Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Protectionsim

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 6:28:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of native markets and companies. This policy is closely aligned with anti-globalization, and contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade and movement of capital are kept to a minimum." - Wikipedia[1]

So, who here supports protectionism?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 6:37:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 6:28:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of native markets and companies. This policy is closely aligned with anti-globalization, and contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade and movement of capital are kept to a minimum." - Wikipedia[1]

So, who here supports protectionism?

between states - no

between countries - yes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:00:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 6:28:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of native markets and companies. This policy is closely aligned with anti-globalization, and contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade and movement of capital are kept to a minimum." - Wikipedia[1]

So, who here supports protectionism?

I do. If big business must exist(as most people here probably know, I'm anti-big business), it should at least be strictly regulated.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:05:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 7:00:15 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/23/2010 6:28:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of native markets and companies. This policy is closely aligned with anti-globalization, and contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade and movement of capital are kept to a minimum." - Wikipedia[1]

So, who here supports protectionism?

I do. If big business must exist(as most people here probably know, I'm anti-big business), it should at least be strictly regulated.

what does that have to do with protectionism?

i guess it could be considered indirect "regulation" of foreign companies if you squint a bit....
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:07:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 7:05:04 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2010 7:00:15 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/23/2010 6:28:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of native markets and companies. This policy is closely aligned with anti-globalization, and contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade and movement of capital are kept to a minimum." - Wikipedia[1]

So, who here supports protectionism?

I do. If big business must exist(as most people here probably know, I'm anti-big business), it should at least be strictly regulated.

what does that have to do with protectionism?

i guess it could be considered indirect "regulation" of foreign companies if you squint a bit....

Well isn't protectionism a form of regulation?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:10:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 6:42:40 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/23/2010 6:37:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
between countries - yes.

Defend yourself.

Why? Based on this initial post of yours, I'm going to assume that you are strongly against protectionism. Strong enough to the point that there is no use trying to convince you.

But I will humor.

A nation can only survive if it has more money coming in then going out, just like every house hold and every business (apart from those "too big to fail" dolts). That is true for both the government (federal budget being balanced) and the nation as a whole.

Here is an example

Person A and B are neighbors (we'll just call them A and B). A has $100, and B has nothing. So B provides $100 of service to A, so A gets service and B gets money. Now B has $100 and A has nothing. So A sells food to B for $100, and the money just bounces back and forth forever, so the two can continue to give services and food for that same $100. And really they are exchanging food for services and the money is just a medium for the exchange to go through.

Now let's add in Person C, someone in another nation that can provide the same service as B for $50 instead of $100. So now A gives $50 to C for those services. Now A has $50 and C has $50 and B has nothing. Then C buys $50 worth of food (A had to drop prices because C only had $50) and so it bounces back and forth between them, and B starves to death (so sad). But even with this, the inflow of the nation is equal to the out flow.

Now let's say C buys his food from someone in his own nation instead of A, so eventually all the money in our little nation of 2 people, has flooded out to the other nation (if you want I can write it out). If I am the government of person A and B, then their well being is my responsibility, not person C or anyone else. The only way to keep them going when money is flowing out of a nation is either for people to be leaving the nation or for the government to print more money, neither of which are conducive to a healthy national economy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:11:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 6:37:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
between states - no

between countries - yes.

And why yes for one and no to the other?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:12:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 7:07:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/23/2010 7:05:04 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/23/2010 7:00:15 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/23/2010 6:28:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of native markets and companies. This policy is closely aligned with anti-globalization, and contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade and movement of capital are kept to a minimum." - Wikipedia[1]

So, who here supports protectionism?

I do. If big business must exist(as most people here probably know, I'm anti-big business), it should at least be strictly regulated.

what does that have to do with protectionism?

i guess it could be considered indirect "regulation" of foreign companies if you squint a bit....

Well isn't protectionism a form of regulation?

yes, but it is a specific form, not related to big business or small business, but domestic and foreign.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:12:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 7:07:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:


Well isn't protectionism a form of regulation?

you said you were anti big business- protectionism does nothing to restrict the actions of big businesses within the country, it just makes it harder to successfully import foreign goods because the tariffs make them overall more expensive for the consumer
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:15:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 7:11:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/23/2010 6:37:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
between states - no

between countries - yes.

And why yes for one and no to the other?

on a personal level, I'm protectionist on the most basic level. Here is how it goes.

1) Do it yourself.
2) Friends and Family
3) local community
4) local cities and towns
5) State
6) Nation
7) Nations with common interests
8) Everyone else

Trying to do the highest on the list. Example, I change my own oil and brakes and such. I build my cats their own cat trees. I do my own taxes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:17:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 7:10:12 PM, OreEle wrote:
Now let's add in Person C, someone in another [state] that can provide the same service as B for $50 instead of $100. So now A gives $50 to C for those services. Now A has $50 and C has $50 and B has nothing. Then C buys $50 worth of food (A had to drop prices because C only had $50) and so it bounces back and forth between them, and B starves to death (so sad). But even with this, the inflow of the [state] is equal to the out flow.

Now let's say C buys his food from someone in his own state instead of A, so eventually all the money in our little state of 2 people, has flooded out to the other state (if you want I can write it out). If I am the government of person A and B, then their well being is my responsibility, not person C or anyone else. The only way to keep them going when money is flowing out of a nation is either for people to be leaving the nation or for the government to print more money, neither of which are conducive to a healthy state economy.

As you can see, your argument applies just as well to the states in the United States as it does to nation-states themselves. Furthermore, we can apply this argument to counties, cities, households and down until the single individual.

Reductio ad Absurdum

Vote Con
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:28:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 7:10:12 PM, OreEle wrote:
Now let's add in Person C, someone in another nation that can provide the same service as B for $50 instead of $100. So now A gives $50 to C for those services. Now A has $50 and C has $50 and B has nothing. Then C buys $50 worth of food (A had to drop prices because C only had $50) and so it bounces back and forth between them, and B starves to death (so sad).

If Person A chooses to trade with Person C rather than B than he necessarily prefers trading with C than B and if C is willing to trade with A than he obviously wishes to make the trade.

Therefore, by imposing this protectionist barrier you are helping B at the expense of A and C.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:28:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 7:17:48 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/23/2010 7:10:12 PM, OreEle wrote:
Now let's add in Person C, someone in another [state] that can provide the same service as B for $50 instead of $100. So now A gives $50 to C for those services. Now A has $50 and C has $50 and B has nothing. Then C buys $50 worth of food (A had to drop prices because C only had $50) and so it bounces back and forth between them, and B starves to death (so sad). But even with this, the inflow of the [state] is equal to the out flow.

Now let's say C buys his food from someone in his own state instead of A, so eventually all the money in our little state of 2 people, has flooded out to the other state (if you want I can write it out). If I am the government of person A and B, then their well being is my responsibility, not person C or anyone else. The only way to keep them going when money is flowing out of a nation is either for people to be leaving the nation or for the government to print more money, neither of which are conducive to a healthy state economy.

As you can see, your argument applies just as well to the states in the United States as it does to nation-states themselves. Furthermore, we can apply this argument to counties, cities, households and down until the single individual.

Reductio ad Absurdum

Vote Con

If you're in charge of the nation, the matters of each state are not your worries, only those of the nation. Each state can worry about its own issues, however, even on the state levels, there is a federal government over them to keep the people protected and so, laws are not needed, though can be encouraged (like the Made in Oregon stickers we have). the federal government does not have anything above it to maintain protection. The states can pass that protection up to the federal, the federal cannot pass it up higher. Therefore, only the federal government should be concerned with actually enforcing protectionism laws.

It also isn't reductio ad absurdum, since it doesn't go to anything absurd. It is more of a reductio ad contradiction (or whatever "contradiction" is in latin), which only requires deeper explanation.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 7:30:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 7:28:00 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/23/2010 7:10:12 PM, OreEle wrote:
Now let's add in Person C, someone in another nation that can provide the same service as B for $50 instead of $100. So now A gives $50 to C for those services. Now A has $50 and C has $50 and B has nothing. Then C buys $50 worth of food (A had to drop prices because C only had $50) and so it bounces back and forth between them, and B starves to death (so sad).

If Person A chooses to trade with Person C rather than B than he necessarily prefers trading with C than B and if C is willing to trade with A than he obviously wishes to make the trade.

Therefore, by imposing this protectionist barrier you are helping B at the expense of A and C.

Not really, since A and C are not making any profits that A and B wouldn't be. They are merely doing the same thing with $50 going back and forth instead of $100 going back and forth. No one is really making money.

Of course, this is a horribly basic model.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:03:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As Reasoning already kind of pointed out, any level, according to OreEle, would require protectionism. All that protectionism really does is take those arbitrarily defined boundaries and turn the world into separate markets, limiting competition and growth. Why should Person B's trade be protected when Person B should really be trying to compete with Person C, either working harder, improving technology, or living off of less?

If one only considers global economies with the same importance as national economies, the money is still just bouncing around everywhere, just as it would within a single nation. There's just less competition, which makes traders less lazy.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:12:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 8:03:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
As Reasoning already kind of pointed out, any level, according to OreEle, would require protectionism. All that protectionism really does is take those arbitrarily defined boundaries and turn the world into separate markets, limiting competition and growth. Why should Person B's trade be protected when Person B should really be trying to compete with Person C, either working harder, improving technology, or living off of less?

If one only considers global economies with the same importance as national economies, the money is still just bouncing around everywhere, just as it would within a single nation. There's just less competition, which makes traders less lazy.

Except for 10USD in the Philipenes =/= 10 USD in America, in regards to purchasing power. So they are not on level playing fields. Competition should only be on level, or close to level playing fields. When the playing field is not balanced, because of the different purchasing power in different areas, then something needs to balance it, and the government is the only thing that really has the abilities to do that.

Eventually, when purchasing power is leveled off and roughly equal around the world, then the protectionism won't be needed as much.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:16:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm anti-protectionism and pro-free trade. While I understand the urge to protect vital industries and workers in a country from things like global competition, outsourcing and foreign takeover, I fail to see the benefits on a long-term basis.

For example, by setting up protectionist measures now, you may be able to reinvigorate domestic industry and keep up employment. However, by instituting these measures, all you're doing is sheltering domestic industry from the inevitable - that they eventually will be outmoded, outdated, and outsourced. In fact you're leaving no other option; because by the time the reaper rolls around, these companies will either be at such a large disadvantage efficiency and product wise, or they'll be subsidized to the point where they can't survive but on government funds. How does setting them up for a long term disadvantage help anything?

No, it must be free trade. Domestic markets must be open to competition. Industries must compete. You cannot shelter them from the fallout forever. By opening markets now, you're creating a dynamic market where competition is key and the best industries win out. Having it any other way risks lagging behind our increasingly globalized world, and you don't want that.

Does this mean the government can't have some favourtism for domestic companies? No, of course not. In fact, I'd encourage such a thing; government investment in domestic corporations has the two sided effect of strengthening the domestic market, as well as creating a company that can compete not only at home, but abroad as well. I see nothing wrong with government investment, whether it be domestic or foreign. But you cannot, I repeat, you cannot shelter these companies from competition. Help them compete, don't stop them from competing.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:25:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 8:12:55 PM, OreEle wrote:
When the playing field is not balanced, because of the different purchasing power in different areas, then something needs to balance it

Why?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:27:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 7:00:15 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/23/2010 6:28:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of native markets and companies. This policy is closely aligned with anti-globalization, and contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade and movement of capital are kept to a minimum." - Wikipedia[1]

So, who here supports protectionism?

I do. If big business must exist(as most people here probably know, I'm anti-big business), it should at least be strictly regulated.

You do know that protectionist tariffs are big business's best friends, right?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:28:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 8:25:32 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/23/2010 8:12:55 PM, OreEle wrote:
When the playing field is not balanced, because of the different purchasing power in different areas, then something needs to balance it

Why?

We would watch a football game where Team A has all the normal scoring rules, but Team B has the normal scoring rules X3 (so 18 points per TD and 3 points for the xp and 9 points for a field goal)? That's what differences in purchasing power do. So it should be leveled.

I'm not suggesting completely blocking trade and becoming North Korea of course.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:31:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 8:28:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
We would watch a football game where Team A has all the normal scoring rules, but Team B has the normal scoring rules X3 (so 18 points per TD and 3 points for the xp and 9 points for a field goal)? That's what differences in purchasing power do. So it should be leveled.

Explain how your analogy is in anyway relevant.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:39:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 8:31:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/23/2010 8:28:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
We would watch a football game where Team A has all the normal scoring rules, but Team B has the normal scoring rules X3 (so 18 points per TD and 3 points for the xp and 9 points for a field goal)? That's what differences in purchasing power do. So it should be leveled.

Explain how your analogy is in anyway relevant.

Since in Nation A a house may cost 200,000 USD and in Nation B that same quality house may only cost 20,000. So the workers in Nation B will be willing to work for 1/10 the cost of those in Nation A to obtain the same purchasing power. Ergo, the competition field is not level. By a factor of 10.

I can see that you are open to criticize, but you still have yet to say what you support and why.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:42:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 8:39:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
Since in Nation A a house may cost 200,000 USD and in Nation B that same quality house may only cost 20,000. So the workers in Nation B will be willing to work for 1/10 the cost of those in Nation A to obtain the same purchasing power. Ergo, the competition field is not level. By a factor of 10.

We understand this part.

But, WHY does competition have to be level?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:44:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 8:42:32 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/23/2010 8:39:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
Since in Nation A a house may cost 200,000 USD and in Nation B that same quality house may only cost 20,000. So the workers in Nation B will be willing to work for 1/10 the cost of those in Nation A to obtain the same purchasing power. Ergo, the competition field is not level. By a factor of 10.

We understand this part.

But, WHY does competition have to be level?

Because, in my opinion, if you beat someone, it should be because you are better, not because you had a good enough handicap. Would you like to win a debate on this site only because there were enough people that vote bombed in your favor?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:47:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 8:44:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
Because, in my opinion, if you beat someone, it should be because you are better, not because you had a good enough handicap. Would you like to win a debate on this site only because there were enough people that vote bombed in your favor?

Your personal emotion has no grounding in logic or economics, so your opinion doesn't matter here.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 9:01:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 8:47:03 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/23/2010 8:44:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
Because, in my opinion, if you beat someone, it should be because you are better, not because you had a good enough handicap. Would you like to win a debate on this site only because there were enough people that vote bombed in your favor?

Your personal emotion has no grounding in logic or economics, so your opinion doesn't matter here.

fair is logic for true competition. You still haven't given your opinion on the matter. And that is because when it digs down to the "why" your opinion is just as important/meaningless as mine, and you know it, which is why rather then voicing your opinion, you just attack others.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 9:06:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 9:01:57 PM, OreEle wrote:
fair is logic for true competition. You still haven't given your opinion on the matter. And that is because when it digs down to the "why" your opinion is just as important/meaningless as mine, and you know it, which is why rather then voicing your opinion, you just attack others.

Are you going to whine or actually make an argument? Because that was just whining.

---

It's always in the best interests of people to buy goods and services at the lowest prices possible. Absolute free trade allows this. Simple.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 9:09:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 9:06:33 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/23/2010 9:01:57 PM, OreEle wrote:
fair is logic for true competition. You still haven't given your opinion on the matter. And that is because when it digs down to the "why" your opinion is just as important/meaningless as mine, and you know it, which is why rather then voicing your opinion, you just attack others.

Are you going to whine or actually make an argument? Because that was just whining.

---

It's always in the best interests of people to buy goods and services at the lowest prices possible. Absolute free trade allows this. Simple.

Is that your entire argument? That suggests that theft is ideal, since that obtains goods and services at a lower price.

Also you fail to show any logic or reasoning as to why it is the best interest of people to buy goods and services at the lowest prices possible.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 9:13:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 9:09:40 PM, OreEle wrote:
Is that your entire argument? That suggests that theft is ideal, since that obtains goods and services at a lower price.

No...

Theft is taking someone's or something's property without their consent. Which is a crime. Free Trade is completely consensual.

Also you fail to show any logic or reasoning as to why it is the best interest of people to buy goods and services at the lowest prices possible.

They have more happiness and more money.