A system where everyone was 100% self-sufficient, would have no demand, for example. As would a system where everything that everyone could possibly want is given to them, that'd also have no demand.
Frankly, it's an extreme boundary case that probably can't exist in reality.
Just demand isn't going to make any jobs. It'll be just unfulfilled demand. Until someone decides to fill that demand, is there going to be a job. It may be one person, or it may be many people, but in both cases its a job. The mere fact that demand is getting fulfilled by someone else creates a job.
The two are so intertwined, it doesn't seem to make any sense to me to consider them separate. Sure, in some theoretical sense, but not in anything that is remotely connected to any sort of reality known to man.
Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it.” A Doctor called to a radio show & said: "That's the definition of a stool sample"
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Barack Obama January 2008
I understand the demand meme that forms the foundation for the living wage agenda requires reality to be suspended, but that doesn't change the facts.
Never Forget - Who you vote for counts. If you don't want a President who sees you as irredeemable and deplorable, the choice is clear.
But there was a demand--namely, for unfussy travel. Compared to a horse and carriage, motor vehicles were a bit more reliable and cheaper to operate.Originally Posted by apdst
This isn't to say, of course, that automobiles didn't create further demands, which, I've argued above, can be distinguished from demand. However, without the initial demand, automobiles wouldn't have gone anywhere (meant, in this case, both figuratively and literally). Or, more perspicaciously, without a demand that people had the ability to pay to fill, automobiles would never have caught on. So the demand, and the ability for those with the demand to fill it, have to be present.
Our main problem is that Americans aren't filling as many demands because they lack the means. This is how vicious cycles get started (well, one of a couple of ways). To fix it, we need to take actions that directly affect how much wealth customers have to spend.
Well, it's logically possible that people could exist and want absolutely nothing. So in that sense, of course, you're correct. However, it seems to be the nature of human beings to want some things. A person whose belly is full of food today will be hungry tomorrow. A person who is healthy today will be ill and require medicine tomorrow. A person who needs no shelter because it's a nice temperate day will one day be in blazing heat, pouring rain, or freezing cold. And so on.Originally Posted by eohrnberger
No, there would still be demands. Everyone would just be satisfying their own demand.Originally Posted by eohrnberger
Then ask yourself this: would any business (that actually stays in business for very long) create a job to fill a demand which wasn't there? Would any business (that actually stays in business for very long) create a job to fill a demand for which people couldn't possibly pay enough to create profit? And what happens to businesses that flout those rules?Originally Posted by eohrnberger
Again, I get that (at least in our economic model) business is what goes about filling the demand. And this isn't all. Businesses are what "spin up" demands (plural) from subsistence level economies to industrial and post-industrial economies such as the one we enjoy.
So long as we have such a thing as private ownership (not something with which I want to do away), we'd be foolish to not allow business to thrive. But in fact, one principle effect of taking my point seriously is that businesses should begin to thrive more, because they'll have more customers with more money to spend.
I think at least some of what I've said is in rough agreement with this notion. However, sometimes theory is rather important. Theories that are tolerably accurate can tell us what to do when something goes wrong. And that's the kind of point I'm making. We shouldn't be so confused about what has gone wrong in our economy. We need to take direct steps to help there be more customers with the ability to pay for their demands. Do that, and we'll get back in a virtuous cycle. Do it not, and we'll keep swirling around the rim of another vicious cycle.Originally Posted by eohrnberger
No, my point is more subtle but also entirely practical. Businesses without customers are dead, and customers are people with demands and the ability to pay for them. If we want a virtuous economic cycle, then we need policies that encourage people to have demands, and that protect their ability to pay for them. We've done ****-poor on this last bit for well-nigh 50 years, and now we're seeing the results.Originally Posted by lifeisshort
The same pattern has played out again and again throughout history. When too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, one of two things happens: immediate collapse, or protracted tyranny protected by force, and then collapse. The solution is simple: rebalance wealth, and then keep it in balance.
No, it does not.Originally Posted by ocean515
People didn't like to enjoy things prior to NASCAR? That just sounds silly.Originally Posted by ocean515
Yes, but WHY did they enjoy them? Why were race cars something that it could be predicted people would enjoy? Answer those questions without conceding the point, if you can. If you can't, then it seems to me the point should be conceded anyway.Originally Posted by ocean515
There was no demand to cook food quickly? There was no demand to talk to friends and family when they weren't at home or work? If you answer in the affirmative, I say that's just nuts. Of course there were such demands.Originally Posted by ocean515
What you're doing is confusing the demand for the product that fills it. If your claim is that the invention of a product creates the demand for it, we only need look at products which sold well, but which have been superseded by others that fill the same function. For example, casette tapes sold well until CDs came along. You can't say there was no demand for casette tapes and remain consistent with your view. But then, if the demand was for cassette tapes, why aren't sales of cassette tapes still going strong?
The reason is pretty obvious: the real demand is for hi-fidelity portable recording media. And that, in turn, is just a modulation of a more basic demand for things that make life enjoyable.