CHAT ROOM

Zug I've one more question for you in response to your post and I’ll repeat the other questions in a way that you can’t claim I haven’t made myself clear!

Firstly … Do you understand the dictionary definition of the words abuse and explanation?

Because I’ve given explanations by the bucket full in my original posts and also in the answers to the questions put to me, explanations, which, you have so miserably failed to grasp. Not because they weren’t succinct but because you clearly don’t understand market economics despite professing to be a trainee economist.

Calling someone a Nazi and / or a parasite is, I would have thought to most people, an abusive term! Despite the clear attempt to patiently inform you of the economic reasons for why you are wrong you started to use abusive language to which stupidly, I responded ... I should have taken t.t's advice and not done so ... but there you go! Now you are trying a new tactic of attempting to gain the higher moral position of making out that I'm the abusive one ... well it won't work because you left a trail of evidence behind you! And those who are even remotely interested in this pathetic dialogue will have noted that much, I’m sure.

And as yet, you still haven’t answered the questions which continues to weaken your position!

The pertinent questions are:

1. Do you believe it is morally and ethically correct to pay for the goods and services which you use and indeed order?

We can’t go anywhere unless we get past this crucial question but be careful because if the answer is yes to question one you’ve almost lost the argument!

2. Do you understand the economic fact that the promoter and the venue owner are not connected in business other than the venue owner allows the promoter to carry out his separate and distinct business in the premises of the venue owner?

If yes again be afraid, be very afraid as we’ve almost wrapped the argument up

3. Do you understand that the provision of the classes and DJ is one business - separate and distinct and the provision of the space in which you dance is another business - separate and distinct, both needing to be reimbursed for the provision of the goods and services they supply?

Do you understand that they are seperate? … A simple yes or no will do it!

4. On entry you’ve paid for the classes and the DJ … But you haven’t yet paid for the venue space and venue services? (Including the toilets you may wish to use, the sound system you may enjoy, the maintenance of the building, insurance for your protection and much, much more)

This is the bit I think you’re struggling with but let us know if you now understand – please do answer the question!

5. If the answer to all of the above is yes … Finally answer me this – how do you propose to pay for the dance space, which, by your own admission you have said you go to enjoy and use?

If you answered no to any of the above, by admission, you do not understand the economic argument!

If you answered yes to all of the above you have proven you do understand the economic argument but have not, as yet, explained how you propose to pay for the goods and services you have asked to use, other than by accepting the existing tried and tested - economically sound - method of paying for the drinks that you doubtless consume, during any sustained period of high energy and exhaustive dancing.

If you fail to engage in the questions put to you … You will prove that you must be scared of the possible outcome i.e. That you’ll be proven to be wrong about your economic theories and we can all move on … with you paying your way like the rest of us or potentially getting a ban slapped on you!

If however, you do engage in the questions put to you … You will prove that; either you don’t understand the economic argument in which case we really need to give up at that point! Or that you do understand the economic argument and you now accept that you need to pay as most people do, accepting naturally that you haven’t yet paid for the space in which you wish to dance!

There is an alternative for you whereby you could accept the economic argument and save face and also shine as a newbie economist, by coming up with a new system as yet not thought about! But one where the venue owner does get paid and people with your previously antisocial stance could be happy! Tough I know but hey, you could do it!

Sorted!

1. I didnt say trainee economist, I said trained.
2. Statements such as "so miserably failed to grasp" or "I did try ... but you don't bother to properly read the explanations or if you do you're not sufficiently bright to understand them or that you are a possible troll " are personally abusive
3. I perfectly understand that I make an economic decision everytime I decide that I will or will not pay my entry fee to a salsa club; I further expect that that entry fee is to allow me to dance. The alternative is of course absurd - pay to get in, but not be allowed in.
3a. Note I don't pay for classes, as I no longer do classes, yet see my entry fee the same as or nearly the same as those who do do the classes. I don't begrudge that, as new people are the lifeblood that keeps numbers up.
4. I perfectly understand that other goods or services may be offered inside which I may or may not wish to buy - clothes, shoes, cds. Drinks.
5. I perfectly understand that venues if they are not making sufficient money from the events they host will decide to host different events.
6. I also understand that if you push the price up by £5 or more, then less people will go. This will be whether it is compulsory drinks purchase or on the entry fee.
7. I perfectly understand that if this means numbers drop sufficiently, then the venue will still not be satisfied, and perhaps the promoter will also find it uneconomical.
8. I therefore perfectly understand that long term this means that the venues that survive will be where the purchase of drinks is not an issue, and costs can be kept down. Which was where I came in with my very post.
9. Your argument that you are subsidising "spongers" who don't drink, and my counter argument that actually forcing people to buy something they don't want would be making them subsidise you (if they still came) is well known in Transport Economics - commuters (those who have to travel - like you the salsa addict who must dance) paying full fare believing that they subsidise cheap off peak fares (akin to the occasional dancer who'll quite happily do something else if its too expensive), not realising its actually the other way round, and that if the cheap off peak fares were not available, less people would use the transport, and for it to remain economically viable, commuter fares (addict prices) would have to rise further.

It really is rather basic economics, if a little counter-intuitive.