Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
I think ultimately such businesses would fail. Smart business owners start companies to fill demands that already exist. Their products and services may go on to create new demands, certainly. But the initial demand must exist first so revenues start accruing shortly after production begins, and those in turn pay for further production.
Well, granted that most business establish to fill an existing demand, but that's not the only way it's done. There was no demand for a microwave oven, until the engineers built one and said, 'Hey! Does anyone want to buy this?', and they created a demand that did. (Well, OK, maybe they sold the idea to management which then committed to spending on the marketing and product development in the hopes that it would build into a demand).

Everyone was happy with BlackBerries until the touch screen smartphone came out, and the market demand changed, rather dramatically.

Seems that the more disruptive inventions businesses aren't to address an existing demand, but exploit a technical development into a new demand.

Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
Yes, I think that's right.

Again, correct. The only thing I would add is that demand is more fundamental, and so is more important. But in practical terms, while I think paying attention to the demand side is how to get an economy going, I reiterate that its a big mistake to go full-on socialist and forget about nurturing business. There has to be a balance, and once it's acheived, it has to be zealously guarded. But if it can be acheived, it means peace and prosperity for everyone, or nearly so.
I agree. There's an optimal balance between demand and filling the demand (jobs, business). Only wish more would understand this balance, and also guard against it tilting too far one way or the other.

Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
A rarity on DP, I'm afraid. I appreciate your reasonable response.
As do I appreciate yours.