French Lurve Taxing New Industries

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-29-2010, 02:09 AM
RandBlade

No, environmental laws exist to deal with externalities, that is their purpose.
11-29-2010, 02:15 AM
Being

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, environmental laws exist to deal with externalities, that is their purpose.

So you are now saying that taxes don't deal with externalities in any form or fashion. :rolleyes:
11-29-2010, 02:41 AM
RandBlade

You're going round in circles. They can do, but they don't in this instance. You're comparing apples to oranges. Just drop the stupid analogy that doesn't work, admit you were wrong and move on.
11-29-2010, 03:49 AM
Being

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You're going round in circles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

I don't know why any of this would bother you, the money ultimately comes from the consumer. This method merely hides that fact from the consumer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Actually, only a portion of taxes ends up coming from the consumer. It depends on the elasticity of demand for the company's products. But very rarely (if ever) does 100% of the tax get passed on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

Okay, 99.9% comes from the consumer. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

The only time the number would be 90%, let alone 99.9%, is when the product is highly inelastic (e.g. cigarettes, gasoline). Is it really asking too much for you to at least google a topic before saying the first stupid thing that comes to your head?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

The only companies that eat their advertising expenses are the ones that can't sell their product. Are you really that dense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Hint: the price companies charge for a product isn't directly contingent on how much it costs to make it. Companies charge as much as they do because of supply and demand. They advertise to drive up demand, which allows them to increase prices. If two companies had the same price structure and were selling the same product, and one decided to advertise, it would not be able to raise prices at all, let alone by its advertising budget. The goal would be to drive up demand for their product, which would allow them to increase its price at some future date. If the advertising failed, then they would have spent money on advertising without being able to increase prices. I swear that your knowledge of economics is below that of the laziest students I've ever come across. You never miss an opportunity to say the most idiotic things that come to your head without bothering to verify their veracity. Do you think because something comes to your head, it automatically should be posted here? And do you think that just because something comes to your head, it must be true? The quote "the less you know, the more you think you know" must have been created with you in mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

I had to cut out half of your response because it had nothing to do with the conversation. As for what I did quote, it does not at all refute my statement. Especially if I put a qualifier in there to cover my ass like you always do. Fine I will qualify, Like I said before, consumers pay for the advertising when they buy the product.

But anyway, I'm more interested in a response concerning this,

Who do you want to pay for government? Somebody has to. :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

The problem isn't taxation per se. The problem is the distortion of resources. By double taxing industries as soon as they become successful, you're in essence shifting resources to industries that are not successful. That means you're artificially giving a competitive disadvantage to the industries that are most likely to succeed in the long run. As a result, you harm the ability of those firms to stay internationally competitive and prop up industries that will end up failing anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

The same can be said of environmental laws. Talk about distortion of resources. But do you want to get rid of those laws?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Externalities are a separate issue. Are you simply incapable of staying on topic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

Advertising is an externality? :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, environmental issues are an externality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

Environmental laws are not externalities. The impacts on society by not having environmental laws are externalities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandBlade

OMG, do you not get it? No he didn't, you did. Loki pointed out your flaw.
Is it that hard to understand? You compared a tax with environmental laws. One is designed to raise money, the other to prevent externalities, they are completely different. :bulb:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

Taxes and environmental laws you operate under are both taken into consideration when you set your price. You agreed to these conditions and set your price accordingly. Neither of these are externalities. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, environmental laws exist to deal with externalities, that is their purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

So you are now saying that taxes don't deal with externalities in any form or fashion. :rolleyes:

Pfff...looks like a straight line to me. :confused:
11-29-2010, 04:04 AM
RandBlade

This is pointless, if you still don't get it ...
11-29-2010, 04:07 AM
Being

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandBlade

This is pointless, if you still don't get it ...

I get it...consumers pay for advertizing. :rolleyes: That might be considered an externality in your book.
11-29-2010, 04:36 AM
Loki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

Pfff...looks like a straight line to me. :confused:

That really says more about how your brain functions than about what has been said in this thread...
11-29-2010, 05:23 AM
Being

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

That really says more about how your brain functions than about what has been said in this thread...

That's your way of conceding? Pretty weak.
11-29-2010, 06:34 AM
earthJoker

I don't know if your reading comprehension is really in such a bad shape or you are intentionally reading things wrong to support your argument. Try to understand posts in their intended meaning and read through all the quotes you posted.
11-29-2010, 06:47 AM
Being

Quote:

Originally Posted by earthJoker

I don't know if your reading comprehension is really in such a bad shape or you are intentionally reading things wrong to support your argument. Try to understand posts in their intended meaning and read through all the quotes you posted.

Fine, I concede...consumers don't pay for advertizing. I guess shareholders pay for it. WTF. :bulb:
11-29-2010, 07:37 AM
earthJoker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

Fine, I concede...consumers don't pay for advertizing. I guess shareholders pay for it. WTF. :bulb:

You must have quoted the wrong post, your answer doesn't seem to have any connection to what I wrote.
11-29-2010, 11:32 AM
RandBlade

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

I get it...consumers pay for advertizing. :rolleyes: That might be considered an externality in your book.

Oh my God!

There is no fucking externality in advertising! :mad:
11-29-2010, 01:50 PM
Loki

Welcome to Being's World.
11-29-2010, 04:28 PM
Being

Obeying the law is not an externality; it doesn't matter if the law is about taxes or environment. Obeying the law is something companies must take into account when they set prices for their goods or services. I raised the question of which causes greater distortion of resources, taxes or environmental laws, which Loki wouldn't answer based on his false belief that a company's cost for obeying environmental laws (which it agreed to do by setting up shop wherever the law exists) is an externality. :rolleyes:
11-29-2010, 04:30 PM
Loki

If you actually believe what you wrote there, you need help.
11-29-2010, 04:33 PM
Being

Tell me which part offends your senses.
11-29-2010, 04:34 PM
Loki

The part where you seem to be having a conversation with yourself, replying to points not made by anyone other than your head.
11-29-2010, 05:09 PM
Steely Glint

Good ole Faily McBaggins we used to call 'im
11-29-2010, 05:54 PM
earthJoker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

The part where you seem to be having a conversation with yourself, replying to points not made by anyone other than your head.

Maybe we should give him the right to have a second user name, so he can write out the things he answers to.
11-29-2010, 10:37 PM
Loki

That's probably why he had multiple user names on Atari. :noob:
11-30-2010, 06:26 AM
earthJoker

The next step is to give him an entire subforum, so he doesn't have to bother with other posts. Well we could program a random post generator to which he can answer to, as the content doesn't seem to bother him anyway.
11-30-2010, 06:33 AM
Being

Quote:

Originally Posted by earthJoker

The next step is to give him an entire subforum, so he doesn't have to bother with other posts. Well we could program a random post generator to which he can answer to, as the content doesn't seem to bother him anyway.

What are you minions on about now?
11-30-2010, 09:39 AM
earthJoker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Being

What are you minions on about now?

To hike to the Monte Rosa hut, on a nice summer day.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page