Originally Posted by E Mutz

A reaction, if she does it right.

hehehe. I had a friend in the military that was intimately acquainted with whore houses. He once told me that having sex with a prostitute is pretty much just assisted masturbation. There you are pounding away while she lays there and thinks about what she is going to make for dinner that night while making an occasional unconvincing noise.

Originally Posted by daewoo

I asked before and you dodged. What does a whore produce?

Sexual pleasure.

Originally Posted by daewoo

It depends on the demand. Typically either products or services.

A service produces a value.

So give me a demand that exists independent of production as you claimed it could.

Originally Posted by Freedom

A service produces a value.

But no tangible value, thus no production.

So give me a demand that exists independent of production as you claimed it could.

I never claimed it could. I claimed the exact opposite, that demand will lead to production as the market fills that demand. Even when it comes to space ships.

Originally Posted by daewoo

But no tangible value, thus no production.

There is value and that is why people pay for it.

Originally Posted by daewoo

I never claimed it could.

Yes you did:

Originally Posted by daewoo

Wrong answer. Want can exist independent of trade or supply. So can demand. Demand is the aggregate of people who desire to own a product and presumably have the means to purchase it, if and when available

Unless of course you want to argue that supply is not produced now

This debate between you two is incredibly boring...please take offense as needed

I fail to see the end point here. For the sake of argument lets say supply causes demand which seems to be Freedom's argument. What are you suggesting we do about it? Or is this merely trying to refute Daewoo's post about burning down buildings as a means of economic growth?

It has always seemed to me that the way the economy works will work whether you understand it or not.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

This debate between you two is incredibly boring...please take offense as needed

That's two of us.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

I fail to see the end point here. For the sake of argument lets say supply causes demand which seems to be Freedom's argument.

As daewoo used the word demand he meant want + the ability to pay, which is to say want + the production of tradable value.

Demand as he used the word is inseparable from production (supply). Want and production are truly independent, but it is production that is the problem, the limiting factor.

Reducing the limiting factor, by I don't know undoing production will reduce the economy not grow it.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

What are you suggesting we do about it? Or is this merely trying to refute Daewoo's post about burning down buildings as a means of economic growth?

Yes, failing to XXXX things up is an excellent way to not hurt the economy. This is more about the perverted delusional understanding of economics that would ever even consider destruction good.

Daewoo and whatever sad excuse for analysis he subscribes to has discovered the incredible fact that if you ruin jobs you've already done you need to do them over again, but I don't know maybe it's just outdated supply side theory that factories need to be built.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

It has always seemed to me that the way the economy works will work whether you understand it or not

Unless through your ignorance you destroy it, like I don't know burning down wealth to 'spur' further production.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Want and production are truly independent, but it is production that is the problem, the limiting factor.

What evidence do you have that production is the limiting factor? Or do I misunderstand you?

Capacity in the US seems to be at 75%ish from a manufacturing standpoint.

Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

What evidence do you have that production is the limiting factor? Or do I misunderstand you?

Maybe you didn't read anything I wrote, it's the only candidate. Have not's do not have nothing because they decided they shouldn't. They haven't produced. This applies to bill gates just as surely on those who can't afford enough food. It's just a jet vs an apple.

What limits your buying power or a companies buying power or a nations buying power?

It's simple, how much money you have vs how much people are charging.

How much money you have is a function of your production, how much people are charging is a function of how easily they produce it (supply). No matter what way you look at it, it's production, not always the same production but a production of some kind.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Maybe you didn't read anything I wrote, it's the only candidate. Have not's do not have nothing because they decided they shouldn't. They haven't produced. This applies to bill gates just as surely on those who can't afford enough food. It's just a jet vs an apple.

What limits your buying power or a companies buying power or a nations buying power?

It's simple, how much money you have vs how much people are charging.

How much money you have is a function of your production, how much people are charging is a function of how easily they produce it (supply). No matter what way you look at it, it's production, not always the same production but a production of some kind.

Perhaps you should define the following terms:

Production
Supply
Buying power
Demand

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Production

The creation of a tradable value (wealth).

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Supply

The availability or quantity of a tradable value, the integral of production.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Buying power

The ratio between an entities tradable value and general market prices. This can be affected temporarily by loans.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Demand

The common domain of the desire for some product and the wealth to trade for it in the aggregate market.

Much appreciated.

You say "creation of a tradable value" is the limiting factor (to economic growth) because it is the only "candidate". Presumably this just means we have to work a little bit harder and the economy will improve. It seems to me you get back to the chicken and egg argument. Someone only will produce if their is a demand. Working a little bit (or a lot) harder making widgets is not helpful if no one is going to be buying widgets. Likewise you aren't demanding widgets if you didn't produce something to do get income to buy widgets in the first place. Round and round we go. Yes?

Your argument makes the assumption that if everyone had more "buying power" than we'd all be better off. I'm not sure this is necessarily true in the aggregate. If we double the income of every American than we are in the same boat relative to one another. If Person 1 invents the next great product than that production will increase that person's buying power but not everyone else as a whole. In fact, it will most likely decrease the buying power of someone else as their product becomes inferior.

Back to Daewoo's thoughts on burning down production buildings. If we burn down every car manufacturing plant than you have demand for cars not fulfilled by supply. One might say if you rebuilt the plants that this is an increase in production that meets the demand and you could easily see cars produced one day after the fire along side economic value and then see cars produced one day after you reopen along side economic value. It would look like economic growth was the result of increased production. This is misleading. It is the result of demand building up while supply is not available. The net effect is zero. The inverse of this can also happen where supply builds up while demand is not available. One good example is Christmas Trees.

I'm not convinced that burning down a few banks would do the trick. WWII worked because we literally leveled a continent and killed millions of people. Nothing like thinning the forest to get things to grow bigger.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

You say "creation of a tradable value" is the limiting factor (to economic growth) because it is the only "candidate". Presumably this just means we have to work a little bit harder and the economy will improve. It seems to me you get back to the chicken and egg argument. Someone only will produce if their is a demand. Working a little bit (or a lot) harder making widgets is not helpful if no one is going to be buying widgets. Likewise you aren't demanding widgets if you didn't produce something to do get income to buy widgets in the first place. Round and round we go. Yes?

No someone does not only produce if there is demand, they will produce for want alone, specifically their own want.

I realize and you should to that all economies are interdependent, that every trade is made possible by a vast history of previous trades. If there is no demand because there is nothing you want from the market and because of this you produce nothing the market wants you are in a bind, but it's still the lack of production that's the 'problem' you aren't producing tradable wealth and no one else is either. Economies were started when personal production exceeded personal consumption (want) and the personal production despite being motivated not by market demand became available to trade and were more valuable to others than the producer and thus started the engine.

About the 'work a little harder', that depends on where the hold up is. In a super simple model where you've got the farmer, the miller and the baker things can shut down merely because one link in the chain is disturbed. Say the miller's turbine breaks, he stops buying wheat he can't mill. The farmer experiences a loss of demand and so he stops producing as much wheat, the baker can't afford the new price of flour (supply is going down) and thus his business stagnates as people switch to rice and maize.

No one choose to work less yet they all did because the extra effort would be wasted or impossible.

The hold up in our case seems to be credit which is just as vital to the way people are running companies these days as the turbine is for the miller. Look at the fields hardest hit, among which are housing and car manufacturing. What is it that most people take loans out for?

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Your argument makes the assumption that if everyone had more "buying power" than we'd all be better off. I'm not sure this is necessarily true in the aggregate. If we double the income of every American than we are in the same boat relative to one another. If Person 1 invents the next great product than that production will increase that person's buying power but not everyone else as a whole. In fact, it will most likely decrease the buying power of someone else as their product becomes inferior.

We certainly would be better off. Buying power is how much you have produced expressed without arbitrary currency units. Who cares about relative to one another, what matters is relative to the absolute of being a wandering ape.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Back to Daewoo's thoughts on burning down production buildings. If we burn down every car manufacturing plant than you have demand for cars not fulfilled by supply. One might say if you rebuilt the plants that this is an increase in production that meets the demand and you could easily see cars produced one day after the fire along side economic value and then see cars produced one day after you reopen along side economic value. It would look like economic growth was the result of increased production. This is misleading. It is the result of demand building up while supply is not available. The net effect is zero. The inverse of this can also happen where supply builds up while demand is not available. One good example is Christmas Trees.

It would be a net effect of zero if you just stopped building cars, since you blew up factories you destroyed the work of everyone who worked to build those factories and now you have to replace the value you've destroyed, the good part is supposedly that those who had nothing to do in a world where people had factories already now have something to do.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

I'm not convinced that burning down a few banks would do the trick. WWII worked because we literally leveled a continent and killed millions of people. Nothing like thinning the forest to get things to grow bigger.

The death and destruction of WWII produced no wealth whatsoever. It destroyed vast amounts of wealth, employees, and created a whole lot of pointless equipment instead of more useful equipment. War is never good for business on the whole.

If economies grew greatly it was because people worked hard because they knew they had to rebuild.

Originally Posted by Freedom

No someone does not only produce if there is demand, they will produce for want alone, specifically their own want.

Production of something no one is buying is not economic growth..it is engaging in a hobby.

The hold up in our case seems to be credit which is just as vital to the way people are running companies these days as the turbine is for the miller. Look at the fields hardest hit, among which are housing and car manufacturing. What is it that most people take loans out for?

Doesn't this example fly into the face of your argument? Ford and GM have no problem producing cars, it is the lack of "money they have" which you say is a function of their production. Their production is limited because no one has the money to buy a car. Round and round we go.

Who cares about relative to one another,

Everyone cares. Money is basically a nice easy way to barter. In that system everything is relative to one another.

the good part is supposedly that those who had nothing to do in a world where people had factories already now have something to do.

Too bad those who rebuild the factor loss money to buy whatever. Back to square one.

The death and destruction of WWII produced no wealth whatsoever. It destroyed vast amounts of wealth, employees, and created a whole lot of pointless equipment instead of more useful equipment. War is never good for business on the whole.

On the contrary. It produced numerous factories that were easily converted to peace time use and apparently not letting people buy things for 5 years is a way to boost an economy.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Production of something no one is buying is not economic growth..it is engaging in a hobby.

Spoken like someone thinking inside the box. The foundations of trade are independent of it.

You may want to look up the origin of the word economy.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Doesn't this example fly into the face of your argument? Ford and GM have no problem producing cars, it is the lack of "money they have" which you say is a function of their production. Their production is limited because no one has the money to buy a car. Round and round we go.

lol of course it doesn't, money is an abstraction of tradable wealth, if the cars aren't tradable they aren't worth money. The lack of production in this case is that of their potential consumers, you are consistently deciding that they will trade for other things with their production in lieu of it's priority vs their wealth creation.

If everyone was rich they would buy cars, it is the decision to spend money on something else or perhaps even the inability to buy the car at all that keeps people from buying cars not their desire for a car (not counting the enviro-freaks).

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Everyone cares. Money is basically a nice easy way to barter. In that system everything is relative to one another.

?

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Too bad those who rebuild the factor loss money to buy whatever. Back to square one.

They didn't lose anything they didn't earn it.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

On the contrary. It produced numerous factories that were easily converted to peace time use and apparently not letting people buy things for 5 years is a way to boost an economy.

Factories that wouldn't have been built if tanks didn't need to be made? Not letting people buy things for five years is a way to dam an economy.