Well keep in mind what it is that demand is: A desire/willingness to obtain something, and the ability to do so. Just because folks may have a willingness and ability to buy a thing, does not necessarily imply that they understand the nature or every detail of the thing they want to buy. And I know that this point can be difficult to wrap one's head around,...but consider that prior to the iPad, people were willing (and obviously able) to pay money for a device that would do the things they could do with their laptops but yet was more portable and user-friendly. That folks didn't understand what such a thing might look like or that it would come to be known as "iPad", doesn't change the fact that their willingness and ability to buy such a device was in fact a form of demand. And certainly, now that we all know what an iPad is and what desires it satisfies, if demand for iPads were to suddenly dry up, again there would then be no impetus for Apple to continue making more. Speculative demand as you mentioned, is a good way to put it. And demand for new music works in much the same way. With all that said though, it can certainly be argued that people would be unwilling to buy iPads specifically prior to them knowing that iPad's would meet their desire for quality, functionality, portability, and ease of use, But even in this case, it is not strictly an increasing supply of iPads which converts people's desire for portability and useability into a desire for iPad, but the knowledge, intuition, and or confidence that an iPad would adequately satisfy these desires. It goes without saying that an iPad's existence for demonstration purposes helps with this, but.... 1. This is the realm of marketing, not of supply. Any supply in excess of that used for marketing does not act to further educate the populous or convert more of their desire for portability, usability etc. into desire for iPad, and.... 2. While with some things people like to get hands-on, it actually isn't even necessary at all for there to exist a physical supply of products in order for those products to be marketed to the people for the purpose of education and desire conversion. Or in other words, it is just as possible that people fall in love with the mere idea of a product. Lastly, I agree that this is a very intriguing discussion. I wish more discussions on PF could be like this. Through these exchanges, I have come to the realization that, as far as understanding which comes first between supply and demand at least, ability is probably the more important of the two factors which make up demand. No arguments there! -Meta
Because if that's all you say and you just leave it at that, you're ignoring all the complexities behind why and how things work together. A classic example of fallacious reductionism is when someone refers to a computer as nothing but a box of wires. Yes, a computer is comprised of wires and they are stored in a box, but there's more to it than that. There are several other type of components inside of a computer, and just as important is how all those components connect and interact with one another. Likewise, saying that things in an economy just work together while dismissing why and how is akin to saying that computers are just boxes of wires. And yet, ability to pay is part of what makes demand (along with willingness). Classic chicken and the egg dilemma. For expedience, let me refer you to my earlier reply to Kenny: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=413492&p=1065180534#post1065180534 -Meta
Not the dollar that your bank account is measured in. Spain had its version of a dollar once (the Spanish dollar) and that was owned and got its value form the Spanish government. But banks here in the U.S. don't use the Spanish dollar (heck, Spain doesn't even use them anymore), instead banks here use the U.S. dollar, which does not precede the existence of government here in the U.S. Those little pieces of paper you refer to,....those are dollars. Even if their physical form never passes through your hand, when someone writes you a check, they are merely transferring dollars which they deposited into their bank account into your name. Think of it this way. If I buy a factory in some remote area somewhere, and I never actually bother to go visit it, does that mean I don't own it? If I buy assets for my new factory and have them shipped directly from the supplier to my factory, if I myself never see these assets, does that mean they aren't mine? Just because you don't ever see or physically touch the dollars stored in your name, doesn't mean they aren't yours. -Meta
You suggested that since the government owns the little pieces of paper they create that they then have a right to collect them as taxes. However, I have never deposited one of the government's pieces of paper into my bank account. What then gives the government the right to tax me? - - - Updated - - - Without production, there is no ability to pay.
I agree, and in order to avoid narrow-mindedness we should carefully consider all our options and not dismiss any without good reason to. But again, even if they are poor relative to others, their lives can be improved in the absolute sense. Even if some consider extreme wealth disparity to be an issue the goal should never be to make everybody exactly equal. And you're wrong, it is not necessary for people to always be saddled with the same problems. Even if the homeless's relative position in society doesn't change, that doesn't mean they have to remain homeless. That is one problem that can be fixed for many by higher earnings. Perpetual debt is another. And no one is suggesting that competition be removed, so again, I don't see what your point is. Its not that government can't solve them. Government has been preoccupied with implementing temporary fixes, band-aid solutions which treat symptoms, or in some cases,...waiting around for others to act. What has been lacking is the political will to implement longer lasting change. But the political mood in this country is shifting,...I can sense it. Sooner rather than latter, a majority in this country will band together and force government to implement the long lasting change which we yearn for. ......Er...where did I say that?!?? Again, if you're saying that paying out money to workers in exchange for infrastructure etc. (or to welfare recipients) with tax money is a better idea than trying the fix the issues by mandating a minimum wage, then I agree with you 100%! Yes,...they should at least try to. That's part of why we pay them taxes. While I wouldn't consider WPA as the type of welfare which commonly comes to mind, as WPA workers actually have to earn what they get,... but yes, that is exactly one of the things I think we ought to be doing (see the sig). And yes, I think government departments should be properly funded and allowed to do their jobs. And a WPA or WPA-like entities should be part of said group of properly funded departments. Again, 10-million dollar question. And again the answer is politics, ie the lack of political will to fix things. How do we change that you ask? Well first of all, we the American people, or at least a fairly large chunk of us, need to think about and then agree upon what it is we want our politicians to do,..then we need to twist their arms until they start doing it. The more specific our requests, the better. And we have some good ideas right now. We are basically just two congressional votes away. I agree that foreign demand should not be ignored, taping it will make us better off. But as I mentioned before, the U.S. has everything it needs right here at home for us to be self-sufficient and not reliant on outside markets. But as I also said, it is good to tap that demand, so that said, what specifically is it that you think the government should do or not do in order to increase exports? And what specifically is it that you think the private sector/Individuals ought to be doing? -Meta
Like I said, you may not have deposited the notes yourself, but someone else did, and subsequently one way or another they were transferred into your name. Seriously, I'm not really sure how it is you can be denying that your bank account is full of money. Again, if I buy a factory in some remote area somewhere, and I never actually bother to go visit it, does that mean I don't own it? If I buy assets for my new factory and have them shipped directly from the supplier to my factory, if I myself never see these assets, does that mean they aren't mine? Just because you don't ever see or physically touch the dollars stored in your name, doesn't mean they aren't yours, nor does it mean they aren't dollars. Without ability to produce, there is no production. Also note that payment comes in more than one form. Please read the link I posted: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=413492&p=1065180534#post1065180534 Specifically the reply to the second to last quote where I talk about the chicken or the egg. -Meta
No kidding, Sherlock. Okay, but that changes nothing. Remember, economic demand is the desire plus the ABILITY to buy. Without having first produced something of value, I cannot express demand, since I would have nothing to offer in trade. Thus, if anything drives the economy, it is production. See above.
Its shared ownership. You are granted control over them and can spend them how you wish provided you do so within the rules set up by government. Part of that set of rules is that you must pay taxes. -Meta
If its so obvious, then why don't you understand? You've got to have the desire and more importantly the ability to produce things before you can actually produce anything. That desire and ability, is the definition of demand. If you acknowledged the validity of what you quoted, then you should understand that human beings also have their labor to offer. I assume you read the link I posted? Consider the man in that example. Prior to him going out and gathering raw resources, there has been no production by him of supply. What is it that motivates and enables him to kick off that cycle of supply production? It is his ability to gather or produce those raw resources and his willingness to do so in exchange for ultimately obtaining a house. -Meta
Anyone on the bottom rung of things is there for a reason and only they can do something about this. You can increase minimum wage to $50/hour but when the dust settles all other wages will increase proportionately, and inflation is in full force, those on the bottom will still be on the bottom with the same problems as before. You cannot socialize or welfare people out of this! If a person is on the bottom-left of the bell curve, only they can take steps to move towards the center. Government can pretend to help but no problems are ever solved. My point about job competition is some win and some lose. The losers need to take steps to be more competitive if they wish to become winners. The reason government does not fix personal problems is because government can't fix those problems. The government can and should provide education, training, and health care but after that it's up to the individual to take action. And, as long as you continue to have $500+ billion deficits there is no taxpayer funding for government to do more. Government doesn't fix the economy? Can government guarantee me a job, at a certain wage, for a certain period of time, make sure my stock investments earn a minimum of 10% every year, and make sure my business has profits? The Department of Transportation is always building roads and bridges, etc. so instead of WPA-type programs why not just properly fund the DofT? We don't need more programs. The US does not have any money! The US stays alive using eternal debt. If you want more government spending then solve the problem of the $500 billion deficit spending and bring in even more to fund your social programs. Two Congressional votes are worthless until you solve the $500+ billion deficit spending! When is this country going to start funding the bloated government which most people are demanding? The US cannot become a protectionist nation! Everything except some food items that all of us buy every day are imports, and since the US is not going to manufacture this stuff, are you saying Americans should just do without everything? What will this do to the economy? Regarding the government being pro-business, how about removing or lowering corporate taxes? How about eliminating the minimum wage? How about eliminating FICA taxes and health care from business? How about eliminating business administrating personal income tax? How about no taxation on profits earned outside of the USA? How about regulatory relief in many areas? Increasing exports means competing with others outside of the US...whatever this takes is what needs to be done...
Why do you keep bringing up the inevitability of relative social variances and minimum wage when, like I said, no one is suggesting that we all need to be exactly equal, and when I've also agreed with you multiple times now that minimum wage is not the best option to solve our issues??? And you ask when the country is going to start funding the government? I told you,....it will happen when a majority of us ban together and start twisting the arms of our politicians. This seems counter to the goal of funding the government. But I can envision some scenarios in which it would work out, the taxes would simply need to be replaced from another source. I'd actually like to see the minimum wage go at some point, but not prior to something else being put in place to ensure that people do not suffer due to its removal. Simplifying the tax structure would be helpful, but as with removing corporate taxes in general, we'd have to find a replacement source for those taxes or else we'd exacerbate our debt/government funding issues. How exactly would that help? How exactly would that help??? In fact, it seems counter intuitive; something which would actually decrease the amount of exports. Perhaps though I misunderstand what you mean by "profits earned outside the US"... It could help, but we'd have to weigh any benefits against the consequences of such action. As it should be with all things.... -Meta
You're talking about economic demand, correct? The willingness and ability to offer resources in exchange for (i.e. pay for) resources one wants? Well, if one hasn't produced anything to offer, one can't very well express economic demand. Production must precede demand.
Can you point to the legislation that describes this shared ownership, this grant, and the provisio you describe?
Keep in mind that labor can be offered, and labor is not something that can be produced. It is the thing that does the production. Are you suggesting its possible to produce something without being willing and able to? -Meta
There are several provisions which address this in some way, but I believe the central ones are as follows: United States Code: Title 26 (26 U.S.C.) 26 U.S.C. § 1 26 U.S.C. § 61 26 U.S.C. § 6151 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a) -Meta
First of all, that's not what I'm suggesting. And second, as we discussed before, if your acceptance of a premiss is contingent upon what the possible conclusion might be, then you are committing the Appeal to Consequences Fallacy. -Meta
Could you please cite the relevant language that describes this shared ownership, this grant, and the provisio you describe?
I'm glad that you say that you aren't suggesting any initiation of violence in order to increase economic demand. That being the case, I don't really care about your economic theories, since they have no effect upon my circle of concern. - - - Updated - - - Since you don't advocate for the initiation of violence against the person or property of others, then you can hold any economic theory you wish. I don't care, as long as you don't use your theory to justify the government violating the person or property of others.
United States Code: Title 26 (26 U.S.C.) 26 U.S.C. § 1 26 U.S.C. § 61 26 U.S.C. § 6151 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a) -Meta
Could you please provide a quotation of the relevant language that describes this shared ownership, this grant, and the provisio you describe?
Obviously, it has always been the case that anyone can at any time hold any economic theory they choose, regardless of whether one gives them permission to. One cannot legislate thought or what goes on in someone's head. I yet remain curious though; Are you of the belief that its possible to produce something without being willing and able to? -Meta - - - Updated - - - The quotes are in the links. All you have to do is click on them. -Meta
I am not concerned with your desire to legislate thought. I am concerned with your desire to use the force of government violate the person and property of your fellow man in order to implement your economic theories. Since you say that you are not interested in doing so, then I really don't care what you think. It devolves into an Apple vs. Microsoft issue. To each his own. I clicked. So which specific quotes are you claiming support your position? Oh wait, I don't care, since it has no effect on anyone else.
