ocean515 said:
Example: You posted a question that suggests I didn't think people liked to enjoy things before NASCAR. What a load. I have no interest in wasting time with someone so completely full of BS that they would post such a contrived and lame question.
There's nothing contrived or lame about it. My position has been and continues to be that a demand exists before products or services are made, but that the demand is a general one. So, products or services for which there come to be demands are only so because they satisfy the more basic demand. If that's true, then demand is more fundamental than supply, and if we want an economy with a virtuous cycle, we should nurture demand, and the ability of people to pay for products that fill them, first.
ocean515 said:
Another example: In the example of automobiles, you completely sidestep the fact they were initially banned from public roads and use in cites for some undefinable standard that people were demanding "unfussy" travel? If that were true, why were they banned from use?
For a variety of reasons mainly having to do with concerns about how to regulate their use, as I understand it, anyway. I don't know what you're going for here. Again, it looks to me like this supports my view, not yours. Regulations against automobiles prevented them from entering the marketplace. Unless there were a pre-existing demand, there doesn't seem to be any social force available to overturn those regulations.
Conversely, the fact that there are regulations against something in no way signifies a lack of demand for it. I'm sure plenty of people would love to own slaves, for example. There are still enough people who are so racist that they wouldn't have any moral qualms about owning other human beings. So the laws against slavery don't entail there's not an extant demand. By parity of reasoning, then, the fact that there were regulations against automobiles doesn't entail that there wasn't demand for them (be careful reading this part--I'm not saying there was demand for automobiles as such, only that your example doesn't show there wasn't, and the reason it doesn't show that also precludes it showing there was no general demand such as I've been talking about).
Anyway, I didn't sidestep this point. I answered it directly in a previous post.
ocean515 said:
A final example, and then I'm done: You posted "there aren't demands for specific products just as such. There is demand for the product which best fills a need" There is no demand for products, but there is demand for products if they fill a need. Either there is demand, or there isn't. This is especially true is they don't even know they have a need for a product.
Demand exists. Demand is for any product that has some set of properties. Had people made hovercraft before automobiles, or made some other invention altogether with relevantly similar properties, that's what would have taken off. Demand isn't for automobiles, but for any product that has properties sufficiently similar to automobiles. This is why it would be plausible for someone to invent something right now that has all the plusses of an automobile, and slightly fewer minuses, and in an ideal market, automobiles would be replaced. There isn't demand for automobiles per se, but rather, for some product that does what automobiles do.
The same point applies to NASCAR, or any other product.