Re: World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/17/04 

Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:29:40 -0400

daestrom wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:bofTc.27270$a65.1160570@news20.bellglobal.com...

>>
>>> The socialized transportation systems of EU versus free
>>> market scheme is another factor.
>>
>> You mean the cooperation vs capitalism I mentioned..... thanks for
>> supporting my point. Someday they will understand that market system
>> do not work well enough to be the only option.
>>
>> One excellent example of the failure of market systems is the
>> Canadian West where they used to supply the U.S. ONE cow ( one
>> report placed it as originating in the U.S. but it was caught in
>> Canada) with BSE and the entire border is closed crippling a
>> multibillion dollar business. That is one market failure caused by
>> local cattle interests in the U.S. jacking up their own prices by
>> closing down the borders under cover of an 'overreaction'.
>
> Hmmm, close off a major part of the supply and the price goes up.

That was not the point. You have a reading deficiency? The point was two
market failures. The one of protectionism in the U.S. which closed the
border long after the problem was dealth with, and the fact that despite a
huge oversupply, the price in *Canada* has not gone down. Two market failure
for the price of one.

> Yeah, I can see how a socialist would think that's a 'market failure'.

The first a result of the fact that the U.S. government cannot make
international trade deals and keep them with each of it's separate
squabbling children choosing to join or fight through the courts as they see
fit and without regard to meriit. They win by the DELAY. And someone said,
justice delayed is justice denied. Hmm. Where did that come from. Oh, yes.
The U.S. in it's pre-dumbing down days.

The second market failures shows that capitalist middlement are NOT
interested in the supply/demand equation but in their own profits i.e. buy
low, sell high, with consequent damage to both the farmers and the
consumers.

>
> Yes, I can see how closing the border to a source of a deadly disease
> is 'overreaction'.

What is overreaciton is the closing of the border for such a long time. The
standards in the U.S. are the same as in Canada, and the fact that the
problem was *caught* in Canada does not mean that it *originated* in Canada.
The farm where the case was discovered had imported U.S. cattle for
breeding.

> I'm sure you actually believe the beef industry
> actually conspired to 'plant' a diseased cow in Canada, just for an
> excuse to rob the US consumer. Incredible.

Gee. Another bonus. A Non-Sequitor and a Red Herring. Nothing was said about
'planting' the cow. It was born from U.S. stock imported by the farmer.

>
>>
>> Now they have so many excess cattle that they are talking about
>> culling the herds ( throwing them away to support prices ). During
>> all this, the price of beef at the supermarket ( which should
>> drastically drop according to market theory ) has stay the same or
>> even gone up, and the meat packers are making a fortune buying meat
>> for nothing and selling it at the normal price.
>
> Let's look a little closer at your 'market failure'. You seem to have
> omitted the part where the cost of processing beef has risen.

Nope. The knives are just as sharp. I just knew you would jump in with a
whitewash of the obvious facts. The 'invisible hand' of the market is not
supposed to bring price down with oversupply only if there are no excuses.
It is supposed to bring prices down PERIOD.

> The
> meat packers also *lost* a lot of money when the BSE was first
> discovered.

Sure sure. You must have had your head up your ass when I mentioned the
record profits.

> Or that other countries put up similar import bans on
> Canadian beef.

Meaningless. It is a market *developed* and prirmarily dedidcated to
providing young beef cattle for fattening by U.S. farmers.

>
>> That is the second failure of the marketplace. The markets do not
>> 'adjust' to supply/demand when the capitalists don't want them to
>> and can make more money keeping the prices high. After all, it forms
>> a sort of monopoly or semi-monopoly with very few people controlling
>> the whole industry.
>
> Oh, right. It is easy to blame big, faceless, 'monopolies' with no
> facts.

I said *semi-monopoly* dip***. What is it with you "english as a third
languages' morons?

> Just wave you're hands and scream how 'big business' controls
> everything and how it ought to be brought under government control to
> 'fix' things.

Non-sequitor. Thanks. Your feeble and irrational responses are making my
case for me.

>
> Funny thing is, the market that you say doesn't 'adjust' has seen a
> lowering of gasoline price that I pay at the pump now that summer
> travel demands have fallen off.

Coorelation is not causation. This can be seen by the sudden rise in prices
when oil goes up and the slow drop in price when oil goes down. Fact is that
such semi-monopoly control by corporations that have grown big enough to
'wag the dog' are becoming the norm. And clear examples of market failures.
But I can't give you a lecture in economics until you clue in to the basics.

>That 'non-adjusting' market has
> driven *down* the price computers despite the rise in the number of
> homes that have computers.

Actually, what has driven the price of computers down is the efficiency of
Japanese/Taiwanese/Korean electronics industry where almost all of the
manufacture takes place. These counties have a more socialised corporate
policy, low interestf or 'targetted development' and about three times the
GDP per unit of energy of the U.S.

This is usually countered somewhat by the U.S. wholesalers who pass on the
drop in prices only when they need a boost in sales to an oversupplied
market.

Quantcast