- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Cont...
You will never have a problem engendering supply to meet demand; if there's money to be made by selling into a market that features demand, it will be made. Supply will rise to meet demand: Apple will produce and sell phones into markets where there is an appetite for their products, and avoid those where there is not, assuming that a profit can be made at the end of the day.
The real problem is ensuring the existence of adequate demand: people who are both willing and able to buy your widgets. Every recession is a case of inadequate demand due to deprivation and/or the servicing of debt, resulting in reduction of supply in a vicious cycle (people spend less because they're not making as much which causes the economy to contract which exasperates the deprivation and causes people to spend less in turn, etc) until some form or another of interdiction where demand recovers (either via government stimulus as the buyer of last resort, or some kind of economic epiphany). I have yet to hear of a recession caused strictly by an absence of supply.
As stated in my prior posts, encouraging direct, material capital investment is a good thing and should be encouraged; the way to do it is with targeted and specific tax incentives, not with broadbased tax cuts/low taxes.
Further, an economy with an educated and productive populace that has money to spend as a consequence of redistributive policy will always be an attractive place to invest, even if taxes are comparatively high.
I will never understand the insistence that you do not need something to sell in order to sell it.
Expressed demand is a function of supply. Theoretical demand can spur investors to create supply, but remains useless until it is successfully expressed.
You can no more consume yourself rich than you can increase the food in your larder by eating it all.
You will never have a problem engendering supply to meet demand; if there's money to be made by selling into a market that features demand, it will be made. Supply will rise to meet demand: Apple will produce and sell phones into markets where there is an appetite for their products, and avoid those where there is not, assuming that a profit can be made at the end of the day.
The real problem is ensuring the existence of adequate demand: people who are both willing and able to buy your widgets. Every recession is a case of inadequate demand due to deprivation and/or the servicing of debt, resulting in reduction of supply in a vicious cycle (people spend less because they're not making as much which causes the economy to contract which exasperates the deprivation and causes people to spend less in turn, etc) until some form or another of interdiction where demand recovers (either via government stimulus as the buyer of last resort, or some kind of economic epiphany). I have yet to hear of a recession caused strictly by an absence of supply.
And who are the most likely to invest that money back to where it is most productive.
Meaning, not here, if we are foolish enough to try to jack up taxes on it to 52%. Capital will flee, and it will be wise to.
As stated in my prior posts, encouraging direct, material capital investment is a good thing and should be encouraged; the way to do it is with targeted and specific tax incentives, not with broadbased tax cuts/low taxes.
Further, an economy with an educated and productive populace that has money to spend as a consequence of redistributive policy will always be an attractive place to invest, even if taxes are comparatively high.