Food production over time

[reggie]

Re: Food production over time

Earlier quote:
>I feel like reggie is having a Club for Growth conversation with himself and the rest of us are trying to figure it out.

I was one of the people who was "trying to figure it out." That's because I don't have enough background information about the Club of Rome.... what you were posting was interesting, but for someone like me, you didn't give enough pointers or explanations, so I didn't "hear" the main points. I just mentally filed it away as something interesting I need to learn about more, when I can.

The important takeaway here is that the CoR is an elite think tank who has formulated a plan to turn humanity against itself via a global propaganda campaign to convince humans that they are their own enemy. This is being manifested using a variety of techniques, but in the case of this thread's topic, we're witness to narratives of supply shortfall, production decline and the realities of food price increases. I believe to analyze the trends economically, without also understanding elite goals and their commonly used techniques, will not levy a comprehensive understanding of the zeitgeist.

By far the largest problem with economics in my opinion is that it operates in a partial vacuum, in the sense of excluding the other social sciences.

BINGO!!!

[BadJuju]

Re: Food production over time

The important takeaway here is that the CoR is an elite think tank who has formulated a plan to turn humanity against itself via a global propaganda campaign to convince humans that they are their own enemy.

To be honest, much of the problems that we face as a species can be directly traced to humanity itself. Wealth inequality? Humanity. Famine? Humanity. War? Humanity. We would be living in a friggin' paradise if humans were not so shitty.

[reggie]

Re: Food production over time

To be honest, much of the problems that we face as a species can be directly traced to humanity itself. Wealth inequality? Humanity. Famine? Humanity. War? Humanity. We would be living in a friggin' paradise if humans were not so shitty.

This is the propaganda talking.

Do you know anyone who has devised a plan to turn humanity against itself? Or, perhaps to turn our most nutrient rich foods into poisons? Or, how about someone who has made rat-poison into a sweetener and then included it in just about every food commonly sold in the USA? And these are only a few examples.

The vast majority of humanity (99+%) is just fine, maybe they require a little rewiring from all of the propaganda, but they're not going to kill the masses or poison our planet on a mass-scale. What we need to focus on are:

1) the high-level psychopaths who operate at the highest levels of society, and who perpetrate these crimes on a massive scale;
2) the technocrats who willingly, or perhaps unknowingly, carry-out and perpetrate the crimes against humanity.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Food production over time

you can apply same model to land taxes, income taxes, etc. It is all how you label it.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Food Report: One Harvest Away from a Catastrophe

By far the largest problem with economics in my opinion is that it operates in a partial vacuum, in the sense of excluding the other social sciences.

According to Hudson, getting mugged in the Chicago school is to receive a service.

No free lunch see:

100 slaves(1 day) = 1000 bricks. There is no free lunch for :
100 slaves(1 day) = -100 servings of bread fruit.
100 servings bread fruit(1 day) = 1000 bricks.

1 serving of bread fruit = 10 bricks.

A brick therefore is not free and "costs" 1/10 a serving of bread fruit.

See its all equal.....cept for the whole slavery, robbing and mugging thing. Its otherwise know as axiomatic BS.

[Ghent12]

Re: Food Report: One Harvest Away from a Catastrophe

You're still trying to assume supply and demand is correct by just assigning everything into either the supply or demand category. But you've ignored my question: if the primary controlling factor isn't either demand or supply, but greed, then how can supply and demand be the controlling factor?

You may as well believe in magic.
What you call "greed" is actually a first principle which is universally applicable. Humans look out for their own interests, whatever they may be.

You also use the term "control" far too loosely for an academic setting or an accurate discourse of anything other than emotional rhetoric. In the real world, "control" is only available politically--everything else is, at its root, voluntary association. For example, there is no such thing as some company "controlling the market," unless they have such control through political means (i.e. government-sponsored utility monopolies).

Supply and demand are not "controlling factors" but rather two of the three most pertinent aspects of economics--the other being price, aka the value that people place on things.

I think your "completely separate principles" are a function of quantity, not quality. Whether oligopoly or monopoly, the ultimate result is inordinate control over a market by the supply side.

Again, there is no such thing as "control" over a market except via political means. Using your definition of control, I "control" you because you are responding to my posts. Unless there are barriers to entry (which almost exclusively originate politically, i.e. patents), then even a pure, bona fide monopoly does not "control" the market. They still face the potential of competitors which encourages their prices to be competitive. You will find few examples of monopoly pricing existing for long without substantial help from political elements to maintain that monopoly pricing.

I disagree. A given area cannot support multiple 60,000 seat stadiums. Equally a given crossing cannot support multiple parallel bridges.

Suppy and Demand assumes both sides of the equation are unbounded in any way, and there are innumerable examples in real life where this is untrue.

Actually, a given area can support whatever there is support for, including multiple stadiums. To even use your numbers, the city of London has four Stadiums with 60,000 seats or more, and dozens of other small ones.
source:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/europe/...d/london.shtml

You are again misstating what Supply and Demand theory suggests. It assumes perfect competition, which is quite a bit different from being "unbounded in any way." While it is true that perfect competition is essentially nonexistent in the real world, Supply and Demand theory as a model is quite useful in any application dealing with economics. As EJ said (I'm paraphrasing), all models are wrong but some are useful. This one just so happens to be extremely useful.

Pretty tortured, but let's play with this for a bit: You're saying a spike in demand, but what does that mean? Are you comparing vs. when the stadium is empty?

Not tortured at all. The spike in demand comes from the people aggregating in one location, which is definitely not normal except at such big events.

Unless the demand per unit is above normal, then there is no spike of demand, there is simply a shift in the location of the demand into the stadium as the originators of the demand themselves move in.

Well plainly speaking, the demand per unit is zero when the stadium is empty. Ask yourself this: how many times have you seen an Allstate Insurance booth at a stadium? Or a hair salon? Non-food vendors are fairly rare except when the stadium, arena, or fairgrounds are used to host a very specific type of event, such as a dog show. Then things like dog beds, dog bowls, snoods, and so forth are sold along with food and drink. The reason for the types of vendors is very plain: demand is increased at the event.

What you are acknowledging now is something you seemed to ignore earlier; that the definition of the market in question matters. But a large sports event is even harder to define in terms of all of its effects because the whole city is generally influenced by it, as are some surrounding areas. The increase in demand is definitely localized at the large event, but it is not contained entirely there. Many restaurants in the city will also experience increased traffic due to that event as well.

As for the vendors competing - while this is true in a very narrow sense, the reality is that they're competing using the massive rents charged by the stadium as a base. Thus 'competition' exists, but it isn't anything like the competition outside the stadium because of the monopoly nature of the stadium.

You're almost half right. The key factor here is the supply of space for vendors, which is quite constrained considered the number of people that flock in. The matter isn't really the "monopoly nature" of the stadium (which doesn't really exist), nor is it the "greed" of the stadium owners. It is really that the space available for vendors had numerous alternative uses--it could either serve food and drink to people willing to buy it, or it could perhaps sell car insurance, offer Thai massages, or every other good and service that can physically fit within the vendor stall or lot. It just so happens that the people there are willing to demand enough food and drink to make those the absolute most popular types of vendors in a sports stadium, and still quite popular in the various arenas and other locations for large events.

Absolutely. Business is a function of making money.

There are, however, all sorts of illegal, immoral, unsocial, and so forth ways of making money.

Did you use the word "however" properly? Or are you saying there are multiple ways to make money: business, plus other unsavory ways?

Regardless, these are asinine ways to categorize human activity and they have no real meaning. Laws change, as do social constructs and perceptions of morality. What doesn't ever seem to ever change is human nature; hence the strength of an economic theory derived from first principles based upon human nature.

As for your economics textbooks - I do think it is amusing that you still think they have any credibility beyond the area of thought experiment. The economics profession is a sham, and the 'fundamental principles' don't actually work in real life.

You can pick your poison with economics as much as you can with any profession.

Thus if economics were just about a couple of professors arguing minutiae over coffee and peer reviewed papers, no worries.

However, the reality is that our government and ourselves are affected by these minutiae, and when it is abundantly clear that these 'principles' are in fact inapplicable in real life, I choose to move on.

The basics are always applicable, but no politically-powerful economist ever uses just the basics. They add in their own flavor, often turning it into mush.

I have, in fact, read over 50 different economics textbooks because it is a hobby of mine - and what I've taken from them is clearly different than what you have.

Indeed. You seem to have added quite a bit of your own thoughts to the theory, and then discredited it based upon your additions.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Food Report: One Harvest Away from a Catastrophe



this is getting interesting...

[gwynedd1]

Re: Food Report: One Harvest Away from a Catastrophe

Supply and Demand theory as a model is quite useful in any application dealing with economics. As EJ said (I'm paraphrasing), all models are wrong but some are useful. This one just so happens to be extremely useful.

That is one of the more sensible things I have read recently. It is indeed very useful; it is just not the tool to use when describing moral lapses.

[bart]

Re: Food production over time

...

What we need to focus on are:

1) the high-level psychopaths who operate at the highest levels of society, and who perpetrate these crimes on a massive scale;
2) the technocrats who willingly, or perhaps unknowingly, carry-out and perpetrate the crimes against humanity.

Yep, and the quantity of the true anti-social or sociopath or psychopath is quite low, well under 5% of the total population. It's unwise to generalize in my opinion about "humanity" when most are pretty decent folk.

[c1ue]

Re: Food production over time

You may as well believe in magic.
What you call "greed" is actually a first principle which is universally applicable. Humans look out for their own interests, whatever they may be.

You also use the term "control" far too loosely for an academic setting or an accurate discourse of anything other than emotional rhetoric. In the real world, "control" is only available politically--everything else is, at its root, voluntary association. For example, there is no such thing as some company "controlling the market," unless they have such control through political means (i.e. government-sponsored utility monopolies).

Supply and demand are not "controlling factors" but rather two of the three most pertinent aspects of economics--the other being price, aka the value that people place on things.

...

Again, there is no such thing as "control" over a market except via political means. Using your definition of control, I "control" you because you are responding to my posts. Unless there are barriers to entry (which almost exclusively originate politically, i.e. patents), then even a pure, bona fide monopoly does not "control" the market. They still face the potential of competitors which encourages their prices to be competitive. You will find few examples of monopoly pricing existing for long without substantial help from political elements to maintain that monopoly pricing.

You don't distinguish between profit and greed.

I do.

As for control: Intel controls the microprocessor market. Coke and Pepsi control the soft drink market. Microsoft controls the OS market. etc etc. These are examples of supply side control.

Demand side control can be demonstrated by Oprah and Wal-Mart.

Control can change, and control can be 'soft' or 'hard', but control absolutely exists outside of government.

Your arguments to date are very old and spring ultimately from the counter-socialist propaganda school of economics headed by John Bates Clark.

Actually, a given area can support whatever there is support for, including multiple stadiums. To even use your numbers, the city of London has four Stadiums with 60,000 seats or more, and dozens of other small ones.
source:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/europe/...d/london.shtml

You are again misstating what Supply and Demand theory suggests. It assumes perfect competition, which is quite a bit different from being "unbounded in any way." While it is true that perfect competition is essentially nonexistent in the real world, Supply and Demand theory as a model is quite useful in any application dealing with economics. As EJ said (I'm paraphrasing), all models are wrong but some are useful. This one just so happens to be extremely useful.

So to prove your point: perhaps you can give me 5 examples of major sports teams that switched from one existing stadium to another one - as opposed to moved to a new one built for them.

Not tortured at all. The spike in demand comes from the people aggregating in one location, which is definitely not normal except at such big events.

...

Well plainly speaking, the demand per unit is zero when the stadium is empty. Ask yourself this: how many times have you seen an Allstate Insurance booth at a stadium? Or a hair salon? Non-food vendors are fairly rare except when the stadium, arena, or fairgrounds are used to host a very specific type of event, such as a dog show. Then things like dog beds, dog bowls, snoods, and so forth are sold along with food and drink. The reason for the types of vendors is very plain: demand is increased at the event.

What you are acknowledging now is something you seemed to ignore earlier; that the definition of the market in question matters. But a large sports event is even harder to define in terms of all of its effects because the whole city is generally influenced by it, as are some surrounding areas. The increase in demand is definitely localized at the large event, but it is not contained entirely there. Many restaurants in the city will also experience increased traffic due to that event as well.

So your definition of demand is based on the location. Unfortunately, demand exists only with people. It is far from clear that the per-unit demand is unusual in the stadium as opposed to anywhere else people congregate: bars, restaurants, parties at home, clubs, etc etc.

As for the effect on the area - that is frankly irrelevant. We're not looking at the overall economic impact a sporting event in a stadium has on the surrounding economy, we're looking at the monopoly situation inside the stadium which causes $8 and $10 beers to arise.

You're trying to say this is a pure demand driven dynamic as opposed to a monopoly pricing dynamic. In order for you to demonstrate your point, you have to show that the demand is extraordinarily higher than anywhere else per person, thus driving the extraordinarily higher prices. Good luck doing so.

Supply clearly isn't an issue since stadiums rarely if ever run out of beer, and in any case would be false anyway since the price of beer doesn't go up or down according to the supply left in the stadium.

You're almost half right. The key factor here is the supply of space for vendors, which is quite constrained considered the number of people that flock in. The matter isn't really the "monopoly nature" of the stadium (which doesn't really exist), nor is it the "greed" of the stadium owners. It is really that the space available for vendors had numerous alternative uses--it could either serve food and drink to people willing to buy it, or it could perhaps sell car insurance, offer Thai massages, or every other good and service that can physically fit within the vendor stall or lot. It just so happens that the people there are willing to demand enough food and drink to make those the absolute most popular types of vendors in a sports stadium, and still quite popular in the various arenas and other locations for large events.

This is ludicrously funny. You're trying to say that rents are high because there is a finite supply of space for vendors? That exact same dynamic exists in a bar, in a restaurant, in any establishment that isn't a food court.

Yet none of these 'vending space supply limited' areas has anything like the price dynamics in a stadium. The two places which do? The movie theater - which owns the popcorn concession and has similar pricing schemes, and airports which also charge exorbitantly high rents. These two establishments as well as the stadiums share the exact same 'captivity' factor.

Did you use the word "however" properly? Or are you saying there are multiple ways to make money: business, plus other unsavory ways?

Regardless, these are asinine ways to categorize human activity and they have no real meaning. Laws change, as do social constructs and perceptions of morality. What doesn't ever seem to ever change is human nature; hence the strength of an economic theory derived from first principles based upon human nature.

Strange, every one of the terms above has direct corollaries with either law and/or societal mores. Yet for you, they are asinine.

As for the use of "however", the usage is correct. Even as there are all sorts of ways to conduct business - which in turn is defined as the process of making money - there are, however, many types of business conduct which are not acceptable.

You can pick your poison with economics as much as you can with any profession.

Before picking, generally you need to survey your choices. How many economics textbooks have you read?

The basics are always applicable, but no politically-powerful economist ever uses just the basics. They add in their own flavor, often turning it into mush.

The basics as you term them don't seem to bear any resemblance whatsoever to reality. This in turn brings to question how 'basic' they are.

Or perhaps what you consider basic is simply intellectually attractive, as opposed to economically descriptive?

Indeed. You seem to have added quite a bit of your own thoughts to the theory, and then discredited it based upon your additions.

Actually, what I've been saying has been said by all manner of well regarded economists.

I'm not the one defending a failed orthodoxy, one which has failed so spectactularly and in such a public fashion.

[Ghent12]

Re: Food production over time

You don't distinguish between profit and greed.

What are you talking about? Greed is actually just human nature, and profit is a reward and incentive for doing the right thing, economically speaking--giving people what they value at a cost to them that is lower than how much they value it. It is a reward for being efficient in supplying the wants and needs of people.

As for control: Intel controls the microprocessor market. Coke and Pepsi control the soft drink market. Microsoft controls the OS market. etc etc. These are examples of supply side control.

Demand side control can be demonstrated by Oprah and Wal-Mart.

Control can change, and control can be 'soft' or 'hard', but control absolutely exists outside of government.

As I said, your definition of control is too loose for an accurate discourse. Did I "control" you when you made your post? Just whom is being controlled by Intel, Microsoft, Oprah, Wal-Mart, or the entity you call Coke and Pepsi? All that they control is the same thing that every business controls; their own processes. They don't control their consumers, they don't control their suppliers; they merely have influence. Intel cannot stop their customers from choosing AMD; does that sound like control to you? All Intel can do is lower the price or improve the quality to try to attract customers. By any reasonable definition, if all you can do is attempt to just influence someone's decision, then you do not really have control.

I can understand why this would be difficult for you to understand. As demonstrated in a previous discussion, you believe that influence actually is control. As I recall, you used an example where you've seen people at a bar drink under social pressure, in spite of some allergic condition. If you still believe in that unreasonable postulate that influence is control, then you must believe that I control you because you are replying to my posts. Similarly, you must believe that you control me because I am replying to you. How can we both control each other? As I said before, your definition is too loose; it is an extreme exaggeration.

You're trying to say this is a pure demand driven dynamic as opposed to a monopoly pricing dynamic. In order for you to demonstrate your point, you have to show that the demand is extraordinarily higher than anywhere else per person, thus driving the extraordinarily higher prices. Good luck doing so.

You do not seem to understand the dynamic between both supply and demand. It is the pairing of those that determine price, and inputs into either can influence the price one way or the other, thereby drawing the other side of the equation into play.

Supply clearly isn't an issue since stadiums rarely if ever run out of beer, and in any case would be false anyway since the price of beer doesn't go up or down according to the supply left in the stadium.

For someone who has read so many textbooks, you seem to have ignored every one of them. "Supply" has very little to do with running out. Economics as a whole is, at its most basic, about three critical factors: supply, demand, and prices. It is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses. Now I understand that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the economic definition of scarce, so I expect some diatribe from you regarding that word, but the real point here is about supply, demand, and the price of a good or service. Please reread one of your dozens of books to understand what supply is.

This is ludicrously funny. You're trying to say that rents are high because there is a finite supply of space for vendors? That exact same dynamic exists in a bar, in a restaurant, in any establishment that isn't a food court.

You've missed the point, c1ue. Rents are high in stadiums because of two reasons, not one. It is the combination of a constrained supply of vendor stall space and extraordinary demand for those spaces. What vendor wouldn't want access to tens of thousands of people concentrated in one relatively small physical location? You seem to have a recurring problem of systematically ignoring half of everything, and therefore blame the theory as being incomplete or not applicable to the real world. You lack a rigorous perspective, which would make any "orthodoxy" difficult for you to understand.

Yet none of these 'vending space supply limited' areas has anything like the price dynamics in a stadium. The two places which do? The movie theater - which owns the popcorn concession and has similar pricing schemes, and airports which also charge exorbitantly high rents. These two establishments as well as the stadiums share the exact same 'captivity' factor.

You seem to be arguing that demand plays a role in prices. Demand that is "captive" or localized drives up prices, you say? I am glad that you understand and support about half of the Supply and Demand theory, at least.

[reggie]

Re: Food production over time

Yep, and the quantity of the true anti-social or sociopath or psychopath is quite low, well under 5% of the total population. It's unwise to generalize in my opinion about "humanity" when most are pretty decent folk.

Thank you for your very wise and needed reply.

These notions that humanity is some how to blame for everything that we think is wrong with the world is sophisticated elite programming, as psycopaths almost always convince their victims that their victims are to blame for what is happening to them. I've grown very tired of this technique, and hit the ceiling when I see it parrotted in the public.

Originally Posted by c1ue As for

I have, in fact, read over 50 different economics textbooks because it is a hobby of mine - and what I've taken from them is clearly different than what you have.

The issue here is not the quantity of system produced material one has absorbed, but the ability of one to step-outside the system to see what is not said in academia or in the public. Understanding the system in infintesimal granularity will not help us now, because the system ONLY deceives.

By the way, Economics is NOT the end-game here, it is merely a tool, a technique. Readers of this thread maybe interested in the Farmageddon documentary - do you think so much effort would be invested to surveil, harrass etc small family farms if economics were the primary ends?

[c1ue]

Re: Food production over time

What are you talking about? Greed is actually just human nature, and profit is a reward and incentive for doing the right thing, economically speaking--giving people what they value at a cost to them that is lower than how much they value it. It is a reward for being efficient in supplying the wants and needs of people.

I'm sorry, but again you're illustrating the chasm between our belief systems.

There is absolutely such a thing as greed. Greed is when a bankster engages in a fraudulent practice specifically for the purpose of getting a bigger bonus. Greed is when a CEO forces through a merger so that the compensation committee will give him a bigger pay package for heading a larger organization. Greed is when a hugely profitable company sues a local bookstore because it happens to have a name similar to one of said company's brands.

In your belief system, apparently there is no such thing as greed. No matter what, the profit derived is always earned and fair.

As I said, your definition of control is too loose for an accurate discourse. Did I "control" you when you made your post? Just whom is being controlled by Intel, Microsoft, Oprah, Wal-Mart, or the entity you call Coke and Pepsi? All that they control is the same thing that every business controls; their own processes. They don't control their consumers, they don't control their suppliers; they merely have influence. Intel cannot stop their customers from choosing AMD; does that sound like control to you? All Intel can do is lower the price or improve the quality to try to attract customers. By any reasonable definition, if all you can do is attempt to just influence someone's decision, then you do not really have control.

I can understand why this would be difficult for you to understand. As demonstrated in a previous discussion, you believe that influence actually is control. As I recall, you used an example where you've seen people at a bar drink under social pressure, in spite of some allergic condition. If you still believe in that unreasonable postulate that influence is control, then you must believe that I control you because you are replying to my posts. Similarly, you must believe that you control me because I am replying to you. How can we both control each other? As I said before, your definition is too loose; it is an extreme exaggeration.

If you cannot understand the concept of control I put forward, then so be it. Even the so called classical economics books you blithely refer to make reference to this concept.

Sure, theoretically everyone can control everything they do. However, reality dictates that this isn't true. Complete control implies complete freedom of choice as well as complete knowledge. No one - future, past, or present, has any of the above.

You do not seem to understand the dynamic between both supply and demand. It is the pairing of those that determine price, and inputs into either can influence the price one way or the other, thereby drawing the other side of the equation into play.

You keep arguing theory, but have continuously failed to equate theory with reality.

And note: I've said that as a thought exercise, supply and demand is a useful tool.

It is just as a real world economic precept - it is utterly wrong.

For someone who has read so many textbooks, you seem to have ignored every one of them. "Supply" has very little to do with running out. Economics as a whole is, at its most basic, about three critical factors: supply, demand, and prices. It is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses. Now I understand that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the economic definition of scarce, so I expect some diatribe from you regarding that word, but the real point here is about supply, demand, and the price of a good or service. Please reread one of your dozens of books to understand what supply is.

This is fascinating - you're apparently now arguing what? That beer being sold in a stadium has alternate uses? Perhaps the vendors should be selling machine guns? Not sure why your latest detour is relevant.

Supply of a good is the inventory of the good. Period. You can talk about future inventory in terms of future demand, but supply itself is quite straightforward.

More importantly, supply is irrelevant when there is a monopoly situation. Surely you will acknowledge that reality? Diamonds/De Beers?

You've missed the point, c1ue. Rents are high in stadiums because of two reasons, not one. It is the combination of a constrained supply of vendor stall space and extraordinary demand for those spaces. What vendor wouldn't want access to tens of thousands of people concentrated in one relatively small physical location? You seem to have a recurring problem of systematically ignoring half of everything, and therefore blame the theory as being incomplete or not applicable to the real world. You lack a rigorous perspective, which would make any "orthodoxy" difficult for you to understand.

Oh, I agree with what you're saying above. However, it doesn't in any way change the reality that the stadium has a monopoly, and therefore can charge as much as it wants.

Sure, theoretically and over time, exorbitantly overcharged rents in a stadium - leading to too high beer prices - will in turn lead to pushback on rent by vendors. But once again reality rears its ugly head: the stadium has no obligation whatsoever to even maintain full capacity in its 'vendor space'. The stadium doesn't even have to rent based on overall profit - maybe the stadium owner gives over half the space so his brother in law will maintain his sister in appropriate manner. With monopoly, there needs be no market dynamic.

As you continue to refuse to admit that monopoly exists, then there's no point discussing further.

You seem to be arguing that demand plays a role in prices. Demand that is "captive" or localized drives up prices, you say? I am glad that you understand and support about half of the Supply and Demand theory, at least.

No, what I'm saying is that people have intrinsic demand for various things, and this demand moves with them.

A very basic example: breathable air. Theoretically there is a fixed demand for breathable air. Said demand is pretty much fixed systemwide, but an airline could charge for breathable air when the plane goes to high altitude. This isn't entirely outlandish since the airline has to spend money for pressurization and oxygen. Furthermore no one can say that they don't need air, and equally bringing your own air is highly problematic.

Yet to charge for air seems more than a little bit greedy and egregious.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Food production over time

I don't really want to get too much between this debate but the stadium model has one detail that does not fully describe a parasitic rent capture. A stadium is creating that captive audience and thus is capturing its own rents. Disney for example quietly purchased property to capture its own rents instead of giving away a free lunch to land owners around it. You'd think that this famous example would revive an understanding of this concept where rent capture is not possible and parasitism exists , but alas the dark age continues.

[Ghent12]

Re: Food production over time

I'm sorry, but again you're illustrating the chasm between our belief systems.

There is absolutely such a thing as greed. Greed is when a bankster engages in a fraudulent practice specifically for the purpose of getting a bigger bonus. Greed is when a CEO forces through a merger so that the compensation committee will give him a bigger pay package for heading a larger organization. Greed is when a hugely profitable company sues a local bookstore because it happens to have a name similar to one of said company's brands.

In your belief system, apparently there is no such thing as greed. No matter what, the profit derived is always earned and fair.

You have made the mistake of reading what you want, not what is written and intended. I don't say that greed doesn't exist. I'm saying that not only does it exist, but it is basically universal.

To address your specific examples:
Greed can indeed entice people to do fraudulent or otherwise illegal activities. It is a question of risk versus reward, as perceived by the potential fraudster/criminal. What incentivizes them to commit fraud? Lax enforcement of the law, or inadequate anti-fraud laws, are the most likely candidates for reducing their risk, and hence the most controllable from the perspective of society at large.

Greed can indeed incentivize growth or accumulation of companies. Again, what matters is risk versus reward for the decision-maker. You will never change the fundamental nature of humans, which is to look after their interests.

Greed can motivate the protection of a certain brand which is profitable because it has earned the trust of the public. Perhaps your beef is with brand protection or its method of enforcement. It is evidently in the public's interest for the local bookstore to have heat brought upon it in order to protect the brand of the major chain. The only reason why the major chain should be so profitable is because it fundamentally delivers what the public demands at low costs lower than what the public is willing to accept.

You seem to believe that profit is or can be a dirty word. On the contrary, profit is the best incentive ever devised to provide people with what they need and want. The definition of profit is one of a positive difference between price and cost. Cost is always borne by someone, and price is always paid by someone. In a market economy, the prospect of profit doesn't just drive people to charge as high a price as they can, but it also incentivizes them to become as efficient as they can in reducing the costs of supplying whatever they do. This doesn't just work for existing suppliers, but for all potential suppliers. If there is "windfall" profits in a given industry, that gives everyone else the incentive to enter that industry and supply more of what the people obviously want.

If you cannot understand the concept of control I put forward, then so be it. Even the so called classical economics books you blithely refer to make reference to this concept.

Sure, theoretically everyone can control everything they do. However, reality dictates that this isn't true. Complete control implies complete freedom of choice as well as complete knowledge. No one - future, past, or present, has any of the above.

Actually, the term market control is almost exclusively used in terms of government actually stepping into the marketplace to literally control one or more aspects of it (i.e. price).

What you define as "market control" is completely invalid. If you are willing to accept the principle that people tend to look out for their own interests, but then go on to say that some companies can "control" the market, then how do you account for companies losing any market share? If Wal-Mart "controls the demand side" of the market, then its only destiny will be absolute monopoly. Yet that didn't happen to A & P, which by your loose definition most certainly "controlled" the grocery store market. A & P didn't control the market; its customers did, and they voted with their money when competitors to A & P offered more of what the customers wanted than A & P did. If A & P actually "controlled" the retail market, how or why would they ever relinquish their control? Because they did not control the market, just as Wal-Mart doesn't control the retail market today, nor does any corporation absent government-granted control. If Target develops a way to lower costs substantially, or to improve their products substantially, Wal-Mart might lose most of its market share overnight. It can and has happened in other industries.

You keep arguing theory, but have continuously failed to equate theory with reality.

And note: I've said that as a thought exercise, supply and demand is a useful tool.

It is just as a real world economic precept - it is utterly wrong.

It is not "utterly wrong," it is actually quite useful in essentially all circumstances. For instance, with all due respect to EJ, the price of oil is certainly subject to supply and demand fundamentals. Speculators serve the role that oil producers very much appreciate (because they keep using them!), which is to reduce the risks associated with supplying oil. People in general demand oil-based products, companies are willing to supply it but they in turn demand reduced risks in price fluctuations, and hence speculators are willing to do the research and analysis and pool the capital necessary to take on those risks and better manage them. That is why farmers, oil producers, and others use the services of speculators--they demand reduced risk, and someone is willing to supply it to them.

This is fascinating - you're apparently now arguing what? That beer being sold in a stadium has alternate uses? Perhaps the vendors should be selling machine guns? Not sure why your latest detour is relevant.

Supply of a good is the inventory of the good. Period. You can talk about future inventory in terms of future demand, but supply itself is quite straightforward.

Actually, you got the gist of it right in the latter question. Vendors could indeed be selling machine guns, cars, dish washers, and etc. at stadiums. In fact, in stadiums and other similar places such as arenas and fairgrounds, there is a bit of non-food vendoring going on. Sports memorabilia, event-related memorabilia, and so forth are quite common, but they must also compete with the food vendors for those rental stalls. The supply of vendor stall space is quite limited, but there are probably innumerable vendors who want one of them to gain access to the huge crowd. It just so happens that food/drink is typically the most likely to recover the costs of the stall, because who has use for a washing machine or a hair dryer at a football game?

You are wrong in the second paragraph. Supply is what is available, and can include futures. You can sell promises as much as you can sell goods. You can sell services too; what is a barbershop's "inventory" of haircuts? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

More importantly, supply is irrelevant when there is a monopoly situation. Surely you will acknowledge that reality? Diamonds/De Beers?

Actually, you have brought up a great example of Supply and Demand in action. De Beers does a lot of work to restrict the supply of diamonds available to the market, and hence benefit from the correspondingly higher price. One of the four fundamental principles of supply and demand is that when supply is reduced, prices tend to rise and demand tends to be reduced because of the rise in prices.

Oh, I agree with what you're saying above. However, it doesn't in any way change the reality that the stadium has a monopoly, and therefore can charge as much as it wants.

Again, the stadium doesn't have a real monopoly, but it does have a slight appearance of one.

Also, it is untrue that even a monopoly can charge "as much as it wants." You are again making the mistake of using the vernacular to describe very precise details about a very nuanced subject. This is the same mistake you had with "scarcity" and with "control" earlier. These words have meanings, and they are separate from what you want or from their vernacular when applied to economics. Are you actually trying to claim that a stadium doesn't want to charge $15 Trillion for a vendor stall? Or $789 Quadrillion? Words have meaning, c1ue.

Sure, theoretically and over time, exorbitantly overcharged rents in a stadium - leading to too high beer prices - will in turn lead to pushback on rent by vendors. But once again reality rears its ugly head: the stadium has no obligation whatsoever to even maintain full capacity in its 'vendor space'. The stadium doesn't even have to rent based on overall profit - maybe the stadium owner gives over half the space so his brother in law will maintain his sister in appropriate manner. With monopoly, there needs be no market dynamic.

Obligation is different from incentive, and we are not talking about obligations. Again you are wrong about the concept of monopoly itself, which is apparently a favorite subject of yours. Even monopolies cannot charge "what they want," lest they invite competition. If a stadium goes financially suicidal and charges "whatever they want" for vendor stall rent and for admissions, that seems like a golden invitation for another stadium to be built, or for the owners to be bought out once they run out of money. Market considerations are still in effect; supply and demand is still in effect.

As you continue to refuse to admit that monopoly exists, then there's no point discussing further.

Actually, quite the opposite. Monopolies do exist, and they are typically government-supported and government-protected.

No, what I'm saying is that people have intrinsic demand for various things, and this demand moves with them.

A very basic example: breathable air. Theoretically there is a fixed demand for breathable air. Said demand is pretty much fixed systemwide, but an airline could charge for breathable air when the plane goes to high altitude. This isn't entirely outlandish since the airline has to spend money for pressurization and oxygen. Furthermore no one can say that they don't need air, and equally bringing your own air is highly problematic.

Yet to charge for air seems more than a little bit greedy and egregious.

It is interesting that you mention breathable air, which is one of the very few "goods" that people use as an example of a perfectly "free good," which is to say it is universally available and can be used on demand with no cost.

It is also interesting that you define the service provided by airlines the way you have. They don't offer or sell "air," they supply seating, space and some amenities on habitable aircraft that go from predetermined locations to predetermined locations. It is not costless to pressurize an aircraft to a comfortable degree as essentially all airliners do above a certain altitude, but the costs of not doing so are greater. In fact it airliners constantly strive for the right balance between customer comfort and aircraft wear and tear, since pressurizing the cabin induces additional stress on the structure of the aircraft. Customers demand certain things from airliners, and airliners supply them--even air, which in that circumstance isn't free. Customers are charged for the trip and for some amenities including luggage space; pressurized cabins are generally just part of the trip charge. A whole package is sold with some extras added on at additional cost. Charging for air, if it ever happened, might seem "greedy and egregious" to simple people, but it wouldn't necessarily be unjustified if your choice was between cabins pressurized to different degrees. I, for one, would certainly choose to pay for the costs of pressurizing the air and for the increased stress created by making the airplane fuselage into a pressure vessel, even if ignorant folk in the press or elsewhere call it "charging for free air!!!"