Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 90

Thread: Fascinating take on how to fix the economy

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I asked before and you dodged. What does a whore produce?
    A reaction, if she does it right.
    Mutz (E)

    Your Life Is Not My Fault

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by E Mutz View Post
    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.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I asked before and you dodged. What does a whore produce?
    Sexual pleasure.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    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.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    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.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    But no tangible value, thus no production.
    There is value and that is why people pay for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I never claimed it could.
    Yes you did:
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    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
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    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.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    This debate between you two is incredibly boring...please take offense as needed
    That's two of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    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

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    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

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Production
    The creation of a tradable value (wealth).
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Supply
    The availability or quantity of a tradable value, the integral of production.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Buying power
    The ratio between an entities tradable value and general market prices. This can be affected temporarily by loans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Demand
    The common domain of the desire for some product and the wealth to trade for it in the aggregate market.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    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.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    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.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Everyone cares. Money is basically a nice easy way to barter. In that system everything is relative to one another.
    ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    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.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •