|
comedyblissoption posted:working americans used to actually save money instead of redlining themselves living paycheck to paycheck working americans used to be able to afford to save money, now they redline themselves living paycheque to paycheque to cover frivolous things like groceries, housing, and transportation
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
rudatron posted:What prompted this stupid poo poo from musk anyway. Baloogan posted:new thread title
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Satiation is impossible because that's not how the brain works, the object of desire can only exist as an object so long as it is unattainable - once attained, it loses its mystical character, and transitions into just another thing. Anybody who's desired an object of food and consumed it knows what it means to be satiated. Even if it's only a transient phase of satisfaction, the fact is that you're still satisfied for a time - meaning that there's a limit to how much you will actually demand over a certain time frame. You can try to manipulate desires as much as you want, but eventually you will bump into the real basic physical limitations on demand. You said before that I'm factoring in environmentalism into a system before it's even needed, but disregarding the environment as something not even worth considering is unscientific.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
Demand for a particular thing =/= Demand. Demand = sum of demands for all things. The former is marginal, the latter is unbounded. This is like the third time I've had to point this out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:new thread title To be fair if you go to most places online with socialists it's a toss up of weird tankies laughing about gulag memes and them calling you ableist for telling them to read a book, at least for Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
Whining about having to read is a social democrat goon thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:Argument with his girlfriend probably
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Demand for a particular thing =/= Demand. Demand = sum of demands for all things. The former is marginal, the latter is unbounded. This is like the third time I've had to point this out. You keep pointing it out but it doesn't get any less stupid. If demand for particular things are marginal, then it logically follows that aggregate demand has a limit as the sum of all demands. You can adjust the limit by manipulating desires, but the fact that you can measure aggregate demand in the first place means that you have a clear production target without a need for surplus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
No it does not: the number of things is infinite, and even an infinite series of decreasing terms can diverge. That's basic calculus. 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 ... diverges to infinity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:What prompted this stupid poo poo from musk anyway. I think this was the start https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1007680326934585344?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
You also can't measure demand directly, because its influencing price elasticity, which is a derivative term. And the fact that an aggregate demand curve is finite at a given level of spending doesn't mean that demand is bounded, because demand is a function. The function 1/x is either finite or undefined for any x, yet it is still unbounded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No it does not: the number of things is infinite, and even an infinite series of decreasing terms can diverge. That's basic calculus. 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 ... diverges to infinity. Earth is a closed system my man. It doesn't matter if technically there's an infinite amount of things in the universe, because there's only so much in the world we actually live in that can even be exploited. That there is always going to be a constant level of demand was never in dispute, the point is that there is an upper limit to demand in a real physical sense - and there's no good reason to constantly seeking growth in a closed system. Because if you never adjust demands downward or maintain a sustainable equilibrium, the end result is systems collapse and you've recreated the whole problem of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucking prolix
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
Demand exists independent of the ability to realize it - a real constraint like 'carrying capacity of the earth' imposes a constraint on supply, but the demand is infinite - if that constraint is lifted, people will push past it, because they can't be satiated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
Capitalism is going to kill us all because setting no boundaries on the individual desires which drive constant growth will lead to ecological collapse. You're applying capitalist logic to a post-revolutionary society and completely missing the whole point of overthrowing it in the first place. A socialist world does not operate on the same rules of capitalist commodity logic - full stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
noooooooooooooooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Capitalism will kill us all because it externalize costs unto society as a whole, and requires constant growth for internal social stability. It has nothing to do with the desire for more stuff, which is a constant if human behavior. A finite earth just means we have to deal with that fact, not that the process of desire itself can be subverted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
An existence without desire would be equivalent to an existence without sexuality - unrecognizable as human and frankly dystopian in-and-of itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Capitalism will kill us all because it externalize costs unto society as a whole, and requires constant growth for internal social stability. It has nothing to do with the desire for more stuff, which is a constant if human behavior. A finite earth just means we have to deal with that fact, not that the process of desire itself can be subverted. We're not talking about desire we're talking about demand! I know you keep insisting that it's the same thing, but that's stupid, and it doesn't function that way in real life. Demand is a command function, and literally every definition of the word states as such - except the economic definition that says it's desire for stuff. You're using demand as defined by capitalist logic and projecting it onto a socialist society. YOU ARE NOT FREE FROM LIBERALISM
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:working americans used to be able to afford to save money, now they redline themselves living paycheque to paycheque to cover frivolous things like groceries, housing, and transportation advertisement leads to these consumers redlining themselves and increasing aggregate demand
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
Demand is the econonic expression of your desire through price signals - it represents your willingness to pay for something, that you presumably want. They're not exactly the same thing, but they're both related, and in particular, they're both unbounded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
Overcoming the logic of the commodity had nothing to do with over coming consumption itself. Feel free to quote Marx as to where they suggest this is necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/getfiscal/status/1007722363411206144
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Demand is the econonic expression of your desire through price signals - it represents your willingness to pay for something, that you presumably want. They're not exactly the same thing, but they're both related, and in particular, they're both unbounded. Demand signals aren't the same thing as price signals. Demand signals are orders set by the consumer for goods that they need, while price signals are issued by the supplier for the market to adjust its demands. If you do not have the ability to pay, then there is no order and no demand signal - regardless of your willingness to pay if you could.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
well good thing that didn't happen in the ussr
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
As mentioned by zimbardo before, demand affects the rate of change of purchases at a given price, i.e. price elasticity. The fact that you don't buy something now, but would at lower price, has an effect. Just because instantaneous derivatives can't be measured in the real world, doesn't mean they don't exist - presumably you still believe that 'velocity' is a thing, even if, at a given moment in time i.e. a photograph, you can't determine how fast something is going.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
Infernot posted:To be fair if you go to most places online with socialists it's a toss up of weird tankies laughing about gulag memes and them calling you ableist for telling them to read a book, at least for Twitter. Oh word?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:As mentioned by zimbardo before, demand affects the rate of change of purchases at a given price, i.e. price elasticity. The fact that you don't buy something now, but would at lower price, has an effect. Just because instantaneous derivatives can't be measured in the real world, doesn't mean they don't exist - presumably you still believe that 'velocity' is a thing, even if, at a given moment in time i.e. a photograph, you can't determine how fast something is going. It doesn't have any affect if demand orders are already meeting supply. That's why luxury goods markets exist in the first place, because they can produce profitably for a demand which will never be realized by the masses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:households with well above the median income are redlining themselves with stupid bullshit like diamond rings, amazon echoes, juiceros, every single new iphone release, etc. that poo poo doesnt actually cost that much, most people are spending the majority of their income on essentials, with higher earners just having nicer essentials like a better apartment or nicer car or whatever. all the consumer poo poo we buy is relatively small potatoes and most of it is purchased in a desperate attempt to fill the yawning void left inside us by the social alienation of modern capitalist society
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
ok sure but my main point is that advertisement does increase aggregate demand where demand is defined as consumer spending
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It doesn't have any affect if demand orders are already meeting supply. That's why luxury goods markets exist in the first place, because they can produce profitably for a demand which will never be realized by the masses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
There's luxury goods called "Veblen goods" and necessities called "Giffen goods" that defy the law of demand, because as their prices increase their demand also increases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good quote:The classic example given by Marshall is of inferior quality staple foods, whose demand is driven by poverty that makes their purchasers unable to afford superior foodstuffs. As the price of the cheap staple rises, they can no longer afford to supplement their diet with better foods, and must consume more of the staple food. The existence of goods which defy the law of demand proves that demand truly is bound by environmental constraints, both socially and physically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
>I want all of the doggos >New doggos are born every day >My demand for owning doggos is insatiable and I am only one person. Therefore economic demand is boundless qed
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
inverse elasticity goods like staples (or oil) only show that consumer spending is limited, the set of products is limited, and some products are more fundamental to the economy than others. It's not disproof of demand as a concept.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
it's a demonstration of opportunity cost, not an invalidation of insatiability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
please im begging use shorter words
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
rudatron posted:inverse elasticity goods like staples (or oil) only show that consumer spending is limited Consumer spending is how demand is actually expressed in the real world. If consumer spending is limited, then so is demand. We aren't dealing with demand as an abstract concept or a mathematical axiom, we're talking about demand as a real world function in an actually existing economy. In the socialist world, where your demands can be expressed as another bullet point on your People's Amazon Wishlist - then your demands would only truly be limited by your desire. Yet it still doesn't logically follow that your desires will be unlimited, and that the desires of others may also be unbound. It's far more likely that desires will be realistically adjusted in accordance to society's ability to actually realize demands. Thus, even while living in your socialist apartment where you desire better living conditions, it doesn't logically follow that you will demand a better apartment knowing that resources are better spent on something of greater social utility. Thus under socialism, instead of demand being bound by the ability to pay, it will be bound by the desire for social utility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
*literally dies* (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
sorry not sorry loogs We actually are dealing with demand as an abstract concept, because that's what it is, and has always been: 'willingness to pay'. You keep trying to subvert that basic understanding. If 'demand' is to be a meaningful concept, it can't mean the same thing as 'purchases'. They're not equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
lol well keep socialism dialog behind a gate of jargon but stop hoping for a worker revolution because no one loving understands this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 06:20
|
|