- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
But they are not co-dependent in an important and relevant sense: demand can never be reduced to zero (unless all human beings are dead), while supply can be. Demand is therefore more fundamental--the thing that needs to be around first is demand and the ability to satisfy demands. I don't know how to be any more plain.
I didn't say that. But investors wouldn't have anything to risk in the first place if it weren't for them being in a society. And to the extent that all businesses invoke social costs, society is taking a risk any time a business opens.
If that's meant as a rhetorical question, as it seems to be, you may as well be arguing my case. The obvious answer is: anyone who is reasonable.
For reasons I've explained earlier. There's a perception that better returns for less risk can be had elsewhere. The "less risk" bit is right--there's not enough demand to provide a reasonable guarantee against business closure. The "better return" bit is also right, but needs to be remedied.
It isn't absolutely necessary that demand exist. Sometimes there is no demand, until a product is produced. The automobile is a perfect example.