I’d say a fair amount, but to be honest, it doesn’t really matter how I understand the word. It is just a word, it can have any arbitrary definition. I’m asking how others here define it so I can better communicate with them.
The rationale or motive behind the criticism is not to associate narrow grievances with a nebulous bogeyman.
If you accept the fact of food insecurity, if you would wish for it to be resolved, and if you notice a conflict with the profit motive, then it may seem unnecessary to argue.
This is precisely why it is arbitrary. The post makes 0 connection between what makes us capitalist and the problems of food insecurity. Invoking capitalist greed as the catch all problem maker completely sets up a nebulous boogeyman from the perspective of everyone who already hates capitalism. No cause and effect, no potential solutions, no reason to compromise, just an enemy.
If you wish for food insecurity to be solved, then you absolutely should be asking questions.
Profit motive has been cited multiple times when it comes to food waste in this thread. More specifically, people are saying farmers dump milk to keep the prices high and thus retain more profit. Doesn’t it seem like we’re missing something here? If they sell the milk, it may be priced lower, but it’s product that’s already been produced. Whatever cost of production has already been spent. Selling it at a reduced profit is still profit, so what’s missing here? What part of the equation are you ignoring?
What is the rule that is given as determining a commodity price realized at the point of sale?
Would a situation ever arise such that the price realized would not exceed the production costs, yet such a sale would also occur as following from the profit motive?
I think what you’re asking me, is whether farmers would be willing to sell something at a loss? The answer is yes, because not selling it is a bigger loss. It’s actually incredibly common for farmers to sell certain product at a loss just to maintain cash flow and make sure they are able to put their more valuable products to market
This works a lot better if you just make your point. Are you referring to supply and demand? Or maybe you’re referring to the subjective theory of value, or the labor theory of value? Seriously, you’re being really awkwardly coy, and I don’t know what you’re getting at. It feels like you’re trying to lead me to a gotcha but I gotta say it works way better on me to just be straight forward
Your earlier comment insinuated that any sale price for a product would be agreeable, as long as it exceeds the production cost but not the price affordable to all consumers who have need of the product.
You now appear to concede that neither constraint has any actual bearing on price realized at the point of sale, but rather the value is resolved entirely by the principle of supply and demand.
As such, I am not understanding as broadly coherent your initial round of questions.
Perhaps, rather, you have answered your own question, about the piece absent from your own analysis.
I’d say a fair amount, but to be honest, it doesn’t really matter how I understand the word. It is just a word, it can have any arbitrary definition. I’m asking how others here define it so I can better communicate with them.
The term is not being invoked arbitrarily.
The rationale or motive behind the criticism is not to associate narrow grievances with a nebulous bogeyman.
If you accept the fact of food insecurity, if you would wish for it to be resolved, and if you notice a conflict with the profit motive, then it may seem unnecessary to argue.
This is precisely why it is arbitrary. The post makes 0 connection between what makes us capitalist and the problems of food insecurity. Invoking capitalist greed as the catch all problem maker completely sets up a nebulous boogeyman from the perspective of everyone who already hates capitalism. No cause and effect, no potential solutions, no reason to compromise, just an enemy.
If you wish for food insecurity to be solved, then you absolutely should be asking questions.
Profit motive has been cited multiple times when it comes to food waste in this thread. More specifically, people are saying farmers dump milk to keep the prices high and thus retain more profit. Doesn’t it seem like we’re missing something here? If they sell the milk, it may be priced lower, but it’s product that’s already been produced. Whatever cost of production has already been spent. Selling it at a reduced profit is still profit, so what’s missing here? What part of the equation are you ignoring?
What is the rule that is given as determining a commodity price realized at the point of sale?
Would a situation ever arise such that the price realized would not exceed the production costs, yet such a sale would also occur as following from the profit motive?
I think what you’re asking me, is whether farmers would be willing to sell something at a loss? The answer is yes, because not selling it is a bigger loss. It’s actually incredibly common for farmers to sell certain product at a loss just to maintain cash flow and make sure they are able to put their more valuable products to market
Sure. Once a product has been created, the cost of production is not a determinant of whether or when to sell, or price realized at sale.
What is the name of the rule or principle that an economist would identity as the one resolving a sale price on a commodity markets?
This works a lot better if you just make your point. Are you referring to supply and demand? Or maybe you’re referring to the subjective theory of value, or the labor theory of value? Seriously, you’re being really awkwardly coy, and I don’t know what you’re getting at. It feels like you’re trying to lead me to a gotcha but I gotta say it works way better on me to just be straight forward
Your earlier comment insinuated that any sale price for a product would be agreeable, as long as it exceeds the production cost but not the price affordable to all consumers who have need of the product.
You now appear to concede that neither constraint has any actual bearing on price realized at the point of sale, but rather the value is resolved entirely by the principle of supply and demand.
As such, I am not understanding as broadly coherent your initial round of questions.
Perhaps, rather, you have answered your own question, about the piece absent from your own analysis.
No, I did not insinuate this.