Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ctdonath2

Raising the price only decides WHO can buy it, limiting amounts doesn’t do that.

When amounts are limited, then I can purchase some rather than Jane Fonda or George Soros, or Barbara Streisand getting it all.


48 posted on 04/18/2013 7:13:14 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective position-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: ansel12

And if your “some” is less than you need, and you are willing to pay much more to get more, what then? Wait for someone else to buy theirs then offer them more? wait, you didn’t like others doing that.

Rich people don’t get/stay rich by buying up far more than they need at high prices just to dump most if it unused or sell at low prices. Your “Soros” argument is stupid.

And sellers don’t jack prices way up just so nobody can afford them. If it doesn’t sell at a price, the price gets lowered.

Supply-and-demand ALWAYS functions. If you screw with it, you get unintended consequences.

Socialism sucks. I suggest you figure that out fast.


63 posted on 04/18/2013 7:27:43 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Making good people helpless doesnÂ’t make bad people harmless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: ansel12

When “amounts are limited” everyone gets what they can and there’s none left by the time you get there.

Market prices mean supply matches demand: if you’re willing to pay market price, you can get it.


76 posted on 04/18/2013 7:41:01 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Making good people helpless doesnÂ’t make bad people harmless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson