• HardNut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think what you’re asking me, is whether farmers would be willing to sell something at a loss? The answer is yes, because not selling it is a bigger loss. It’s actually incredibly common for farmers to sell certain product at a loss just to maintain cash flow and make sure they are able to put their more valuable products to market

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure. Once a product has been created, the cost of production is not a determinant of whether or when to sell, or price realized at sale.

      What is the name of the rule or principle that an economist would identity as the one resolving a sale price on a commodity markets?

      • HardNut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This works a lot better if you just make your point. Are you referring to supply and demand? Or maybe you’re referring to the subjective theory of value, or the labor theory of value? Seriously, you’re being really awkwardly coy, and I don’t know what you’re getting at. It feels like you’re trying to lead me to a gotcha but I gotta say it works way better on me to just be straight forward

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Your earlier comment insinuated that any sale price for a product would be agreeable, as long as it exceeds the production cost but not the price affordable to all consumers who have need of the product.

          You now appear to concede that neither constraint has any actual bearing on price realized at the point of sale, but rather the value is resolved entirely by the principle of supply and demand.

          As such, I am not understanding as broadly coherent your initial round of questions.

          Perhaps, rather, you have answered your own question, about the piece absent from your own analysis.

          • HardNut@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your earlier comment insinuated that any sale price for a product would be agreeable, as long as it exceeds the production cost

            No, I did not insinuate this.

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You wrote…

              Whatever cost of production has already been spent. Selling it at a reduced profit is still profit, so what’s missing here?

              At any rate, my position remains, that I am not understanding as broadly coherent your initial round of questions.

              If you wish to attempt another presentation of your concerns or questions, perhaps taking into consideration the more recent discussion, I will try to address it.

              • HardNut@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, it’s very straight forward. People are saying that farmer’s are dumping cow’s milk to reduce supply, and therefor retain high prices. But, if the farmers (cows) have already produced their milk, dumping it simply makes them no money instead of less money than expected. Unless there’s something else to consider here, there’s no reason, including greed, for the farmer to dump the milk. If someone was greedy, would they not try and sell every last bit of milk they could?

                What I’m alluding to, is that these farmers did not choose to dump their milk. It does not make sense for farmers to dump their milk, because they make more money if they sell more milk. They cannot store milk and wait for the market price to go up, because it spoils. When a farmer has milk to sell, they want to sell all of it, because being able to sell all of it means they make more money, always, regardless of market price. There may even be cases where dumping it will lose them the chance to net profit. Considering the negative impact dumping milk has on the farmer, it straight up can’t be greed motivating the farmer to do it. In fact, we know what causes farmers to do it, because these cases have been thoroughly reported on, and the reason behind it frankly isn’t really up for dispute.

                The milk dumping issue went viral because of an Ontario farmer who exposed the issue on Tik Tok. He shared the same sentiment, that he would’ve loved to sell all that milk, but he was unable to sell it because he had exceeded his quota given by the Ontario Dairy commission. Dairy farmers in Ontario are only allowed to sell through that source, and that source’s expected demand fell through in covid, so they just stopped all sales altogether. This is not the only time it happened either, there are several reported cases of farmers being told outright by the government to dump their products.

                It’s really not something that’s up for debate, capitalism did not cause this, over regulation by the Canadian government did.

                https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/02/02/dairy-farmer-dumping-excess-milk/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52192190

                • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Perhaps under conditions resembling the theoretical perfect competition imagined by authors such as Adam Smith, your analysis might tend to be more strongly tied to practical reality, but our current monopoly capitalist dystopia is starkly different. Since supply is under consolidated control, discarding supply, through a choice of one supplier or through collusion of a few with each other or with the state, induces a scarcity that inflates prices and thereby raises profits.

                  Businesses have been increasingly discovered discarding product in recent years. Amazon has moved viable merchandise to landfills, because of the greater profit from setting prices high enough that the full inventory would not sell.

                  Also, discarding unsalable product during overproduction crises within the bust-boom cycle has been a consistent feature throughout the history of capitalism.

                  In the recent case you mention, of the milk dumping, households were unable to afford milk due to lost income, and so supply was wasted to protect price stability. The families still wanted the milk, and any household would have been happy to purchase at lower prices, even those able to afford the higher prices.

                  Even as families suffer and product is wasted, oligarchs continue consolidating wealth.

                  It is an incoherent objection that farmers in Canada dumping milk is somehow separate from capitalism, the system that organizes production and distribution, in Canada and everywhere else. The observation that the government is providing direction for such activities is not one that confers any value to the objection.

                  Any system is inefficient if it leads to overproduction.

                  Any system is anti-human if it supports destruction of product useful to others simply to support higher prices realized by producers.

                  I feel the case against capitalism is quite well corroborates by the observations referenced in your objections.

                  • HardNut@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    households were unable to afford milk due to lost income, and so supply was wasted to protect price stability

                    Agreed. House holds could not afford milk, so it was dumped so that prices remain high and people can’t afford it. This dumping was ordered by the commission, not the farmers, Being ordered by the state to dump milk is not an example of capitalism. If the state (a public body) exerts control over a market, you cannot call it a capitalist act, you can not blame capitalism for it.

                    The observation that the government is providing direction for such activities is not one that confers any value to the objection.

                    You have to actually tell me why. I’m doing my homework, please do yours as well. My point is coherent, and well sourced, yet you have never actually pointed to anything that can falsify what I’m saying. I’m going to spell it out one more time, and while I’m doing so, I’m going to explicitly explain to you exactly why I’m saying it, and what you need to convince me of to think you’re correct.

                    • Capitalism is the private ownership and control of the means of production. If you disagree, please provide your own source definition. If you do though, this just stops the conversation, this is the agreed upon definition but every intellectual across the isle.

                    • Means of production includes the markets that distribute milk. If the state controls distribution, then the distribution cannot be called capitalist.

                    • Canada owns the means of distribution. Since the state holds control and ownership over the distribution, the distrubtion cannot be called capitalist. If you disagree that Canada’s distribution method is not capitalist, you have to convince me that holding the means of distribution in public is a capitalist thing to do, which completely contradicts the definition.

                    • Canada - the state, not the private - is the one who decided milk should be dumped. A public body exerted control over the market, leading to a specific decision to destroy market product.

                    • Capitalism is characterized by free markets. If you want to convince me this was capitalist, you would have to convince me that the market was made freer than it was before by the act. Considering product was barred from market by the state, I would say this is a pretty difficult conclusion to come to.

                    Any system is anti-human if it supports destruction of product useful to others simply to support higher prices realized by producers.

                    Did you miss the part where the producers did not benefit at all? Farmers are the producers of milk, farmers are upset by this. Farmers make less money because of this. The people that benefit most are the Canadian Dairy Commission

                    but our current monopoly capitalist dystopia is starkly different

                    I want you to deeply consider the context you’re saying this because it direct exposes an abundant level of ignorance in the case we’re talking about. Who owns the farming monopoly in Canada? Your characterization is completely wrong, there’s no monopoly in farming in Canada. Dairy is produced by thousands of disunited private farmers. Dystopia doesn’t mean capitalism.

                    The only thing we could consider a monopoly is this state-run dairy commission. You cannot call something state-run a capitalistic thing.

                    State run is not capitalist. The commission is state run. If you want to convince me it’s a capitalist problem, you have to convince me state ownership is a capitalist thing. You could also try convincing me up is down while you’re at it.