My friends tend to be very emotional when it comes to the equality of men and how everyone should get what they deserve. Even when it comes to laws of supply and demand (even though the most amount of individuals that can benefit at any time will be allowed to complete a transaction), they are concerned for the ‘forgotten men’, the less than capable buyers who either didn’t have a high enough reservation price. They think what happens to them? Will they always be able to not afford the products in question?
Am I right in saying that this is just a market of specific suppliers and that if entry into markets is not restricted, businesses will pop up and provide products for the other buyers by virtue of competition to snag clients? And that over time, increased supply would tend to lower prices in general (provided money is stable and not inflated by central banks?
As for everyone “getting what they deserve”, I don’t know how anyone could argue with this:
When your friends make statements like “everyone should get what they deserve” they need to understand that what they are really saying is “everyone should get what I think they deserve”. Your friends probably wouldn’t argue, for example, that even a pauper should get their own personal space shuttle, and if they don’t the government should step in and make one for them.
But otherwise, you are basically right. Through the price mechanism, investment will come to industries with higher profits (industries where people want/need the product to a greater degree than there is current supply), which will serve to increase supply and therefore lower price.
Don’t worry, they are friends who live in AZ while I’m attending college in texas. they are emotionally immature and are still stuck in the world of petty drama.
I’m pleased to say that here, my friends are more reasonable and more open to new concepts and ways of thinking. (P.S. I’m one of the few libertarians in a sea of conservatives, but I plan to put my ideas forth soon haha)
In a market products tend to improve, prices tend to fall, job opportunities tend to expand and diversity of products tends to increase. Nonetheless it is logically possible that some products could be forever out of someone’s price range. It is unlikely I will ever be able to afford my own 747. So? Is this some great injustice?
The wealth of one person has no bearing on the wealth of another person. Bill Gates is worth billions of dollars due to his own hard work. Pretending I’m only worth $10, his being worth billions doesn’t make me any richer or poorer. Not to mention the vast inconsistencies of social welfare for the United States without including the rest of the world. In order to be a fully consistent supporter of the welfare state, you have to be an international socialist or else you’re just a Nazi.
In addition to all of the above points, which are no doubt correct, one can’t help but wonder what happens to the “less capable buyers” in the political market. It’s much more difficult to raise “political currency,” as it were, than money.
And, of course, that’s what the “Forgotten Man” originally referred to: the unseen loser in any non-unanimous collective choice.
EDIT: As for Ricky and Brian’s point, always remember this great quote by Andy Warhol:
