially a tangible representation of time, labor, and energy of others, just like money is. Thus, to suggest entitlement to goods/services is to suggest entitlement to time, labor, and energy of another. To take (particularly by force, or threat thereof) the time, labor, and energy of another on the basis of entitlement without consent is tantamount to slavery. 
> 
> The shortages that occur under a centrally planned economy are a result of barriers to entry, coercive monopolization, cronyism, regulation, IP law, and the like--in essence, they are shortages that occur as a result of interference and intervention of otherwise consensual activity. In a theoretically free market, no one is necessarily being restricted access by way of violence or coercion; *rather, the only thing standing in the way of their ability to acquire a good/service is their capacity and willingness to satisfy consensual exchange for it.*


That's a sneaky way of saying "money". Without money, you have no chance to get the goods.

----------


## euphemia

> We all know what a supply and demand curve graph looks like. The price at which they intersect determines what the price of a commodity will be and how much is produced. BUT, what should a society do about the people who fall on the right side of the point (looking at the demand curve)? Are they just completely left out of economic transactions? Why is if morally just that they are the ones who bear the brunt of the "scarcity" issue, rather than others?


Having been relatively poor most of my adult life, I would say people who are able should get creative.  Learn to do without luxuries.  Learn to barter.  Take on extra work.  Learn to make food from scratch rather than buying processed food.  Work where there is a meal benefit and a uniform.  Adopt a lifestyle of simplicity.

I am happy to share the little I have with those who are incapable of caring for themselves.  That is the responsibility of community.  It is not my responsibility to support people who want more than they have.

----------


## Cabal

> That's a sneaky way of saying "money". Without money, you have no chance to get the goods.


I don't see how that is sneaky, but it doesn't necessarily mean money, strictly speaking. In any case, what is your point?

----------


## MelissaWV

> That's a sneaky way of saying "money". Without money, you have no chance to get the goods.


Not really, no.  You can barter, trade, work, or any number of things to get your goods.

----------


## osan

> We all know what a supply and demand curve graph looks like. The price at which they intersect determines what the price of a commodity will be and how much is produced. BUT, what should a society do about the people who fall on the right side of the point (looking at the demand curve)? Are they just completely left out of economic transactions? Why is if morally just that they are the ones who bear the brunt of the "scarcity" issue, rather than others?


What in hell are you talking about?  If I cannot afford something, I don't buy it and I don't whine about it, either.

I'd really like to have a Gulfstream IV, but guess what?  It's too fookin' expensive for me.  It was too $$ when I took home $500K+ per year.  I would have gladly settled for a Citation X, but guess what?  THOSE were too expensive as well.  Never cried boo hooty hoo to force the manufacturers to offer them at prices I could afford.

If you cannot afford, you go without.

Seriously, what is your point?  This post smells like troll-$#@!.  You ask leading questions about what "society" should do.  That is a load of bull$#@!.  "Society", as it were, should do absolutely NOTHING and allow individuals to dope out their lives for themselves.  To turn the question back at you, how it is morally just to force me and other private individuals to subsidize those who cannot or, more likely, WILL NOT make their own ways through life?

We each have an equal right to life.  That does NOT mean we hold the right to be provided WITH our lives.  The right to life implies naught but the right to make of it what we will within the constraints of what we are able to accomplish, provided we impose no harm upon others.  My stealing from you, regardless of the avenues though which the violation occurs, constitutes a direct harm to your being and it is not acceptable under any circumstance.  If you are starving, I am under no obligation to feed you.  Whether it is your gun that affects the theft or that of the "government", the result is the same.

If you cannot make it on your own, you may find charitable aid, or you may simply be $#@! out of luck, but you are NEVER entitled to violate others just so you can take one more breath.  If you do not see why this is so fundamental a truth, then you are beyond help.

----------


## tod evans

> So what is to be done about the people......


What in the world leads you to even think for a moment that something must be done?

If you're able to address that issue then who, specifically, do you believe should be responsible for the doing, and why?

----------


## TheGrinch

I become more convinced by the day that people like this cone here and do this just to be a distraction.

But noble or not, after a certain amount of time, if someone is still being combative, they did not come here to learn or have a rational discussion, that much is clear.

Best to just ignore those who only exist to be a contrarian.

----------


## Boshembechle

> What in hell are you talking about?  *If I cannot afford something, I don't buy it and I don't whine about it, either.*
> 
> I'd really like to have a Gulfstream IV, but guess what?  It's too fookin' expensive for me.  It was too $$ when I took home $500K+ per year.  I would have gladly settled for a Citation X, but guess what?  THOSE were too expensive as well.  Never cried boo hooty hoo to force the manufacturers to offer them at prices I could afford.
> 
> If you cannot afford, you go without.
> 
> Seriously, what is your point?  This post smells like troll-$#@!.  You ask leading questions about what "society" should do.  That is a load of bull$#@!.  "Society", as it were, should do absolutely NOTHING and allow individuals to dope out their lives for themselves.  To turn the question back at you, how it is morally just to force me and other private individuals to subsidize those who cannot or, more likely, WILL NOT make their own ways through life?
> 
> We each have an equal right to life.  That does NOT mean we hold the right to be provided WITH our lives.  The right to life implies naught but the right to make of it what we will within the constraints of what we are able to accomplish, provided we impose no harm upon others.  My stealing from you, regardless of the avenues though which the violation occurs, constitutes a direct harm to your being and it is not acceptable under any circumstance.  If you are starving, I am under no obligation to feed you.  Whether it is your gun that affects the theft or that of the "government", the result is the same.
> ...


Then you are just accepting your own oppression. There is no reason why you should be barred from owning something because you cannot 'afford ' it. That is BS.

----------


## Cabal

> Then you are just accepting your own oppression. There is no reason why you should be barred from owning something because you cannot 'afford ' it. That is BS.

----------


## tod evans

> Then you are just accepting your own oppression. There is no reason why you should be barred from owning something because you cannot 'afford ' it. That is BS.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> There is no reason why you should be barred  from owning something because you cannot 'afford ' it. That is  BS.


"I take what is mine. I pay the iron price." - _Boshembechle Greyjoy_




> How is it moral for me to be forced to be your personal slave?


I bet yer one of them pansies who pays the gold price, ain't'cha?

----------


## MelissaWV

> Then you are just accepting your own oppression. There is no reason why you should be barred from owning something because you cannot 'afford ' it. That is BS.


Then you are accepting your own tyranny.  There is no reason why I should be forced to produce something because you cannot 'afford' it.  That is BS.

----------


## Cleaner44

I think this applies to about every thread this troll has started.




>

----------

