Don't sell that milk for too little

[AAFitz]

Technically, my son is a toddler, not an infant. My daughter is an infant and drinks breast milk. Neither of the milk-drinking habits of my children will change, simply because I do not hold the power in my household in that regard.

In all seriousness I would never suggest any action other than reading the article, but my brother is in the same situation on that respect. But hey, its just a few articles to read, at worst you get to mock me for believing some silly research.

And trust me, its not conspiracy theory bs research. In a lot of them, you can tell the researchers seem genuinely surprised at what they found.... but like everything, you really do have to research it from as many sources as you can bear.

GOD DAMN YOU!!! I'm not mocking you for believing some silly research. I'm mocking you for using the phrase "the real research."

Oh, Im sorry, I know. I accepted that when you said it, and should have made it clear I got the joke, and meant the joke about player to serve as evidence I had...anyways..... The rest was not meant to counter or argue, but to simply offer information. I was just adding that the worst youd get out of it, was the chance to actually mock me in the future...again.

[AAFitz]

The Harvard study I found indicated increased correlation of prostate cancer with whole milk consumption, and decreased with reduced fat milk, which is not found in some other studies.

I'll note that I'm not flipping my shit about this yet. I'm going to maintain my whole milk consumption until some sort of consensus is reached.

The one that did it for me was that the countries that dont drink milk, have virtually no cases of prostate cancer. They are as likely to get killed by space debris falling, and they live just as long as healthy in other ways, so, I simply saw no downside to not drinking it.

And again, the great majority of humans are lactose intolerant anyways, so clearly its ridiculous to argue its necessary. I avoid it religiously, because it actually seems to affect my sinuses, and since I quit, have felt better than I honestly ever have.

The milk is easily replaced now though by many alternatives, but the cheese...oh the cheese...I feel I have lost a very good friend with that one...I have some brie in my fridge right now left over after a party, and I am positive, I can hear it calling me.

[Neoteny]

The Harvard study I found indicated increased correlation of prostate cancer with whole milk consumption, and decreased with reduced fat milk, which is not found in some other studies.

I'll note that I'm not flipping my shit about this yet. I'm going to maintain my whole milk consumption until some sort of consensus is reached.

The one that did it for me was that the countries that dont drink milk, have virtually no cases of prostate cancer. They are as likely to get killed by space debris falling, and they live just as long as healthy in other ways, so, I simply saw no downside to not drinking it.

And again, the great majority of humans are lactose intolerant anyways, so clearly its ridiculous to argue its necessary. I avoid it religiously, because it actually seems to affect my sinuses, and since I quit, have felt better than I honestly ever have.

The downside to not drinking milks is that is that they are delicious. Further implications are the reduction of cheese in my diet, which is simply unacceptable, as well as yoghurt and chocolate, which are lesser, but still tasty goods.

[AAFitz]

The Harvard study I found indicated increased correlation of prostate cancer with whole milk consumption, and decreased with reduced fat milk, which is not found in some other studies.

I'll note that I'm not flipping my shit about this yet. I'm going to maintain my whole milk consumption until some sort of consensus is reached.

The one that did it for me was that the countries that dont drink milk, have virtually no cases of prostate cancer. They are as likely to get killed by space debris falling, and they live just as long as healthy in other ways, so, I simply saw no downside to not drinking it.

And again, the great majority of humans are lactose intolerant anyways, so clearly its ridiculous to argue its necessary. I avoid it religiously, because it actually seems to affect my sinuses, and since I quit, have felt better than I honestly ever have.

The downside to not drinking milks is that is that they are delicious. Further implications are the reduction of cheese in my diet, which is simply unacceptable, as well as yoghurt and chocolate, which are lesser, but still tasty goods.

You fastposted me, where I addressed that, but I should mention I do still eat a little dark chocolate and dont feel bad about that one bit.

[tzor]

Similar to drinking dark beers and vodka.

Before he died, my next door neighbor was told to drink a little Guinness every day for his health.

But since I know a good GI doctor who is a vegan for health reasons only, I can see the arguments for not ingesting dairy. I just ate ice cream, but I still see the arguments.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, but that slippery slope didn't happen. If Rockefeller is selling oil for so cheap, then his competitors would simply buy it, sell it at market prices, and reap the profits. Or the competitors would limit production, and let Rockefeller incur heavy losses, and when he stops selling for below-cost, then the competitors step in. Or they could emulate his business model, thus becoming as efficient. Etc. etc.

But it can happen when there are major differences in the sizes of the competitors. You can see that in the mega lumber stores; they come into a community where a smaller lumber store is operating and they start taking a major loss. Lower prices plus paying extra staff to be extra helpful. Once the small company goes out of business, they drop the dumping policy and get a small bump from being a practical local monopoly.

You don't see that as often with grocery stores, since grocery stores have a smaller profit margin in general. But some large chains can take out the local general store this way.

Have a link?

[Neoteny]

The Harvard study I found indicated increased correlation of prostate cancer with whole milk consumption, and decreased with reduced fat milk, which is not found in some other studies.

I'll note that I'm not flipping my shit about this yet. I'm going to maintain my whole milk consumption until some sort of consensus is reached.

The one that did it for me was that the countries that dont drink milk, have virtually no cases of prostate cancer. They are as likely to get killed by space debris falling, and they live just as long as healthy in other ways, so, I simply saw no downside to not drinking it.

And again, the great majority of humans are lactose intolerant anyways, so clearly its ridiculous to argue its necessary. I avoid it religiously, because it actually seems to affect my sinuses, and since I quit, have felt better than I honestly ever have.

The downside to not drinking milks is that is that they are delicious. Further implications are the reduction of cheese in my diet, which is simply unacceptable, as well as yoghurt and chocolate, which are lesser, but still tasty goods.

You fastposted me, where I addressed that, but I should mention I do still eat a little dark chocolate and dont feel bad about that one bit.

I mostly eat dark chocolate too. Dairy chocolate usually comes to me in the form of cakes and such. I'm actually vegetarian for moral reasons, and if I were to make a full effort to not be a hypocrite, I would be vegan, but my penchant for cheeses and creams (associated with Italian food in particular, I would probably trade prostate cancer for the perfect Alfredo) pretty much dooms me to lifelong hypocrisy. It is what it is. I'm following the milk thing, but it's not scientifically scary enough for me yet.

[Neoteny]

Similar to drinking dark beers and vodka.

Before he died, my next door neighbor was told to drink a little Guinness every day for his health.

But since I know a good GI doctor who is a vegan for health reasons only, I can see the arguments for not ingesting dairy. I just ate ice cream, but I still see the arguments.

Yeah. I'm a sucker for a good chocolate ice cream, particularly with some creamy peanut butter mixed in. Morals be damned.

[BigBallinStalin]

The Harvard study I found indicated increased correlation of prostate cancer with whole milk consumption, and decreased with reduced fat milk, which is not found in some other studies.

I'll note that I'm not flipping my shit about this yet. I'm going to maintain my whole milk consumption until some sort of consensus is reached.

EDIT: clarified, and want to add that I don't drink milk for health reasons, but because it is delicious. Similar to drinking dark beers and vodka.

SCIENCE has spoken.
The division of labor works.
I'm drinking my milks.
Don't trust the green man.

[_sabotage_]

wtf happened to this thread, isn't it supposed to be about the gov and their intent to force capitalism on us in all forms to our own detriment, and here I see a bunch of derailers talking about the health benefits of dairy.

[Funkyterrance]

Although YOU may not find those to be substitutes, it really doesn't matter what you alone think. You're not the Grand Czar of Substitutes, my friend. The quantity demanded for milk depends on the preferences of the consumers---not just your preferences nor your opportunity cost alone.

Of course I'm not but there needs to be at least some close similarity between the original and the substitute otherwise it's not actually a substitute, right? How about I refill your toothpaste tube with hemorrhoid cream? Close enough?

That's not cheating. That's called Markets, baby.

Translation: Babble Babble.

"Hey, Johnny, we need some milk cows in sector 9Z immediately. The prices here are crazy high!"With that, we lay your qualms to rest.

Yeah in a world of limitless resources where time and science is irrelevant, this would be accurate.

"The bottom line is, once again, that people are too short sighted for a completely free market to work."

if that was true, then we could make the same argument for almost all other economic goods. Therefore, if this is true, we must impose price controls on everything. Prices don't work on the market, but they definitely work with central planning, amirite?

I think it would work with some markets, just not all. Some items are more resilient and can take some "prodding" by the market but others, like milk, are too fragile and should be protected by central planning. You can mess with chewing gum, cigarettes and cookies all you like because A:they aren't necessities by any stretch, B: there are many, many alternatives available if they get the chop and C: they can be produced relatively quickly in the event that price bounces back.

Sure, cuz the Soviet Union had no shortages! And wartime economies experience no shortages for consumer goods like milk! Amirite?

Anyway, we must insist on free markets for milk--instead of supporting price controls and their inherent inefficiency (waste).

So now I'm a communist?
Seriously though, in my mind it's more of an "ounce of prevention/pound of cure" sort of scenario and doesn't have to apply to all goods, just those that aren't worth the risk.

Another thing to consider here BBS is that skills such as dairy farming are passed down from generation to generation and for the most part, these are the only people who want to be dairy farmers. So lets say the price of milk plummets and all of these heirloom dairy farmers have to quit and get regular jobs and the market comes back. I actually know quite a few dairy farmers and those types of people are not going to get back into it once they've "quit", so to speak(let down is a better term). We would have a very hard time filling those shoes.

[Neoteny]

wtf happened to this thread, isn't it supposed to be about the gov and their intent to force capitalism on us in all forms to our own detriment, and here I see a bunch of derailers talking about the health benefits of dairy.

Ok, who went complaining to mommy?

[_sabotage_]

How the hell have we been getting our subsistence from sitting in a concrete box, when we all know that food comes from the land. How the hell have we been getting all of our energy from dirty little holes around the world (the joke won't make you stronger), when it all came from the sun and still we get much more energy from the sun than we need. We have become economic worshipers and judge each other on how good we are at sucking the economic titty. Wake up fools, the world is still out there, we still share it and we are going to pass it on.

[Neoteny]

Word?

[Funkyterrance]

Word?

However off-topic, yeah I think so.

[Dukasaur]

Another thing to consider here BBS is that skills such as dairy farming are passed down from generation to generation and for the most part, these are the only people who want to be dairy farmers. So lets say the price of milk plummets and all of these heirloom dairy farmers have to quit and get regular jobs and the market comes back. I actually know quite a few dairy farmers and those types of people are not going to get back into it once they've "quit", so to speak(let down is a better term). We would have a very hard time filling those shoes.

Farmers have been steadily leaving the farms since World War II and the trend isn't changing. We actually find the shoes very easy to fill; any farm that comes up for sale can be bought up by an agricorp, the agricorp can put a resident manager on it, and with its economies of scale can run the place more profitably than the solo farmer did.

The farmers that do stay do it because it actually is a pretty decent way to make a living. Contrary to the propaganda and Hollywood myths, most farmers have a six-digit income and a pretty good life. But when they decide to retire, if their kids aren't standing by to take over, the agricorps have no problem buying them out and taking over without missing a beat.

[Funkyterrance]

Another thing to consider here BBS is that skills such as dairy farming are passed down from generation to generation and for the most part, these are the only people who want to be dairy farmers. So lets say the price of milk plummets and all of these heirloom dairy farmers have to quit and get regular jobs and the market comes back. I actually know quite a few dairy farmers and those types of people are not going to get back into it once they've "quit", so to speak(let down is a better term). We would have a very hard time filling those shoes.

Farmers have been steadily leaving the farms since World War II and the trend isn't changing. We actually find the shoes very easy to fill; any farm that comes up for sale can be bought up by an agricorp, the agricorp can put a resident manager on it, and with its economies of scale can run the place more profitably than the solo farmer did.

I live about 5 miles from a dairy farmer and I don't think any agricorp would buy him out, it's too small a facility. What you say may be true of the larger dairy farms but I don't think it applies to the smaller ones, at least not for the time being. The "shoes" you are speaking of are not the same "shoes" I am speaking of. A person from a dairy farming background asks much less money to basically wallow in cow shit and piss. They are also less likely to jump ship in the event of an economic scare. Besides, more profitable on a ledger is not necessarily more profitable for a community or a nation for that matter.

[BigBallinStalin]

Although YOU may not find those to be substitutes, it really doesn't matter what you alone think. You're not the Grand Czar of Substitutes, my friend. The quantity demanded for milk depends on the preferences of the consumers---not just your preferences nor your opportunity cost alone.

Of course I'm not but there needs to be at least some close similarity between the original and the substitute otherwise it's not actually a substitute, right? How about I refill your toothpaste tube with hemorrhoid cream? Close enough?

That's not cheating. That's called Markets, baby.

Translation: Babble Babble.

"Hey, Johnny, we need some milk cows in sector 9Z immediately. The prices here are crazy high!"With that, we lay your qualms to rest.

Yeah in a world of limitless resources where time and science is irrelevant, this would be accurate.

"The bottom line is, once again, that people are too short sighted for a completely free market to work."

if that was true, then we could make the same argument for almost all other economic goods. Therefore, if this is true, we must impose price controls on everything. Prices don't work on the market, but they definitely work with central planning, amirite?

I think it would work with some markets, just not all. Some items are more resilient and can take some "prodding" by the market but others, like milk, are too fragile and should be protected by central planning. You can mess with chewing gum, cigarettes and cookies all you like because A:they aren't necessities by any stretch, B: there are many, many alternatives available if they get the chop and C: they can be produced relatively quickly in the event that price bounces back.

Sure, cuz the Soviet Union had no shortages! And wartime economies experience no shortages for consumer goods like milk! Amirite?

Anyway, we must insist on free markets for milk--instead of supporting price controls and their inherent inefficiency (waste).

So now I'm a communist?
Seriously though, in my mind it's more of an "ounce of prevention/pound of cure" sort of scenario and doesn't have to apply to all goods, just those that aren't worth the risk.

Another thing to consider here BBS is that skills such as dairy farming are passed down from generation to generation and for the most part, these are the only people who want to be dairy farmers. So lets say the price of milk plummets and all of these heirloom dairy farmers have to quit and get regular jobs and the market comes back. I actually know quite a few dairy farmers and those types of people are not going to get back into it once they've "quit", so to speak(let down is a better term). We would have a very hard time filling those shoes.

You keep making up more stuff to cover your position on this. We already been through the important parts, and others have also roundly defeated whatever trivial objections you conjure.

1. You support price controls for reasons which can be used for other goods, yet
2. You refuse to accept this fact
3. Because you insist that milk is so different from other economic goods due to reasons which also apply to other economic goods whose producers don't enjoy the benefits of state-mandated price controls.

When you insisted that central planning was optimal for setting prices, but become annoyed about it being correctly compared to the central planning of prices during the Soviet times and from wartime economics (e.g. US in WW@), then it's obvious that you need to calm down and reassess your position.

[Funkyterrance]

You keep making up more stuff to cover your position on this. We already been through the important parts, and others have also roundly defeated whatever trivial objections you conjure.

1. You support price controls for reasons which can be used for other goods, yet
2. You refuse to accept this fact
3. Because you insist that milk is so different from other economic goods due to reasons which also apply to other economic goods whose producers don't enjoy the benefits of state-mandated price controls.

When you insisted that central planning was optimal for setting prices, but become annoyed about it being correctly compared to the central planning of prices during the Soviet times and from wartime economics (e.g. US in WW@), then it's obvious that you need to calm down and reassess your position.

I took your advice BBS and took some heroin. Thanks, I feel much calmer now.
Yes, I support price controls on certain items because I believe it's in the best interest of the masses who aren't wise enough to know when not to kill a golden goose, whatever it may be. Ok, you can find another goose but it's not cost effective in the long run. Drop the price of cookies to a penny a box I don't really care since cookies are more apt to grow on trees than cows. Milk isn't so much different from other goods but it's different enough to be treated differently. That's my original and only point. Cows produce milk whether you want them to or not, whether or not the market demands it or not. You can't "turn off" a cow one week when business is slow. Therefore, you have to put a cap on how low the price goes. Otherwise, diary farms would be going out of business and starting up on a semi-regular basis which can't be considered efficient. It's altogether possible that a method could work well for one thing while not so well for another but you insist in making me choose all or nothing and I keep refusing because it's irrational.

[AAFitz]

Although YOU may not find those to be substitutes, it really doesn't matter what you alone think. You're not the Grand Czar of Substitutes, my friend. The quantity demanded for milk depends on the preferences of the consumers---not just your preferences nor your opportunity cost alone.

Of course I'm not but there needs to be at least some close similarity between the original and the substitute otherwise it's not actually a substitute, right? How about I refill your toothpaste tube with hemorrhoid cream? Close enough?

That's not cheating. That's called Markets, baby.

Translation: Babble Babble.

"Hey, Johnny, we need some milk cows in sector 9Z immediately. The prices here are crazy high!"With that, we lay your qualms to rest.

Yeah in a world of limitless resources where time and science is irrelevant, this would be accurate.

"The bottom line is, once again, that people are too short sighted for a completely free market to work."

if that was true, then we could make the same argument for almost all other economic goods. Therefore, if this is true, we must impose price controls on everything. Prices don't work on the market, but they definitely work with central planning, amirite?

I think it would work with some markets, just not all. Some items are more resilient and can take some "prodding" by the market but others, like milk, are too fragile and should be protected by central planning. You can mess with chewing gum, cigarettes and cookies all you like because A:they aren't necessities by any stretch, B: there are many, many alternatives available if they get the chop and C: they can be produced relatively quickly in the event that price bounces back.

Sure, cuz the Soviet Union had no shortages! And wartime economies experience no shortages for consumer goods like milk! Amirite?

Anyway, we must insist on free markets for milk--instead of supporting price controls and their inherent inefficiency (waste).

So now I'm a communist?
Seriously though, in my mind it's more of an "ounce of prevention/pound of cure" sort of scenario and doesn't have to apply to all goods, just those that aren't worth the risk.

Another thing to consider here BBS is that skills such as dairy farming are passed down from generation to generation and for the most part, these are the only people who want to be dairy farmers. So lets say the price of milk plummets and all of these heirloom dairy farmers have to quit and get regular jobs and the market comes back. I actually know quite a few dairy farmers and those types of people are not going to get back into it once they've "quit", so to speak(let down is a better term). We would have a very hard time filling those shoes.

You keep making up more stuff to cover your position on this. We already been through the important parts, and others have also roundly defeated whatever trivial objections you conjure.

1. You support price controls for reasons which can be used for other goods, yet
2. You refuse to accept this fact
3. Because you insist that milk is so different from other economic goods due to reasons which also apply to other economic goods whose producers don't enjoy the benefits of state-mandated price controls.

When you insisted that central planning was optimal for setting prices, but become annoyed about it being correctly compared to the central planning of prices during the Soviet times and from wartime economics (e.g. US in WW@), then it's obvious that you need to calm down and reassess your position.

Well, lets just be glad you arent in charge of the food supply, because you are obviously far more concerned about money, than eating.

Further, your arrogance on nearly every topic at this point, would mean that no matter what decision you made youd think it was the right one, which has pretty much been the historic conditions for the worst calamities this world has ever seen. Good Job BBS, you are now more responsible for more deaths, than the guy who added lead paint to gasoline who previously was responsible for more deaths than any other person on earth, and the majority, children.

The market really knew what was best there.

Arguing the government shouldn't control everything is absolutely prudent. Arguing it cant control some things, even in the market, is just stupid. And doing it based on philosophy, which is what you are doing, is past stupid, and qualifies as negligent.

[AAFitz]

The Harvard study I found indicated increased correlation of prostate cancer with whole milk consumption, and decreased with reduced fat milk, which is not found in some other studies.

I'll note that I'm not flipping my shit about this yet. I'm going to maintain my whole milk consumption until some sort of consensus is reached.

EDIT: clarified, and want to add that I don't drink milk for health reasons, but because it is delicious. Similar to drinking dark beers and vodka.

Statistically, people who drink, even slightly to excess actually live longer than those who dont. Again, statistically.

This however, may not be cause and effect, and more an accident of personalities, in that the uptight people who refuse to drink, lose years, in their uptightedness. There are studies that show a beer a day may help the heart too, but you always have to consider the source of those studies.

[BigBallinStalin]

You keep making up more stuff to cover your position on this. We already been through the important parts, and others have also roundly defeated whatever trivial objections you conjure.

1. You support price controls for reasons which can be used for other goods, yet
2. You refuse to accept this fact
3. Because you insist that milk is so different from other economic goods due to reasons which also apply to other economic goods whose producers don't enjoy the benefits of state-mandated price controls.

When you insisted that central planning was optimal for setting prices, but become annoyed about it being correctly compared to the central planning of prices during the Soviet times and from wartime economics (e.g. US in WW@), then it's obvious that you need to calm down and reassess your position.

I took your advice BBS and took some heroin. Thanks, I feel much calmer now.
Yes, I support price controls on certain items because I believe it's in the best interest of the masses who aren't wise enough to know when not to kill a golden goose, whatever it may be. Ok, you can find another goose but it's not cost effective in the long run. Drop the price of cookies to a penny a box I don't really care since cookies are more apt to grow on trees than cows. Milk isn't so much different from other goods but it's different enough to be treated differently. That's my original and only point. Cows produce milk whether you want them to or not, whether or not the market demands it or not. You can't "turn off" a cow one week when business is slow. Therefore, you have to put a cap on how low the price goes. Otherwise, diary farms would be going out of business and starting up on a semi-regular basis which can't be considered efficient. It's altogether possible that a method could work well for one thing while not so well for another but you insist in making me choose all or nothing and I keep refusing because it's irrational.

RE: underlined, we've already explained that it really isn't; therefore, the price controls are unnecessary. Underlying your position is your presumption that your preferences alone are the best, therefore, price controls. It boils down to you being arbitrary, and me wanting consumers to have as much milk as they actually demand.

As for labor and businesses, bankruptcies happen, some people are unemployed or are hired less frequently (part-time), yet labor and resources are freed up for more valuable uses for human beings. Look at the horse-and-buggy industry. If you want the greater creation of wealth, less waste, a more sustainable system, then you'll have to drop the price controls. People aren't so stupid that they'll continue overinvesting in diary farms when prices are allowed to reflect actual consumer demand (re: italicized, Yeah, sometimes demand falls for an economic good temporarily, yet people over time learn how to deal with these problems).
One last try:

Explain how your scenario (in bold) would occur.

[BigBallinStalin]

Although YOU may not find those to be substitutes, it really doesn't matter what you alone think. You're not the Grand Czar of Substitutes, my friend. The quantity demanded for milk depends on the preferences of the consumers---not just your preferences nor your opportunity cost alone.

Of course I'm not but there needs to be at least some close similarity between the original and the substitute otherwise it's not actually a substitute, right? How about I refill your toothpaste tube with hemorrhoid cream? Close enough?

That's not cheating. That's called Markets, baby.

Translation: Babble Babble.

"Hey, Johnny, we need some milk cows in sector 9Z immediately. The prices here are crazy high!"With that, we lay your qualms to rest.

Yeah in a world of limitless resources where time and science is irrelevant, this would be accurate.

"The bottom line is, once again, that people are too short sighted for a completely free market to work."

if that was true, then we could make the same argument for almost all other economic goods. Therefore, if this is true, we must impose price controls on everything. Prices don't work on the market, but they definitely work with central planning, amirite?

I think it would work with some markets, just not all. Some items are more resilient and can take some "prodding" by the market but others, like milk, are too fragile and should be protected by central planning. You can mess with chewing gum, cigarettes and cookies all you like because A:they aren't necessities by any stretch, B: there are many, many alternatives available if they get the chop and C: they can be produced relatively quickly in the event that price bounces back.

Sure, cuz the Soviet Union had no shortages! And wartime economies experience no shortages for consumer goods like milk! Amirite?

Anyway, we must insist on free markets for milk--instead of supporting price controls and their inherent inefficiency (waste).

So now I'm a communist?
Seriously though, in my mind it's more of an "ounce of prevention/pound of cure" sort of scenario and doesn't have to apply to all goods, just those that aren't worth the risk.

Another thing to consider here BBS is that skills such as dairy farming are passed down from generation to generation and for the most part, these are the only people who want to be dairy farmers. So lets say the price of milk plummets and all of these heirloom dairy farmers have to quit and get regular jobs and the market comes back. I actually know quite a few dairy farmers and those types of people are not going to get back into it once they've "quit", so to speak(let down is a better term). We would have a very hard time filling those shoes.

You keep making up more stuff to cover your position on this. We already been through the important parts, and others have also roundly defeated whatever trivial objections you conjure.

1. You support price controls for reasons which can be used for other goods, yet
2. You refuse to accept this fact
3. Because you insist that milk is so different from other economic goods due to reasons which also apply to other economic goods whose producers don't enjoy the benefits of state-mandated price controls.

When you insisted that central planning was optimal for setting prices, but become annoyed about it being correctly compared to the central planning of prices during the Soviet times and from wartime economics (e.g. US in WW@), then it's obvious that you need to calm down and reassess your position.

Well, lets just be glad you arent in charge of the food supply, because you are obviously far more concerned about money, than eating.

Further, your arrogance on nearly every topic at this point, would mean that no matter what decision you made youd think it was the right one, which has pretty much been the historic conditions for the worst calamities this world has ever seen. Good Job BBS, you are now more responsible for more deaths, than the guy who added lead paint to gasoline who previously was responsible for more deaths than any other person on earth, and the majority, children.

The market really knew what was best there.

Arguing the government shouldn't control everything is absolutely prudent. Arguing it cant control some things, even in the market, is just stupid. And doing it based on philosophy, which is what you are doing, is past stupid, and qualifies as negligent.

People in the market make mistakes---just as people in the government make mistakes. Which one creates multiple avenues for discovering what is best for humans? (Government sets a price floor, market sets many). I'm not saying the market is perfect, but no one's putting lead in milk. Compared to central planning of prices, the markets more efficient. If you wish to talk about fraudulent exchanges and uncertainty, then that's another topic.

If we take the extreme of price controls, you get the Soviet Union, so praise you and FT for supporting shortages, surpluses, and the waste of resources in one particular market. I guess comparative political economy and history is nothing but philosophy?

Your straw mans and ad hominems are unnecessary and are a waste of my time. Unfortunately, I might have to lump you into the JB-PS category.

[patches70]

The problem with this issue about the price fixing by government fiat and why it's wrong can be figured out just by answering the simple questions I asked in the OP.

The LA law applies to retailers. Some have assumed, and I'm sure that's what the laws was intended to do, is to prevent dumping and maintain a greater choice in retailers that consumers may choose from. The law does the opposite as I will demonstrate and why it's not the proper role of government to do this.

The regulators got a complaint, who issued the complaint? Certainly not any consumers who are getting milk for a cheaper price, thus saving them money to be used on other things. The article did not say who complained but it's plain to see that it was another retailer who complained. Most probably a large retailer with some political clout.

How did the government come up with the 6% figure instead of another? The retailers came up with that number, retailers who are large and have political clout. It was sold to the politicians as "good for the market" and "protecting the producers" and "preventing unfair business practices" and the politicians had good intentions. The problem is that this does the opposite because this law only benefits the largest retailers. And that's who this law really protects, the largest retailers.

As companies grow so do their costs. A large retail company like Walmart has a nationwide distribution network. With this network they can buy products in bulk, thus lowering their per unit cost. No other companies can purchase in such bulk so their per unit costs are greater. By forcing everyone to add a minimum markup, Walmart thus insures that they have the lowest prices because of their ability to purchase in such large bulk that no others can do.

To compete, smaller chains must get creative. By setting milk as a loss leader, it is designed just to get people in the door. The deal on the milk is a good deal, relatively speaking, so people come to buy the milk and chances are they'll buy other things as well. Especially things that go with milk, like cereal, chocolate milk mixes and such thing. The chain can lower the margin on the milk slightly and raise the margin on those related items thus increasing volume, sales and profit and at the same time offer an actual deal on the milk. The consumer has the choice to purchase the other items or not.
But the main goal is not to dump, but simply to get customers in the door. To compete. That's it. There is no chance that this chain and drive Walmart out of business. Walmart does the same thing where it is able. Get the customer in the door by waving a carrot and hope for the best.

Smaller companies have lower costs, thus can run tighter margins. The larger companies because their costs are so high must maintain specific margins to remain profitable. Even with the discounts they receive through bulk purchases they must maintain that margin. There is a term for it in economics, maybe BBS knows it and I don't feel like looking it up. But as a company grows it's costs grow with it.
This is where the minimum margin comes in through the LA law. The largest retailers keep the smaller companies from creative sales techniques to compete by insuring that they must maintain the same margins that the big guys must run to stay in business. The smaller companies unable to compete go out of business leaving the largest companies free to grow their market share without competition.

In the end the large retailers make out, the small retailers are screwed and the consumer, that's you and me, get to pay prices greater than we would have to and we end up with fewer and fewer choices dominated only by the biggest companies.
People cry about how Walmart moves in and muscles everyone else out. This law is one of the ways they do that. All the while promoting the myth that the law is protecting against unfair business practices.
People not understanding this are being duped. Retailers should be able to sell their products at what ever price they deem. The consumer will judge accordingly and benefit, as will the retailers. And this is why government should stay out of such things, as they end up creating new problems from the ones they are trying to solve.

I would like to think that the politicians were only doing what they thought was right and not that they are in the pocket of the big retailers. Though, when stuff like this happens it makes one wonder........

Whether or not people should or shouldn't consume milk is irrelevant. People can choose for themselves. If you don't want to consume milk, fine and dandy. But consider that milk is one of the authorized purchases through WIC (and other programs designed to help the needy) and understand that the government forcing prices higher only puts more pressure on the taxpayer who funds these programs.

[BigBallinStalin]

To compete, smaller chains must get creative. By setting milk as a loss leader, it is designed just to get people in the door. The deal on the milk is a good deal, relatively speaking, so people come to buy the milk and chances are they'll buy other things as well. Especially things that go with milk, like cereal, chocolate milk mixes and such thing. The chain can lower the margin on the milk slightly and raise the margin on those related items thus increasing volume, sales and profit and at the same time offer an actual deal on the milk. The consumer has the choice to purchase the other items or not.
But the main goal is not to dump, but simply to get customers in the door. To compete. That's it. There is no chance that this chain and drive Walmart out of business. Walmart does the same thing where it is able. Get the customer in the door by waving a carrot and hope for the best.

If I read the article correctly, what's interesting is that the small retailer has already PAID for the milk at a price which would not disturb milk producers. The retailer then sells the milk at a loss (hence loss leader)--much to the annoyance of other retailers.

All the concerns raised by FT and AAFitz are moot in this case. The milk producers are paid the same, and the milk at the store is sold to customers at a lower price. Well-intended voters like FT and AAFitz advocate for price controls to protect milk producers (while neglecting consumers and taxpayers), but milk producers aren't even the issue, and the good intentions of Team FT-Fitz will lead to bad outcomes (supporting the large retailers which hate competition, i.e. crony capitalism).

Thanks for steering us on track, patches.