- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is why business owners/entrepreneurs do not like democrats very much
Posted on 10/24/14 at 6:43 pm to constant cough
Posted on 10/24/14 at 6:43 pm to constant cough
quote:
There's a lot of needy people in every third world country that doesn't mean they are booming with jobs and industry.
pretty much. demand is kind of putative, and consumers don't even realize they have a demand for new goods until they're presented with the innovation
innovation, is what drives job creation (of course once it is able to be produced and then produced)
as a hypo, take any new invention and ask yourself if society 20-30 years prior would have a demand for that good/idea. of course they would
0
Posted on 10/24/14 at 6:45 pm to constant cough
quote:
Only Demand in and of itself doesn't create anything.
Correct, typically demand is expressed in terms of "need" or "want" - sufficient demand creates a profit incentive and the product is brought to the marketplace. This can spur further demand (faster computers, more smartphones, etc.). Another product can come along and replace an older or obsolete technology (automobile over horse for individual transportion).
But the "demand" is typically a generic want or need and you can typically follow Maslow's hierarchy for usual suspects. The "demand" is not a 3 bed, 2 bath, fixer upper opportunity - the "demand" is housing. That is just one option to satisfy that in the market place.
As you suggest, there was demand beyond recognition in the stone age, and many of these persist in the third world. Demand facilitates jobs, economic growth, etc., but it does not, by itself, create these things out of thin air.
Many progressives believe strongly that it does, but this naked belief, much like a naked demand, does not create support for itself.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 8:14 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 6:47 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Business pays what amounts to protection money in politics.
They will pay/support those who offer more for less.
They will pay/support those who offer more for less.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:03 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:well technically true, but an awful analogy.
consumption
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:07 pm to Tigah in the ATL
Technically she sucks balls.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:11 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Democrats have the easiest job imaginable. Making scapegoats of successful people.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:16 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
who exactly did she say creates jobs?
Monica?
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:20 pm to NC_Tigah
Damn... Wow. Just... Damn.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:33 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:With the exception of those who innovate or create new products, producers are replaceable. Consumers are certainly more important. Making that argument may be annoying, but the worship of "job creators" and neglect in acknowledging demand is equally so.
To Hillary, the bums that buy cigarettes at gas stations or the people of walmart are more responsible for our great and vibrant markets than people who took risks to create firms that could have failed or succeeded.
One cannot whine about acknowledging the importance of consumers, while ceaselessly felating producers.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:33 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Democrats are the party of Keneysian garbage and the consumerism meme. No wonder they're such a dumpster fire in fiscal and economical issues.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:37 pm to Zed
quote:
With the exception of those who innovate or create new products, producers are replaceable.
Yeah we can always just send those jobs to china right?
quote:
Consumers are certainly more important. Making that argument may be annoying, but the worship of "job creators" and neglect in acknowledging demand is equally so.
So we'll have demand we just won't have any jobs to where we can have money to buy our Chinese products with.
quote:
One cannot whine about acknowledging the importance of consumers, while ceaselessly felating producers.
Sure we can. You can't consume things without first producing them. That's putting the chicken before the egg.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:39 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Democrats are the party of Keneysian garbage and the consumerism meme. No wonder they're such a dumpster fire in fiscal and economical issues.
That's because they are good at consuming as long as somebody else is paying.
That's why they don't care for jobs. Jobs, ewww yuck! Jobs are for Mexicans or China.
We don't need those we have EBT cards and Obama phones.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:47 pm to constant cough
quote:Where there is demand, supply will almost certainly follow in a free market. The same can not be said of supply without demand. Products are supplied in response to or with the expectation of demand. Demand drives the market. With the exception of innovators, producers are replaceable cogs in the machine.
Sure we can. You can't consume things without first producing them. That's putting the chicken before the egg.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:59 pm to Zed
quote:Goods have to be paid for with goods. Consumption by definition must be preceded by production. How can one possibly consume before any production has occurred? Individuals produce for the sake of consumption, not the other way around. When she argues that it is vital for consumers to have the money that make business possible, she does not ask how consumers got the money in the first place nor does she demonstrate an understanding of what money even is. Money, among a few other things, is a medium of exchange between goods. Its very existence implies that goods must have been produced in the first place (unless of course it has been illegitimately printed).
Zed
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:03 pm to Zed
quote:
Where there is demand, supply will almost certainly follow in a free market.
The same can not be said of supply without demand. Products are supplied in response to or with the expectation of demand. Demand drives the market. With the exception of innovators, producers are replaceable cogs in the machine.
Producers aren't replaceable because you can't consume things out of thin air.
You can have all the demand in the world but if you have no method to fill the demand or no means of paying for it then what good is it?
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:04 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
I want to interrupt this thread for a quick poll.
Up vote this post if you are employed by a business or corporation or you own a business that has at least one employee.
Down vote if your livelihood is funded by taxpayers (regardless of whether you are a fireman, soldier or leech.)
Up vote this post if you are employed by a business or corporation or you own a business that has at least one employee.
Down vote if your livelihood is funded by taxpayers (regardless of whether you are a fireman, soldier or leech.)
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 8:06 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:12 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:With the expectation of consumption.
Consumption by definition must be preceded by production.
quote:Exactly. Demand drives markets. A new product, or significant improvement upon an existing one, can drive a new market, in almost all other circumstances, production responds to demand. In a properly functioning free market, producers should be replaceable. Demand is not. Lack of demand kills markets. It wipes them out.
Individuals produce for the sake of consumption
Supply and demand are obviously both important, but when one is consistently held above the other, a reaction should be expected. This is all a reactionary response to supply side economics, and deification of job creators IMO.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:18 pm to Zed
quote:
Consumers are certainly more important.
This is true in the aggregate, but not at the individual level.
For the sake of argument, let's say Coca-Cola's product cannot be replicated. Something happens to the company and it collapses. The product is lost, and demand for soft drinks is likely to dip, although, obviously, Pepsi and the smalls will be there to offer their competing product. I use Coca-Cola, because the product existed before all of its consumers were even born, so the demand could not have created the product.
Compare that to the loss of an individual or even a decent chunk of Coke's customers. Sure, they don't want to lose customers, here and there, but it isn't the end of the world for Coke (or Pepsi) for that matter.
But, if nobody wanted Coca-Cola's products, they would disappear from the marketplace due to lack of demand.
Now that we're in this - this is a much better philosophical postulate than chicken or egg.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 8:20 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:19 pm to Zed
Zed, who denies that consumers are more important, an how is supply side theory anti consumer?
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:21 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
corporations and businesses fill job openings.
a thriving middle class with money to spend on manufactured goods create jobs.
and tax cuts for the rich sure as fricking hell dont create jobs
a thriving middle class with money to spend on manufactured goods create jobs.
and tax cuts for the rich sure as fricking hell dont create jobs
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 8:22 pm
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News