Government created an artifical demand with threats of gun control which then influenced the supply which changed the accepted price intersection. The answer is simple if government quits creating artifical demand the supply would increase which would cause the price intersection to decrease.

 

Government did NOT create that artificial demand. Alarmists exaggerating what is happening created that demand. The NRA talking points that take over the airwaves when a mass shooting occurs, coupled with an almost irrational fear of the government by some private citizens create the artificial demand. And I'm pretty sure the industry is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

I occasionally drink as well and have been blessed to make a nice living. If you TRULY want to force a change then you have to stop buying alcohol. Pols can listen to bitching and moaning all day and not bat an eye as long as the liquor sales are flowing. No incentive to change their ways.

Or I could vote for politicians that understand simple economics. The goal of sin taxes is to not only generate revenue but influence behavior. Society as a whole will always drink. But what cost does artificially increasing price have on society. For society as a whole what else could the lower income individual used the extra tax on a pack cigs or the 6 pack of bud heavy. Cost benefit analysis of all these poorly thought out taxes is lacking. But its what happens when you have a bloated government who thinks that they have a right to your money.

Let me ask this. Where has the cost gone up for those that manufacture guns?

 

You still haven't answered my question.

 

My question is what is the point? If it solves no problem regarding gun violence, like the point of gun-control measures would be, why are they penalizing gun owners? And why are you cool with that?

 

Suppliers can only provide so many products in a given time and it depends on their workforce and what manufacturing tools they have at their disposal. If supply is low, but demand is high. That will affect prices. When government threatens that supply, which they are doing, it affects the demand which directly affects the cost.

Government did NOT create that artificial demand. Alarmists exaggerating what is happening created that demand. The NRA talking points that take over the airwaves when a mass shooting occurs, coupled with an almost irrational fear of the government by some private citizens create the artificial demand. And I'm pretty sure the industry is laughing all the way to the bank.anr

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

 

They did threaten supply, which affects demand and the cost. Supply and demand are two sides of the same coin. You affect one, you will affect the other.

You're way off base.

Government did NOT create that artificial demand. Alarmists exaggerating what is happening created that demand. The NRA talking points that take over the airwaves when a mass shooting occurs, coupled with an almost irrational fear of the government by some private citizens create the artificial demand. And I'm pretty sure the industry is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

RM with all due respect you couldn't be more wrong. Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a bill supported by the president that ban dozens of guns. There is no artificial fear created by the gun makers or the NRA the threat of the government banning some guns is real.

In all cases though, people choose to pay the increased cost....or not. Nothimg is forced.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

 

That is your definition of just law?

 

Sounds like legal plunder to me.

 

Government is using legal force to disrupt the natural price a consumer and producer would agree to. That is force. Force isn't strictly used to make someone buy something.

 

They not only tax us for participating in commerce, they are biased when doing so, which is morally wrong.

 

Our government also set the precedent that allows them to tax us without participating in the sale of a product.

Edited February 9, 201313 yr by marvel

Or I could vote for politicians that understand simple economics. .

 

A great option and one I mentioned earlier (I think it was in this thread).

I have a hard time swallowing the supply and demand stuff! I have a hard time seeing it with gas, although I accept it. But I can go to Walmart or any other store and find that when an item is popular the price goes down. Every time you hear, but this time is different, no, no it's not. Both sides are out of touch in certain areas as well.

You still haven't answered my question.

 

 

 

Suppliers can only provide so many products in a given time and it depends on their workforce and what manufacturing tools they have at their disposal. If supply is low, but demand is high. That will affect prices. When government threatens that supply, which they are doing, it affects the demand which directly affects the cost.

 

I'm pretty sure I already stated that pols see this as a way to raise revenue regardless of what lip service is given. It will not impact behavior.

 

It's a great time to be selling guns. Gun owners see a chance to make extra profit based on real or unreal perceptions(irrelevant really). Of course, their business is one where they aren't selling disposable products so while they are making extra profit now it make just be moving future profits forward.

The difference is the products being debated is on the brink of illegality. When products are illegal or on the verge of being illegal, costs will go up.

 

Ever hear of the black market?

I'm pretty sure I already stated that pols see this as a way to raise revenue regardless of what lip service is given. It will not impact behavior.

 

I'm not asking where politicians stand. Why are you cool with this legislation, and does it solve gun violence in any meaningful way? If its simply a revenue scheme, you're still cool with it, even though they haven't cut spending?

 

And did you just say speculation is irrelevant in determining costs?

I have a hard time swallowing the supply and demand stuff! I have a hard time seeing it with gas, although I accept it. But I can go to Walmart or any other store and find that when an item is popular the price goes down. Every time you hear, but this time is different, no, no it's not. Both sides are out of touch in certain areas as well.

The only time price isn't set by the consumer/supplier relationship is when a 3rd party artificially impacts supply/demand. Its simple and basic.

I'm not asking where politicians stand. Why are you cool with this legislation, and does it solve gun violence in any meaningful way? If its simply a revenue scheme, you're still cool with it, even though they haven't cut spending?

 

And did you just say speculation is irrelevant in determining costs?

Also Clyde if you agree that it is a simple revenue scheme do you not have a problem with legislators selling it as a false solution to gun violence. Do you not have a problem with being outright lied to?

RM with all due respect you couldn't be more wrong. Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a bill supported by the president that ban dozens of guns. There is no artificial fear created by the gun makers or the NRA the threat of the government banning some guns is real.

 

She introduced a bill that no rational person believes has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. When will people start looking at such legislation with objectivity? And, yeah...the NRA's "they're gonna take your guns" message is loud, clear and pure hyperbole designed to incite.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

 

That is your definition of just law?

 

Sounds like legal plunder to me.

 

Government is using legal force to disrupt the natural price a consumer and producer would agree to. That is force. Force isn't strictly used to make someone buy something.

 

They not only tax us for participating in commerce, they are biased when doing so, which is morally wrong.

 

Our government also set the precedent that allows them to tax us without participating in the sale of a product.

 

So, where is your outrage and plethora of threads about the outrageous taxes on alcohol? Tobacco? Gaming?

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner