Ah, Dave goes for the ad-hominem again.


Dave wrote:
Identifying you as the person making the argument is not the same as
attacking you personally for making it.


Really?
Let's see... did you identify me as the person making the
argument- yes, no problem there. Did you mis-state the
argument that I proposed, so as to make my suggestion (and
me, by inference) seem stupid? Yes... somewhat of a problem
there. Was your statement intended to be vituperative rather
than part of a logical sequence? Yes.

QED




Did I say that?


The implication is clearly that there is something wrong with businesses'
wanting to make a profit.

Not at all.

Not much of a stretch then to say the solution is
to ban making a profit.


Only if you intend to be insulting... especially since that
was in no way even remotely suggested by my actual words.


I got the idea you were in favor of free markets?


Well, I do have this funny idea that raising the price of an item generally
reduces the quantity demanded rather than increasing the quantity demanded.

It does so, with the normal range of goods & in the absence
of other market inputs.

Addressing the first point, sugar is an good that creates
it's own demand. The more of it people eat, the more they
want, and there is a very high upper limit on that
consumption... you can continue to eat sugar after all your
teeth fall out, but the poor nutrition will not kill you for
many decades.

Addressing the second point, if sugar sellers could maximize
their profit by reducing prices so as to increase
consumption, why would they lobby to have a tariff barrier
in the first place?



Remember that funny graph with two lines making an X in the middle of it? A
bit old-fashioned, no doubt.

And not particularly accurate in reflecting this particular
situation.

DSK