A Tesla in Your Future?

Originally posted by Wajoma

Every day the actual price of trading voluntarily is distorted by gummint, everyday untold billions of transactions that would otherwise occur to mutual beneficence simply don't take place because gummint punishes people for doing that.

And then there's a drought for 6 years and Fred and Trev face ruin, and no amount of pallying up and helping each other out will change the fact that they both are long broke, and because they live in a system where the Government has no resources because clever buggers like themselves thought that supporting a tax system was all a bit of a con, are left with no other choice but to go out into the top paddock and shoot each others brains out as they have nothing left to live or hope for.

On the other side of the ocean the good farmers Kev and Robbo, who admittedly find paying all of their taxes a bit of an imposition are nevertheless pleased that when it all gets a bit desperate, at least they have a government that will help out with aid and money because guess what, having a healthy tax base and a socialist agenda sometimes is nice when you are the one facing ruin and starvation.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Obviously, and I'm sure you'll agree, their use of English is abominable. So they, equally obviously, decide to hire a professional to teach their children properly...

And Trev just doesn't understand the necessity of sewers, but Fred thinks a gravel road is more than sufficient. However, the teacher thinks that one of the children actually needs profes ...[text shortened]... how to finance it, without selling one of the farms.

And that's why taxation is needed.

Would you agree that increased prices discourage trading? That the higher tax is, the less trading occurs.

Let's get a straight answer on that Shav, and I'll go on to point out the hole in your theory.

Incidently most farms aren't connected to any kind of sewer system, but that's niether here nor there.

Originally posted by kmax87
And then there's a drought for 6 years and Fred and Trev face ruin, and no amount of pallying up and helping each other out will change the fact that they both are long broke, and because they live in a system where the Government has no resources because clever buggers like themselves thought that supporting a tax system was all a bit of a con, are left with ...[text shortened]... base and a socialist agenda sometimes is nice when you are the one facing ruin and starvation.

Nothing stopping them from contributing to a voluntary fund.

Oh dear, there's that 'v' word again, you'd like to see it wiped from the language wouldn't you.

Edit: I will also add that the "a bit desperate" line is that much closer as a result of the tax they've paid, like a bad joke really, make it hard for the farmer to prepare for disasters then be oh so generous with the money that was theirs in the first place.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Would you agree that increased prices discourage trading? That the higher tax is, the less trading occurs.

I don't know.
Europe has higher taxes, doesn't it?
It was trading perfectly well. Everyone had at least a reasonable living standard.

So, I'm not sure if increased pricing actually does discourage trading.

Looking at it from another angle, if the prices are hiked (due to tax), one needs to sell more to make more profit, doesn't one? Wouldn't that actually increase trading then (if people are really only interested in making profit)?

Originally posted by shavixmir
I don't know.
Europe has higher taxes, doesn't it?
It was trading perfectly well. Everyone had at least a reasonable living standard.

So, I'm not sure if increased pricing actually does discourage trading.

Looking at it from another angle, if the prices are hiked (due to tax), one needs to sell more to make more profit, doesn't one? Wouldn't that actually increase trading then (if people are really only interested in making profit)?

So increased prices = more trade. So if goods and services are cheaper people will use them less?

You had it right with the first three words of your post.

Originally posted by Wajoma
So increased prices = more trade. So if goods and services are cheaper people will use them less?

You had it right with the first three words of your post.

Petrol in Holland has become every more expensive and there are more cars on the road today than yesterday.
It would seem to me that the more expensive it gets, the more people use it.

Or maybe the two just aren't connected?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Petrol in Holland has become every more expensive and there are more cars on the road today than yesterday.
It would seem to me that the more expensive it gets, the more people use it.

Or maybe the two just aren't connected?

You're not connected, pretty pointless discussing it with you when you wont admit to one of the most basic economic principles. Higher prices mean people will buy more hahaha.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You're not connected, pretty pointless discussing it with you when you wont admit to one of the most basic economic principles. Higher prices mean people will buy more hahaha.

So why are more people driving cars when it's becoming ever more expensive?

Originally posted by shavixmir
So why are more people driving cars when it's becoming ever more expensive?

...you said it shav, more people drive cars because it costs more. hehe

Originally posted by Wajoma
...you said it shav, more people drive cars because it costs more. hehe

More people trade more because it costs less.

Isn't it worth the exact same "hehe" then?
It seems you can't debunk the fact and feel the need to resort to amateurish insults.

The case I'm making is that "price" has little to do with trade. Necessity, for example, is a much more important influence.

Originally posted by shavixmir
More people trade more because it costs less.

Isn't it worth the exact same "hehe" then?
It seems you can't debunk the fact and feel the need to resort to amateurish insults.

The case I'm making is that "price" has little to do with trade. Necessity, for example, is a much more important influence.

You go for it, the more something costs the more people buy it. Amateurish insults they maybe, but they're also warranted amateurish insults.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You go for it, the more something costs the more people buy it. Amateurish insults they maybe, but they're also warranted amateurish insults.

Well, let's throw this at you from another angle then...

Why isn't everyone driving around in Peugot 107 or an Aygoo?

Originally posted by kmax87
And then there's a drought for 6 years and Fred and Trev face ruin, and no amount of pallying up and helping each other out will change the fact that they both are long broke, and because they live in a system where the Government has no resources because clever buggers like themselves thought that supporting a tax system was all a bit of a con, are left with ...[text shortened]... base and a socialist agenda sometimes is nice when you are the one facing ruin and starvation.

unfortunately, having put their names on a petition for better farm reform, Kev and Robbo were never seen again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/world/asia/11china.html?ref=todayspaper

Voice Seeking Answers for Parents About a School Collapse Is Silenced

Originally posted by shavixmir
More people trade more because it costs less.

Isn't it worth the exact same "hehe" then?
It seems you can't debunk the fact and feel the need to resort to amateurish insults.

The case I'm making is that "price" has little to do with trade. Necessity, for example, is a much more important influence.

Shav you can understand the exasperation can't you, my mistake was to ask for a straight answer from you. So here is the straight question with the straight answer, and following that an explanation.

"Would you agree that increased prices discourage trading?"

Yes

When two parties trade generally they both profit from the transaction, otherwise they wouldn't engage in the transaction. Whether the profit margin on both sides is the same is impossible to calculate, these values are to be assessed by each of the two parties. If I am hungry, a Big Mac has a higher value to me than if I'm not. The burgers value to me might also be reduced if I am of limited funds, or if I am a member of PETA. So prior to a transaction we assess what the benefit to us is likely to be (here 'benefit' is a synonym for 'profit'😉. We draw a line, above the line we profit in some way, below the line we'd be losing. Pay attention to that line shav.

Along comes the grey shoe wearing clipboard toting IRS bureaurat control freak, and he sets to distorting the actual price. He raises the line, and every fraction of a percent that the line is raised a few more people are dissauded from trading. It may be the two farmers helping each other out, it may be a Sunday drive, a pint in the pub, in almost every aspect of our lives we are being dissauded from the voluntary trade of value for value, we are being dissauded from co-operating with each other.

Sure, sooner or later it does come down to necessity, and this comment by shav reveals something about his philosophy.

Originally posted by Wajoma
So increased prices = more trade. So if goods and services are cheaper people will use them less?

You had it right with the first three words of your post.

Btw in this whole credit squeeze who of the two trading philosophies is doing better.

The higher taxing more heavily regulated EU, or the regulation averse free wheeling USA???