Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But long-term averages show the tendency to settle around a price in many cases.
1) All it means is that you are capable of taking an average. It doesn't mean that price is an attractor.
2) 'in many cases'? What a ringing endorsement of the idea that all commodities have a 'natural price'.
3) natural price as minimum price of commodity production labor (i.e. for the low-hanging fruit of commodities)
by definition doesn't work for any commodity which isn't absolutely overwhelmingly available. Average market price will almost always be higher, precisely because more labor-intensive commodity sources will get used in real-world situation. Don't you see how this renders your very thesis incoherent?
This makes me wonder. I'm not saying its evidence or a demonstration but one cannot wave it away either.
Sure we can. We wave it away the same way we wave away the existence of god and Santa. To believe in those
just because it hasn't been disproven is religious faith. You know, just like marxism.
No, you don't realize that it proves that free-market would wipe away industries
of course I do. If european dairy farmers or american steel mills cannot compete on the global market, then we all would be better off getting our milk or steel from someone who can make it cheaper. Yes, entire industries might die -- and in the long run, the whole world will be better off.
Dude, do you seriously think i would be unaware of such a painfully, glaringly obvious economic fact? or do you think it's an esoteric, obscure economic wisdom available only to the select few?
The US steel industry: protected. Car industry: protected many times and now bailed out. Electronics: for long periods protected. Reason: the capital would flee the country and massive unemployment and economic implosion nation-wide.
No, dude, capital would migrate into other things we do better. Our government protects those uncompetitive industries because they have small but vocal political participation, while the great unwashed masses, who pay excessively for steel, cars, and electronics, don't generally voice themselves on this matter.
Man, you know very little about economics, huh? This issue has been understood two centuries ago, by one David Ricardo. it's called
comparative advantage. A globalized economy would end up producing that which it's best at, no matter where the
absolute advantage lies.
As did Marx, who leaned on Smith's work as well. This is no argument.
of course it's an argument. You can't both believe that free market will make the workers better off, and that free market will only keep exacerbating the workers' exploitation.