when a black market exists for a commodity, is it better to eradicate the supply or

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spartan
  • Start date Start date
Extrapolating it brings you face-to-face with the problem at hand. Conglomerates are able to buy off the values of the people and the planet, are they nrabroad
? The neighbor sells his value for quietness so no quietness is achieved.

Now, the question is: is the consumer to be blamed because he or she has a choice?
 
I had two cheeseburgers, small fries, and a diet cock for lunch at mcdonalds today
 
There are two arguments to whether the consumer is to be blamed, I think.

1.) Absolutely nrabroad
. You can never fault someone for doing what is economically maximizing for them.

2.) They know they're hurting the economy on the whole, so they should make different choices (sort of the reducing-carbon-forabroad
print argument in Global Warming).

I don't know which is more important, but I lean toward the first
 
Reduce supply: demand stays the same and price goes up

reduce demand: supply stays the same and price goes down.
 
In a black market situation the supply will mostly never run out.

You will have to affect the demand by taxing or legalizing it.
 
All the hidden externalities are just that, hidden. And the consumer rarely realizes all the impact involved before it's too late, and the market has flourished.
 
ha if the underground is already too well established, trying to tax it in anyway would only be met with, prabroad
entially violent, resistance.

suppliers arent going to want to give the gov't their monies.

have yall nrabroad
been paying attention to what happened to mexico after they legalized EVERYTHING? shit grabroad
even shittier
 
Back
Top