|
Caros posted:Quick check from everyone in thread, is anyone arguing that we don't need supply? Because that would be a really stupid thing to say. No that's your mistake. I'm not arguing for tax cuts for the wealthy and think the opposite policy is what we want. Advocating this, and also appreciating the importance of things that fall under the category "supply" should not at all be mutually exclusive. Demand: yeah it's pretty much infinite. At least as so far demonstrated by human history. I passed a "blow dry bar" the other day. Doesn't make sense to me, but is a great example of my point. Lemming posted:You don't seem to understand either that money exists as a convenient construct that represents what people produce (labor/goods whatever) and we've found ways to improve it over time, or that your demand for goods is limited by how much you are personally able to supply to others. Great way to phrase exactly what money is. What do you think disagrees with me here?
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Just in case I'm misunderstanding you, asdf32, you said this:asdf32 posted:Actually supply side stuff makes tons of sense. Every business wants to hire more people to do more things and produce more/better products but is always constrained by cost. Even your small business would probably like to fancy up the window display, research new products to stock, improve their marketing material, reorganize the racks and re-paint the dingy bathroom. And then further justified your defense of supply side stuff with this: asdf32 posted:People wanted cancer treatments before cancer treatments existed. The demand was there, the supply wasn't. Likewise for, well, basically every good in the modern economy (allowing for the fact that some goods are only useful when others have already been invented). So let me lay out the logic here: 1) We have demand for all sorts of things, including things that don't even exist yet 2) In a world of infinite possibility, that means that we have demand for infinite things 3) Demand for infinite things means that demand is functionally infinite 4) Demand is functionally infinite therefore we should look to supply-side economics, qed Is that right? Are you reaching the infinite demand conclusion by some other route? e: I've read some more replies since I wrote this, and apparently you don't want tax cuts for the rich. Okay then. We're obviously talking about completely different things, because supply-side economics is basically the go-to excuse for tax cuts for the rich. What are you referring to when you say "supply side stuff" in the quote above? Are you just jumping in to talk about microeconomics while everyone else is discussing the Laffer Curve? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Demand: yeah it's pretty much infinite. At least as so far demonstrated by human history. I passed a "blow dry bar" the other day. Doesn't make sense to me, but is a great example of my point. No one has any idea what you mean by this because you refuse to define the term as you're using it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Great way to phrase exactly what money is. What do you think disagrees with me here? You've conflated paper money with demand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Demand is demonstrably finite for any given product or service, due to the finite amount of time the universe is likely to be able to support life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No that's your mistake. I'm not arguing for tax cuts for the wealthy and think the opposite policy is what we want. Advocating this, and also appreciating the importance of things that fall under the category "supply" should not at all be mutually exclusive. Forgive me for being confused. I just sort of assumed that when you jumped into a discussion about supply-side economics, an economic philosophy characterized by its support of tax cuts for the wealthy, by saying "Actually supply side stuff makes tons of sense." that you were in favor of the positions held by the side you were supporting. You can see how I might make that mistake, right? So... what are you arguing for? Because it sure as gently caress isn't supply side economics. The closest thing supply side economics has to an opposite side is Keynesianism since it was created in direct response to that. If your point is that we shouldn't be making fun of the nebulous concept of supply... I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to be saying. Okay, I wont? As for the latter part of your post, you're wrong. Its as simple as that. The fact that people want a "Blow dry bar" isn't an example of infinite demand, unless you think that the only reason the world isn't clogged with blow dry bars is a lack of people willing to enter into that untapped, infinite market. I mean for fucksake, do you understand the concept of market share even? Do you think I have an infinite demand for cable service, and that the only reason I don't have cable packages from multiple providers is because there aren't any? Demand is not infinite, in either the economic or the layman sense of the word. The fact that you think otherwise shows just how staggeringly ignorant you are on the subject. No offense. Edit: Do you mean "Human desire to consume resources is infinite?" Because that sounds more like what you mean and unlike 'infinite demand' at least makes some small amount of sense. Caros fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
I can confirm that if chemotherapy were free I would get an infinite amount of chemotherapy even if it was unnecessary or harmful
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Antares posted:I can confirm that if chemotherapy were free I would get an infinite amount of chemotherapy even if it was unnecessary or harmful And don't worry, we can print money, so even if it WEREN'T free we could get an infinite amount of it!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Caros posted:Forgive me for being confused. I just sort of assumed that when you jumped into a discussion about supply-side economics, an economic philosophy characterized by its support of tax cuts for the wealthy, by saying "Actually supply side stuff makes tons of sense." that you were in favor of the positions held by the side you were supporting. You can see how I might make that mistake, right? Yes, demand to consume resources is effectively infinite, overall, because it far exceeds supply. We know this because things like "blow dry bars" exist and we can watch billionaires and lottery winners consume ridiculously lavish amounts of goods. No it's not infinite for every good. Lemming posted:You've conflated paper money with demand. No I did the exact opposite: I agreed with you and argued that demand is separate from money and that real world purchasing power is bounded primarily by real world supply. Not money. Note that a 5% drop in GDP in a bad recession (a demand-side financial problem) is insignificant in historical terms where GDP and production have increased by orders of magnitude. Point being: "Supply stuff" is important independent of the name given to crappy Reagan and contemporary ideology. Antares posted:I can confirm that if chemotherapy were free I would get an infinite amount of chemotherapy even if it was unnecessary or harmful Demand for effective cancer treatment/prevention certainly outstrips supply. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not implying otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes, demand to consume resources is effectively infinite, overall, because it far exceeds supply. We know this because things like "blow dry bars" exist and we can watch billionaires and lottery winners consume ridiculously lavish amounts of goods. No it's not infinite for every good. It's trivially the case that young people, old people, sick people etc may have an economic value approaching zero. And there is nothing guaranteeing that the economic value of regular people must be a living wage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Lemming posted:It's trivially the case that young people, old people, sick people etc may have an economic value approaching zero. And there is nothing guaranteeing that the economic value of regular people must be a living wage. We agree on a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes, demand to consume resources is effectively infinite, overall, because it far exceeds supply. We know this because things like "blow dry bars" exist and we can watch billionaires and lottery winners consume ridiculously lavish amounts of goods. No it's not infinite for every good. Okay? Do you realize that this is a pointless loving statement when talking about economics? This statement basically boils down to 'people will utilize any resources that they can get their hands on.' It tells us nothing about how we should structure our economy, which is what supply side economics, Keynesianism and even loving Austrian economics is about. quote:Note that a 5% drop in GDP in a bad recession (a demand-side financial problem) is insignificant in historical terms where GDP and production have increased by orders of magnitude. Point being: "Supply stuff" is important independent of the name given to crappy Reagan and contemporary ideology. You are arguing against no one. No one in here thinks that we don't need supply, we were specifically talking about supply side economics as the term is commonly used you loving sperglord.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Money supply, not supply of goods.....
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes, demand to consume resources is effectively infinite, overall, because it far exceeds supply. We know this because things like "blow dry bars" exist and we can watch billionaires and lottery winners consume ridiculously lavish amounts of goods. No it's not infinite for every good. god you're stupid. you're not seriously making your economic arguments around lottery winners, are you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Caros posted:Okay? Do you realize that this is a pointless loving statement when talking about economics? This statement basically boils down to 'people will utilize any resources that they can get their hands on.' It tells us nothing about how we should structure our economy, which is what supply side economics, Keynesianism and even loving Austrian economics is about. It addresses the fact that demand doesn't create supply. If you want more supply the primary way supply has been increased throughout history has been to increase productivity (primarily by increasing human and physical capital). Financial policy, stimulus etc are effective to whatever extent they do that. It's an important point to whatever extent it gets lost which is "somewhat" by both sides of the political spectrum. The right places far too much emphasis on taxes for example - tax rates don't really impact productivity so tax rates don't actually matter much for economic growth. Likewise demand and stimulus aren't magic growth producers either. quote:You are arguing against no one. No one in here thinks that we don't need supply, we were specifically talking about supply side economics as the term is commonly used you loving sperglord. You're the one acting like we're disagreeing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It addresses the fact that demand doesn't create supply. If you want more supply the primary way supply has been increased throughout history has been to increase productivity (primarily by increasing human and physical capital). Financial policy, stimulus etc are effective to whatever extent they do that. It's an important point to whatever extent it gets lost which is "somewhat" by both sides of the political spectrum. The right places far too much emphasis on taxes for example - tax rates don't really impact productivity so tax rates don't actually matter much for economic growth. Demand absolutely can create supply on anything other than a loving planetary scale or when talking about something that humans haven't yet created. Even then demand can spur innovation because a demand for better medical treatments or cell phones can spur the development of that technology. Take a town just outside of my city for example. They didn't have a local chinese eatery until just recently, and the reason they got it is that a business in the city found that they were getting a ton of people coming in from the suburb. They rightly figured that there was demand enough in the city, and so they supplied the demand. This is econ 101. Note that the reverse is not necessarily, or even often true. If I opened up a hobby store in my city, it wouldn't magically generate business or demand. Its possible that I could artificially try to create demand by advertising and things of that nature, but supply does not create demand, which is a big part of the reason that supply side economics is bullshit. If I own my hobby store and I get a tax break, I can't necessarily expand or otherwise make my business grow larger if there is no demand for my business to expand. quote:Likewise demand and stimulus aren't magic growth producers either. No one is saying they are. Just because we say that supply side laffer curve idiocy is just that does not mean that we think that the government can magically produce growth. Jesus you're loving obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Demand and stimulus don't magically promote growth. The mechanisms by which they promote growth are entirely real and pretty well understood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes, demand to consume resources is effectively infinite, overall, because it far exceeds supply. We know this because things like "blow dry bars" exist and we can watch billionaires and lottery winners consume ridiculously lavish amounts of goods. No it's not infinite for every good. You're using a definition of demand that is a desire to consume goods. This is not at all the definition of demand that people are using when they discuss supply vs demand economics, where those are linked to not only the desire but also the capability to consume or produce goods. You're being intentionally obtuse and it's getting worse with every post. Did you post in the wrong thread or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
asdf, are you basically just giving an explanation for why supply-side economics seems to make intuitive sense (or why a supply-focused policy other than Reagan style "supply-side economics" could work), essentially "everyone wants more stuff so let's incentivize making more stuff", and leaving aside the question of whether it is good policy? Because I agree with you if you're simply asserting a cause for its appeal, and I get the idea that you agree with me (us?) that trickle-down economics does not in general do a good job of actually encouraging higher supply (because it often turns out that just sitting on the money winds up being a safer bet than producing more goods/services at lower prices, because capitalism).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Well, if it helps any, Peter Schiff doesn't seem to understand what "demand" means either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
Caros posted:Note that the reverse is not necessarily, or even often true. If I opened up a hobby store in my city, it wouldn't magically generate business or demand. Its possible that I could artificially try to create demand by advertising and things of that nature, but supply does not create demand, which is a big part of the reason that supply side economics is bullshit. If I own my hobby store and I get a tax break, I can't necessarily expand or otherwise make my business grow larger if there is no demand for my business to expand. And to add to this, even if you have a hobby store which has sufficient demand in your location to keep it in the black- which, in my experience, hobby stores rarely do- and you were to receive a windfall grant of money for your business, your best option for spending the money is to stick it in a bank account and sit on it, rather than hire more people to work for you or whatnot, because unless something has changed in the hobby market to increase demand, you'll waste the money doing that. Better to sock it away for a rainy day or give it to yourself as a CEO bonus. Trying to increase demand by increasing supply is like trying to push on a rope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Caros posted:Demand absolutely can create supply on anything other than a loving planetary scale or when talking about something that humans haven't yet created. Even then demand can spur innovation because a demand for better medical treatments or cell phones can spur the development of that technology. No one is here to discuss your town. We usually are having a Macro discussion. Your example of the Chinese restaurant is an example where people redirected supply from one place (the previous town they ate in) to some new place. You didn't even try to connect this to an overall increase in supply. It's possible that if the particular workers of this chinese restaurant were previously unemployed, or that the restaurant generally used some previously unused resources (maybe the store front had been vacant). That's possible and those are the things finance can do to increase supply - make better use of existing resources. But the overall production capacity remains bounded by limits on supply. Again, it's not that finance and financial demand don't matter (in a capitalist economy anyway), but in the big picture they matter at such a drastically different scale. A "Financial Crisis" is literally a drop in production of a few %. Meanwhile supply innovations have increased production by orders of magnitude over the years and continue the same trend. quote:Note that the reverse is not necessarily, or even often true. If I opened up a hobby store in my city, it wouldn't magically generate business or demand. Its possible that I could artificially try to create demand by advertising and things of that nature, but supply does not create demand, which is a big part of the reason that supply side economics is bullshit. If I own my hobby store and I get a tax break, I can't necessarily expand or otherwise make my business grow larger if there is no demand for my business to expand. In a well functioning economy demand shapes supply, it just can't set its boundary. If there is sufficient demand for a hobby store in a particular location and the factory cuts prices because plastics got cheaper to produce then it will create more sales and more production <- the story of the history of economic growth. quote:No one is saying they are. Just because we say that supply side laffer curve idiocy is just that does not mean that we think that the government can magically produce growth. Jesus you're loving obtuse. The laffer curve is idiotic. Mornacale posted:asdf, are you basically just giving an explanation for why supply-side economics seems to make intuitive sense (or why a supply-focused policy other than Reagan style "supply-side economics" could work), essentially "everyone wants more stuff so let's incentivize making more stuff", and leaving aside the question of whether it is good policy? Because I agree with you if you're simply asserting a cause for its appeal, and I get the idea that you agree with me (us?) that trickle-down economics does not in general do a good job of actually encouraging higher supply (because it often turns out that just sitting on the money winds up being a safer bet than producing more goods/services at lower prices, because capitalism). "Supply side economics" doesn't do that but for a much better reason than money. Incentives to produce stuff are really important (and absolutely will have an overall effect on supply, just like any technological innovation that boosts production capacity) but cutting tax rates from 35% to 30% doesn't change incentives. The guy who wanted to produce at 30% is still going to produce at 35% Within a reasonable band tax rates don't impact the incentive to produce and therefore don't really have an impact on production. The fact of the matter is that it's pretty hard to directly target the things that matter most (which is one reason politicians and political ideologies are able to fill the void with garbage). But here are some important ones: -Fund basic research -Fund education and training (human capital) -Foster an overall healthy, educated, non-crimnal/incarcerated population -Have a reasonable business environment where good ideas can quickly be translated into action (scandinavian countries by some measures lead the pack here) asdf32 fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
This thread is like watching a half dozen parapalegics argue about the best way to run a marathon. Parapalegics who have never even seen a marathon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Demand for effective cancer treatment/prevention certainly outstrips supply. Working as intended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes, demand to consume resources is effectively infinite, overall, because it far exceeds supply. We know this because things like "blow dry bars" exist and we can watch billionaires and lottery winners consume ridiculously lavish amounts of goods. No it's not infinite for every good. In what way is this interpretation of demand useful as opposed to one that takes into account constraints of time and tradeable wealth? I'm earnestly asking here; not trying to be sarcastic or put up a rhetorical question. Usually when people talk about economic demand, we talk about an understanding of it that takes into account ability and willingness to trade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This thread is like watching a half dozen parapalegics argue about the best way to run a marathon. Parapalegics who have never even seen a marathon. wateroverfire posted:A market for guardianship wouldn't be suuuuper different from some forms of adoption now, I don't think. What limb are you missing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What limb are you missing? That's pretty creepy. Good job. Seek mental help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's pretty creepy. Good job. Seek mental help. You just called us paraplegics, do you not recognize your own insults when they are directed back at you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
I mean you could also dramatically over-state supply by doing away with the supply-side's constraints, like ability to acquire primary materials and production capacity over time. Doing that, we might find out that, roughly, demand is near-infinite while supply caps at however much energy we're currently able to entrap from the sun and other exoenergic reactions, but it doesn't seem all that useful to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You just called us paraplegics, do you not recognize your own insults when they are directed back at you? It's the part where you slogged back through the thread to find exactly that one quote. Also, absolutely all of the rest of your posting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's the part where you slogged back through the thread to find exactly that one quote. Also, absolutely all of the rest of your posting. No slogging required, try this handy forum feature!  But it's pretty common for libertarians to regard things like "reading what you said in the past" as "creepy," Ron Paul had a problem with it too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:29
|
|
SedanChair posted:But it's pretty common for libertarians to regard things like "reading what you said in the past" as "creepy," Ron Paul had a problem with it too. I always love talking about those newsletters: quote:Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” quote:Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began”
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
If a country is in a situation with high inflation and high unemployment, such as existed for instance in the late 70's and early 80's in the U.S., when supply side became a thing, various supply side measures would probably be appropriate policy. In an environment with real interest rates hovering around 0 and lots of idle capacity they'd be pretty pointless. Stimulus spending would work better. They're specific interventions for specific economic circumstances. What is the argument about?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No slogging required, try this handy forum feature! So you went hunting feverishly through my post history for anything you could try to use as a burn? That's not less creepy. Seek mental help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So you went hunting feverishly through my post history for anything you could try to use as a burn? That's not less creepy. Seek mental help. No, so many fevered pro-Pinochet ravings sprang to mind I thought I should pick a good one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:I mean you could also dramatically over-state supply by doing away with the supply-side's constraints, like ability to acquire primary materials and production capacity over time. Doing that, we might find out that, roughly, demand is near-infinite while supply caps at however much energy we're currently able to entrap from the sun and other exoenergic reactions, but it doesn't seem all that useful to me. Yeah, I'm basically giving up trying to talk to him at this point because he is talking about supply and demand in some sort of weird above macro economics way that is really so abstract that it can't be acted on in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:41
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, so many fevered pro-Pinochet ravings sprang to mind I thought I should pick a good one. Are you joking about this guy liking Pinochet? I mean, I would look at his post history but that would just be creepy and feverish.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
I'm pretty stoked to learn that my time is infinitely divisible when it comes to buying things and I will never run out of things I want to buy. I don't even know where to start with "please don't internet detective me by reading other things I wrote in this thread."
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, so many fevered pro-Pinochet ravings sprang to mind I thought I should pick a good one. I don't know where you live but please, seek help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So you went hunting feverishly through my post history for anything you could try to use as a burn? That's not less creepy. Seek mental help. I'm sorry to break it to you, but SedanChair did not invest that much time or attention into you to find that post, it literally took me 5 seconds to find the same one. That you suck at using the forums features or apparently consider the most trivial of tasks "hunting feverishly" or "slogging" is a problem on your end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:45
|
|
