"I say that in a free market there are no nefarious forces at work to willfully hedge and deplete markets."
You can say that and you can even believe it. I can even agree. In fact the average producer of something will avoid overproduction beyond the demand for the item produced, because overproducing something will render the thing produced valueless.
But that does not work with power.
Setting aside the production of power and returning to non-power products.
Not until more people demand something will the producer find reason to reproduce new versions of the same thing, like chairs.
That is not nefarious use of making chairs scarce on purpose for profit.
Nefarious scarcity is exemplified in modern monopoly money markets, which is as plain as day, and if you can't see that then I don't know why you are so blind.
Other forms of nefarious scarcity include anywhere on earth where productive people are starving to death as any human being allowed to compete in a free market can figure out how to produce food.
In a free market, absent crime, absent fraud, absent the willful censorship of accurate information required, as in full disclosure, for buyers to know if they are being taken to the cleaners, taken advantage of, victimized by false advertizements, in that free market, absent those lies of omission or outright fabrications of falsehood, there will be relative abundance compared to modern times.
What, exactly, do you see, in a free market, where the things needed, or the things wanted, become so scarce that millions of people are starving to death, and millions of people are torturing and murdering each other for the last bits of necessities?
What are we talking about here?
This is simple math.
Equitable exchanges are costs traded for costs.
Inequitable exchanges are costs passed onto someone who pays those costs passed onto the one by the other one by some device.
A = B
That can be mathematically understood as equity.
A equitably trades with B
Both know everything the other person knows about the trade, both are fully satisfied in getting something for something not something for nothing at the expense of the other.
A > B
A < B
That is mathematically understandable as an inequitable trade, whereby the costs of the trade are passed onto one from another.
If that is not understandable then 1 plus 1 does not equal 2.
"However, there are natural forces at work. Drought, storm, fire, etc. If much of the wheat in America is destroyed and there is not enough to go around the highest bidder who has the most money and who wants the wheat the most will get the wheat."
In an African country where so many people are starving to death the American Dupe is sending money to a person or group that can afford a television add to take in money from many people, pocket the money, pay taxes, the taxes are used to subsidize the price of wheat, the African people can no longer afford to grow wheat and sell it at cost, let alone enough extra cost to expand their farm business beyond mere subsistence, and those same taxes "collected" are then used to finance bands of murderers to slaughter the starving population and who profits, and who passes on costs?
Had the same drought conditions existed without the false advertizements, the inequitable transfers of purchasing power by fraud, by threats, by violence, those same threatened people, facing drought, could have banded together, cooperating, and independently figured out how to feed their starving children just like any human being ever born into this world, what is so hard about finding water and growing food?
When food and water is scarce one person may have a hard time surviving. One color of people in one nation can't find water and food for what? Subsidized wheat scarcity so as to jack up the price of wheat?
"If much of the wheat in America is destroyed and there is not enough to go around the highest bidder who has the most money and who wants the wheat the most will get the wheat."
Really? If that were true then what do you think is going to happen when the money drought grows into hyperinflation, what do you think that is, exactly?
If money can buy all the wheat, who do you think can simply cut themselves a check for as much money as everyone else combined?
There is a drought here in America. It is a sound (accurate) money drought, who is buying it?
Criminals with badges.
People who torture and mass murder for fun and profit.
I had a discussion with my older brother today, he asked about the weather. I said, OK, I watch for the persistent vapor trails. So I get laughed at, and I say, OK, you think it is funny. I say I don't.
What are the persistent vapor trails causing?
What is money?
Do you mean fraud money? If so then why add the word money?
Can I rewrite your sentence, I think I can.
When much of the wheat in America is destroyed and there is not enough to go around the highest bidder who is best at fraud who wants the most POWER will get the most POWER.
Wheat is power. Wheat contains energy/power, sustenance, calories.
What is a calorie?
If there was a free market who would care to help each other get past a drought?
What is charity?
Is charity the opposite of equity?
No, charity is the opposite of passing on costs to a victim who does not agree, voluntarily, to take on those cost past on, the victim may take the costs, under duress, but the person or persons passing on cost do so with prejudice, willful intent to injure the innocent victims.
Charity is taking on costs willingly.
Where does this practice of making things needed scarce, by resort to false advertizements, omissions of pertinent information, omissions of inculpatory information, threats of injury, and violence upon the "consumer" fall, where does this practice fall, in the mathematical, accurate, measure of the actual transfers of power?
A = B
A > B
A < B
If it is charitable then the one assuming the costs knows full well what costs they are assuming and they do so willingly.
When it is equitable, there are no costs passed onto someone from someone and therefore the price is the cost.
OK, how about another angle of view?
What is the fixation on price?
If one person has something and another person has something and both exchange things willingly, and no one is passing on something counterfeit, so each knows what the other is getting, and giving up, and the exchange is voluntary for both people during the exchange.
Why is one person considered a seller and one person considered a buyer?
Thing A is exchanged by person 1.
Thing B is exchanged by person 2.
Why is person 1 a seller?
Why is person 2 a buyer?
You tell me.
"Take eBay for example. A rare item no longer stocked. The price to make the item does not come into play. The rarity of the item comes into play and the demand for the item."
OK, take that person, who has Thing A.
How is that person a seller and not a buyer?
If an exchange is made, from the person selling Thing A, then why is that person not buying the thing gained when transferring Thing A to someone else?
How is the person who gives upon Thing A any different than the person giving up Thing B to get Thing A?
Thing A, says person 1, will only be sold to a buyer, and that is final?
Person 2 calls up and says hey, bud, I have Thing B, and it is even more scarce than thing A.
How much more scarce is Thing B?
Who is the buyer now?
Person 1 says, OK, that Thing B is much more scarce than Thing A, so I'm buying it. What do you want for Thing B?
But Thing A is not so scarce, not as scarce as Thing B, are you taking me to the cleaners?
Not at all.
A trade is made.
Is it a seller selling to a buyer?
I think you may be filled with dogma.
That is an equitable trade.
What if Thing B turns out to be worthless paper?
Fraud is committed.
No problem, it happens all the time.
Caveat Emptor, so I've heard.
What works best during extreme hardship?
That which the market will bear?
"I could by a box of stuff for $10 bucks and sell the items in the box by the piece and can get $100 bucks for a single item. The box only cost me $10, but there was a single thing of value in that box and someone, or a lot of someones wanted that single piece that no one else had so the original retail of that single piece may have been $30 and I paid $10 for it and sold it for $100."
How is that not cost price? If you deem the item to be worth keeping, because to part with it is for you to lose 99 dollars, then set that price, or 1000 dollars, set that price, you make up your cost, and if it is what it is, not a counterfeit, and someone can afford it, the cost to them of not having it is greater than 100, or 1000, then how is that not equitable trading?
A = B?
Cost is whatever you say it is whenever you say it is your cost, no matter how you figure out your cost. If you base your cost on the scarcity value of parting with something based on how much other people will fight each other to get your item in their hands, then that is what you set the price, or cost, of that item, to you.
If you feel at a loss, you feel a cost, knowing that you could have sold the item at twice as much, then that is a cost to you, how is it not a cost to you, and why did you give that up, that way.
Were you charitable, taking on that extra cost to you?
Now, since you are charitable, you do not feel that you lost out?
Here, have this, at half the cost to me, I prefer that you have it, charitably, compared to me giving it to the other guy for twice the cost to him?
Or no, neither of you get it, I am going to wait for someone to pay 10 times the cost to that person, because he works for The Federal Reserve and I know he has as much money as everyone else combined if he wants to write himself a check?
We were on this trail awhile ago, as to why there are Buyers and Sellers, not just traders.
Why are there Borrowers and Lenders, not just traders?
Why two instead of one?
What raises one above the other, or lowers one below the other?
Why are there employers and employees?
Why are there financiers and workers?
The boss does not go to work to work?
The worker does not go to work to buy some dollars, selling his time and energy (power)?
"To me, an un-manipulated auction is the best view of the free market."
I think you are deluded. One look at Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports show a criminal transfer of vast amounts of productive power flowing from those who produce that power to those who steal it by that crime in progress, that fraud of keeping two books, and that is one of many ways that document two separate classes of people in this country as those who gain by that fraud and those who suffer from that fraud.
How many of those who suffer from that fraud are not even able to compete in those "un-manipulated" auctions?
How many more people would have as many things to sell as every other person on E-Bay if the current legal frauds were not being perpetrated right now?
Pick one item sold in any auction and then add 3 more of that same thing you are selling in that same auction, what happens to the price?
Scarcity price, or "that which the market will bear", or one thing and 5 people who have an abundance of things to trade for it all wanting the scarce thing at the same time, is scarce, not abundant, non-competitive, from the "sellers" viewpoint.
No one else is "selling" (trading) the unique item that is scarce.
The "buyers" (traders), all 5 of them, are "selling" (trading) the abundant things, competing with each other, and the market force of competition is doing what to their prices they set on their THINGS to sell?
"Buyer" (trader) A, B, C. D, and E, in competition to sell their abundant things they are selling, to you, as you are the one "seller" (trader) with the scarce thing.
"Buyer" (trader) A sets his price too high for you.
You say, no, sorry, I can't afford that, that costs to much for me.
"Buyer" (trader) B sets his price lower for you, please, take my stuff, to trade, since "market forces" are at work, driving my price down (he has to pay a higher cost).
"Buyer" (trader) C sets his price even lower for you, again market forces force him to give up more cost, give up more profit, give up more value, lower his price for this trade, because of those market forces forcing him to give up more, or go out of business.
"Buyer" (trader) D, the winner of the price reducing competition, as market forces force him to lower his price, gives up the most profit, the highest cost to himself, setting his price to near charity, almost giving you more than he gets himself, and you finally say, OK, that is my cost to part with this thing, and I'm being charitable, since I know that Mr. Federal Reserve himself wants what I have, and he will be at the auction tomorrow, but alas, I am very charitable, so here you go, at my loss.
Is trader A, B, and C non-competitive in that free market?
Why did they feel as if they were being forced to lower their prices?
At what point were any of those traders forced to the point of giving away too much for less in return?
At what point did anyone reach the point at which their costs were too high in that competition, and they could not cover those costs in that exchange?
Who is responsible for accounting for your costs?
Who is responsible for accounting for trader A, B, C, or D's costs?
Who is responsible for accounting for Mr. Federal Reserve's costs?
Internet E-Bay auctions are almost perfect market anarchism or perfect free markets for all those people who are not currently priced out of those markets due to legal crimes being perpetrated currently, and those crimes are well documented in Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and National Debt, not even counting, if possible, International Debt.
Which way do you look at those near perfect forms of market anarchism or free markets on E-Bay?
When deceit is employed, threats are employed, and violence is employed as a factor in any movement of power from individual to individual, by definition, that is an inequitable transfer of power.
The language used to describe an inequitable trade includes: taking someone to the cleaners, making a killing, leverage, etc.
For good reason?
"Land sells by auction around here. It brings what the market will bear depending on who wants the land and how much money they have and how much land is being sold at the time...and of course how much people are making in their savings account which may be the not so free part of the picture."
Many competitors are seeking to trade their things for land, each will be forced to lower their price so as to stay in business, and failing to lower their price, to stay in business, is not competitive, so the number of competitors eventually narrows down to the one with the lowest costs.
How did the one with the lowest costs acquire that condition of having such low costs?
There are bundles of foreclosed properties now being sold, right here, where a person has very low costs (money to burn), and 10,000 homes will be purchased for 300 dollars each.
One home may sell, in a month, at today's "market price" for 150,000.
Auctions are better, since the bundles are priced where only a few competitors, if any, are bidding on those bundles at 2,000,000 each.
From which end of the stick do you see the following:
If 90 percent of the population dies tonight, what happens to the cost of a house?
Entire tracks of new 200,000 dollar homes are empty all over.
What is the cost of building a new house?
What if all the carpenters, all the concrete finishers, all the electricians, the wall boarders, the painters, the plumbers all died.
All those new houses, rows upon rows, all empty, and no one claiming ownership?
What is the price of a new house?
"How do Product 1 and 2 play into a FREE market and COST at limit?"
In the detailed explanation of Product 1 and Product 2 the intention is to begin to employ math to account for actual banking costs. How much, if banking services were priced at cost, because banking was now competitive, how much would banking services cost you if you were trading your costs, your services, with bankers?
You offer to bankers your things, representing your costs of doing business, to bankers, and bankers offer their things, to you, things representing their costs.
High interest rates are high when bankers can make banking a monopoly and they can charge whatever the market will bear.
If there is competition in banking then a competitor with lower costs can afford to trade at a lower price, which is less interest, leaving the higher priced banker out of business.
What is the cost of banking?
What is the lowest cost of the best banking competitor?
Now you know the interest rate.
"Everyone has plenty of money to buy the wheat that is scarce because they have relatively free money to buy houses and energy so the price of scarce wheat may go way up?"
The illustration of Product 1 and Product 2 intends to add any farm, including Modular Vertical Farming Units into Power Producing Product 2 loans, so why would there ever be a scarcity of food?
Food is accurately measurable as calories.
Food is almost a perfect Power Product, the item of food reproduces, creates seeds, one become two, two becomes four, on and on.
What makes wheat scarce?
Back to the famine scenario?
If everyone is alive tomorrow that is alive today and when everyone wakes up tomorrow with no food on Earth anywhere, do we all eat each other to survive, or do we cooperate equitably to do the necessary work required to make food abundant again?
Some will know how to make food better than others, and so they become richest overnight, or in a week, because they price what the market will bear?
Might it be better for those who know how to make food best to volunteer to be teachers, in exchange for enough food to feed himself and his family?
If I had a Product 2 loan, and I used it to buy 10 Modular Vertical Farming Units, and a plot of land in the country, some Solar Panels, a well, and to pay off the loan, according to the current price of wheat, because I can make what in 5 of the units, make algae motor fuel in 2 units, leaving 3 units for tomatoes, carrots, and radishes, then what does that do to the price of wheat near me, when all I have to do is sell it at cost, to pay the bills, including the payback on the loan?
How much do I pay for wheat then?
How much do I pay for electricity then?
How much do I pay for gasoline for my car then?
Who do I pay back the loan to if the loan, borrowed at cost from the banker, is basically the same thing as me borrowing from myself, and hiring bankers to keep the books at their cost?
"That is how I understand things. That is my power at work. That is my experience at work. Am I wrong?"
You are right if you do not confuse the free market working where it does work with a market that is pricing many people out, since many people are taken to the cleaners, and they can't afford to be in any other market other than starvation.
Ok, so set those people aside, and other people are priced out of the free market because they have to work all the time just to keep from being homeless.
Ok, so set those people aside, and other people are priced out of the free market because they see no way to work other than joining the military, and then they are given the choice to obey unlawful orders, against their own Universal Code of Military Justice, or become a victim of those unlawful orders.
Ok, so set those people aside, and other people are priced out of the free market because they learn how to play the un-free market game as well as any other legal criminal, and they are now on the receiving end of the un-free market fraud, which is accurately accounted in both Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and The National Debt.
Not to mention the International Debt.
I think you understand at least half of what I think I understand in this topic, and I am very poorly armed to fight this battle - unfortunately.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: