|
If production fell and demand remained the same, we should see inflation (people bidding up the prices of a dwindling supply of goods). But we saw deflation, which indicates people were demanding cash and preferring it do goods.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
asdf do you even know what gdp is, for gently caress's sake
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:06
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If production fell and demand remained the same, we should see inflation (people bidding up the prices of a dwindling supply of goods). Aka basic neoclassical economics. You don't need a radical Keynesian shift here.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:asdf do you even know what gdp is, for gently caress's sake Inflation adjusted GDP represents "stuff" and economic history shows us that production innovations (mechanization) have lead to increasing amounts of stuff being produced. Of course this means aggregate (financial) demand has necesarily followed which is, generally speaking, consistent with Say's law. [meanwhile of course the desire for more stuff, "demand", has always been there]
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Demand isn't measured in units of people's desire. It's measured in the amount they offer to buy that stuff. If I have no money, then I represent no market demand no matter how much stuff I want, because I will never trade more than zero dollars for any good. If I open a high-end jewelry store in Gary, Indiana I don't create demand for my wares just by bringing them to town, no matter how many people there would love to have them. I will go out of business. I can't just manufacture more and more expensive jewelry until enough people, I don't know walk by and see it and want it, to create demand and stay in business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:aggregate (financial) demand has necesarily followed please justify this statement, i'd love to be on the crest of the wave that completely revolutionizes the way we understand supply and demand. it's so exciting to be about to hear something that no economist believes to be true, straight from the mouth of some ignorant gently caress on a message board e: VitalSigns posted:Demand isn't measured in units of people's desire. and even if it were, it still wouldn't be infinite or connected to supply (ideas which, coincidentally, are contradictory, but asdf has supported both, so whatever). if apple produced ten billion original ipods, they would not sell them, because nobody wants that poo poo anymore. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:that no [non-Austrian] economist believes to be true, straight from the mouth of some ignorant gently caress on a message board FTFY
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:please justify this statement, i'd love to be on the crest of the wave that completely revolutionizes the way we understand supply and demand. it's so exciting to be about to hear something that no economist believes to be true, straight from the mouth of some ignorant gently caress on a message board It's mainstream economics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's mainstream economics. actually, it's not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Only because the Silent Majority of economists are drowned out by a few anti-Austrian agitators that have hijacked the universities, journals, literature, everything, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
let me ask you a question basic enough that you might be able to answer it: do people ever demand things for which there is no supply? also, follow up question, do people ever supply things for which there is no demand?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:let me ask you a question basic enough that you might be able to answer it: do people ever demand things for which there is no supply? also, follow up question, do people ever supply things for which there is no demand? Always, not usually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
In other words, you actually do think Say's Law is false.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Always, not usually. and you're too thick to see how this observable reality contradicts a theory that supposes that supply necessarily creates demand? cool, just double-checking VV it's hard to believe in that which you don't understand VV
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:40
|
|
VitalSigns posted:In other words, you actually do think Say's Law is false. In another classic asdfmove, he elects to die on the hill of yet another thing in which he does not really believe.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:In other words, you actually do think Say's Law is false. It's generally true because stuff produced is generally in demand. Pretty simple.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's generally true because stuff produced is generally in demand. Pretty simple. In other words, it is not true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's generally true because stuff produced is generally in demand. Pretty simple. lol this is literally the exact opposite of say's law asdf supplies posts, and by reading them we demonstrate our demand. to argue otherwise would be a performative contradiction!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Legit question: how did you ever acquire a higher education? You express yourself so poorly that it's miraculous to me anyone let it pass.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Inflation adjusted GDP represents "stuff" and economic history shows us that production innovations (mechanization) have lead to increasing amounts of stuff being produced. Of course this means aggregate (financial) demand has necesarily followed which is, generally speaking, consistent with Say's law. [meanwhile of course the desire for more stuff, "demand", has always been there] ...or maybe the increasing amounts of stuff were produced in response to increasing demand? What on earth leads you to conclude that the demand followed the supply? Mechanisation tends to leads to cheaper production of existing goods, which means that consumers can get the stuff they want cheaper, which gives them more spare money, which increases aggregate demand. This has nothing to do with Say's Law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Legit question: how did you ever acquire a higher education? it's really hard to gently caress up an "arrogant caustic troll" gimmick this badly. it's impressive really
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:55
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:it's really hard to gently caress up an "arrogant caustic troll" gimmick this badly. it's impressive really This guy needs to study his MIGF.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
I don't know why you guys even respond to him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I don't know why you guys even respond to him. because jrode (pbuh) is on hiatus 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Okay, but he's admitted to believing (and it definitely requires the faith of belief) in Austrian economics, so please be sure y'all call him an idiot horsefucker every time you respond to him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:because jrode (pbuh) is Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:it's really hard to gently caress up an "arrogant caustic troll" gimmick this badly. it's impressive really He hijacks this thread for pages and pages at a time without ever actually coming out in favor of any particular belief or opinion, so I wouldn't call it a fuckup. His posts are simultaneously inflammatory, wrong, and vague in a way that I can only describe as perfect. He's like a forums Xenomorph. Muscle Tracer posted:because jrode (pbuh) is on hiatus He's off at a phrenology convention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:He hijacks this thread for pages and pages at a time without ever actually coming out in favor of any particular belief or opinion, so I wouldn't call it a fuckup. His posts are simultaneously inflammatory, wrong, and vague in a way that I can only describe as perfect. He's like a forums Xenomorph. but that's the whole point of this thread. what's the difference between roleplaying and trolling when you're saying exactly the same thing as the idiots the thread is meant to attract and honeypot, except with a few weak insults sprinkled in? it's not like we're trying to have a productive debate on the nature of economics here. it's not disruptive or frustrating, which is the primary goal of the troll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Fixed that for you. I feel like at this point we are doing a great job of embarrassing ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I feel like at this point we are doing a great job of embarrassing ourselves. what's up with mcdonalds, sedanchair?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
I can't think of anything except I once posted a picture with a McDonald's cup? I'm not opposed to McDonald's. I love all the free market poo poo that is available to me. Wal-mart, 7-11, Mickey d's. I'm subverting them by uh...giving them cash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's generally true because stuff produced is generally in demand. What do you think that Say's Law actually says? "Usually things that are produced are already in demand, but sometimes not"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:What do you think that Say's Law actually says? "Usually things that are produced are already in demand, but sometimes not"? That production leads to demand/consumption. I'm the one stripping out the "law" part and inserting "generally". Which turns it into a pretty uncontroversial statement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Well yes, anything can be rendered uncontroversial by stripping out any kind of rigor and turning it into "sometimes this happens but other times maybe not, you know, whatever"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:That production leads to demand/consumption. Since you have the awful tendency of redefining or misinterpreting specifically-defined terms, can you specify what you mean by the terms "production", "leads to", "demand", and "consumption"? Using the colloquial meanings of these terms, that statement isn't even generally true. Producing too much of just about any product can result in a glut, and your statement implies that gluts are impossible (or "generally" impossible, which is still wrong). That's also not how laws work. You can state a set of assumptions under which the law is applicable, and you can claim that it's inapplicable when those assumptions are broken, but the way in which you've stated the law here just renders the whole thing pointless. "This rule is true except when it's not" is not meaningful to anyone anywhere. If you want to get weird with it, you could say that the statement is true if you believe that landfill owners wanting to be paid to put things in their landfill is a type of demand. It's obviously not the intention of the law to encompass scenarios like "i produced too much stuff and had to pay someone to take away the extra" but if you're being a weaselly little poo poo you could still try to make that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Things are true except when they aren't. -- Deep Thoughts by asdf32
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Things are true except when they aren't. -- Deep Thoughts by asdf32 D&D, desperate for a libertarian chew toy, elects to engage with a pedant over the definition of is. Next week or so Jrod will return with a new myopic on who the real enemy is, having spent the downtime consuming statist provided resources to replenish his reserves of clear heart and mind against the violence he experiences every day continuing to exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If you want to get weird with it, you could say that the statement is true if you believe that landfill owners wanting to be paid to put things in their landfill is a type of demand. It's obviously not the intention of the law to encompass scenarios like "i produced too much stuff and had to pay someone to take away the extra" but if you're being a weaselly little poo poo you could still try to make that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Isn't that literally paying people to dig holes then fill them up again? holes can be supplied; ergo demand for holes to be supplied is infinite. holes can also be filled in; ergo 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Really? I would have thought demand for holes was finite. After all each person has only one hole that was made for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 05:45
|
|