Starting to Get It?

[Lurker]

Torakus,
Your post doesn't apply to anything Ddrak or I have said.

[Ddrak]

I am not saying it is one or the other.....I am saying it is both. Because it is moronically stupid to try to issolate one from the other.

Demand without supply goes unmet. Supply without demand goes unsold.

And BTW Dd......coupons do not grant more purchasing power......they grant you the ability to buy more of that one particular product......which if you have no interest in buying does not affect you at all. Purchasing power is normally expressed as a fixed ratio to a price index like the CPI......not as a relation to an individual product.

Except it's not "moronically stupid" to isolate one from the other, like I already posted. Stimulating the supply achieves very little while stimulating demand stimulates supply. To contradict your statement,

Supply without demand goes unsold. Demand without supply creates suppliers smart enough to fill that demand. Demand will only go unmet when there is so much demand (ie boom times) that you can't possibly supply it all, and it's not usually sound government policy to stimulate a boom economy even further because it creates a bubble.

Coupons DO grant more purchasing power. Purchasing power is the number of goods/services for a fixed amount of currency. Lower the price of the goods and that fixed currency can purchase more. Still, you have to choose whether you're talking microeconomics or macroeconomics. If you want to compare to CPI then you're talking macro all of a sudden so it would be good if you stuck with one side or the other because I was rebutting your microeconomic argument about coupons "increasing demand", which they could only do for the specific business offering coupons.


As for Torakus, he should absolutely tell his R&D team to go home if they envisage no demand for their product when it hits production. I thought that was Business 101 - make sure people will buy your stuff before you invest heavily in it. R&D is effectively searching for an unmet demand in economic terms.

Dd

[Kulaf]

I think you need to re-read. Lurker tried to make the statement that purchasing power equaled demand. Clearly in either a micro or macro sense......it does not. I never conflated demand and purchasing power on either a micro or macro level. And I am sure when you re-read what Lurker posted followed by what I posted you will agree.

[Lurker]

Lurker tried to make the statement that purchasing power equaled demand. Clearly in either a micro or macro sense......it does not.

The amount of money consumers have (which is what I meant by purchasing power) plays a huge role in aggregate demand. So clearly... you are wrong.

[Kulaf]

Of course it does.....but that is not what you said. Purchasing power is an economic term.

Disposable income plays a huge role as well.....but it is also not demand, and likely the economic term you meant to use.

[Ddrak]

Aggregate demand is pretty close to disposable income multiplied by purchasing power with some constants thrown in for good measure. We can probably all agree on that and move on?

Dd

[Lurker]

Agreed.

I think my post here caused some confusion. I didn't put "demand" in parenthesis to say that purchasing power equaled demand; I just wanted to indicate what side of macroeconomic theory I was talking about.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Aggregate demand is pretty close to disposable income multiplied by purchasing power with some constants thrown in for good measure. We can probably all agree on that and move on?

Dd

Negative Ghostrider..

You've just described purchasing power, not demand. Just because there's disposable income after meeting necessities, doesn't mean the conmsumer will dispose of the income. What you've described is the maximum amount of revenue availble to the company that creates thelargest deamnd for its services/products.

[Lurker]

You are still conflating microeconomics with macroeconomics.

You are also having a different conversation than the rest of us.

You're talking about supply and demand as relates to a single company and we're talking about aggregate demand for the economy as a whole.

It's no wonder you're so clueless about how to grow the economy. It's no wonder you still think supply side economic policy works despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Ddrak]

Negative Ghostrider..

You've just described purchasing power, not demand. Just because there's disposable income after meeting necessities, doesn't mean the conmsumer will dispose of the income. What you've described is the maximum amount of revenue availble to the company that creates thelargest deamnd for its services/products.

Well, no, I can't have described "purchasing power" when I talk about something that is "purchasing power multiplied by disposable income" (unless you're trying to say that disposable income is a constant). Assuming your hypothesis was that part of the "demand" I described is transferred to the banks as savings then you simply are saying that the banks are part of the economy, which is something I completely agree with.

What I described was the maximum revenue that can be split across ALL companies competing for that revenue. This is the aggregate demand.

I would also seriously question your assertion that a single company has the ability to draw this entire pool of demand (ie the maximum revenue for a single company is only a small fraction of that number).

Note that my statement has some significant holes in that it misses the aggregate demand for essentials (which are purchased through non-disposable income) and doesn't deal with non-consumer demands. Both of these have the same issue though - the aggregate pool of money available is independent of the individual company's ability to seize a smaller or larger slice of it.

Dd

Dd

[Erinos]

So I haven't been here for a while but I'm not a bit surprised at the responses. They are as I would have suspected; quick retorts regarding terminology chiefly for the sake of disagreement which is fine since it is a rant board.

What was really painful was Obama's presidential address! What's with that yellow makeup on his face??? What's the deal with that conservative address? I give the Speaker of the House credit for maintaining a straight face. I don't know how he did it!

[Harlowe]

If he gave a "liberal" speech you would have snarked at that too. Actually, there isn't anything he could have done, down to what make-up he's wearing, that you wouldn't have ridiculed.

He's not batshit crazy, which is more than you can say for any of the current GOP front runners.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I didn't see the SOTU speech, but I listened to it. Seemed like a campaign speech to me.

[Lurker]

The SOTU in an election year is usually part campaign speech.

It was also full of common sense proposals that enjoy the support of most Americans, a call for basic fairness and a plea to work together to solve the serious problems we face. All on deaf ears unfortunately.

[Erinos]

If he gave a "liberal" speech you would have snarked at that too. Actually, there isn't anything he could have done, down to what make-up he's wearing, that you wouldn't have ridiculed.

He's not batshit crazy, which is more than you can say for any of the current GOP front runners.

So let's analyze the terminology; "batshit crazy"... Batshit is not a living entity, however it is intestinal waste with low level micro life. Maybe that explains Obama's yellow pallid skin color. Too many bats in the belfry!!!! Yeah Republicans are crazy for believing in capitalism, right?

As U.S. Chamber President Tom Donohue said after the speech:

“Too many of the solutions he proposed rest on higher taxes, more spending, and an avalanche of new regulations. The way to create the jobs Americans need is to grow our free enterprise economy, not to further expand the federal government.”

Again: The dirty word: "Capitalism"

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Yeah Republicans are crazy for believing in capitalism, right?

Again: The dirty word: "Capitalism"

lol @ implying that only Republicans are capitalists. Damn, you're a fucking retard.

[Ddrak]

First of all, the GOP doesn't want true capitalism and nor do most businesses. Capitalism implies an informed consumer and very few businesses really want that in their heart - a misinformed one tends to do much better. Note that since WW2, the GOP has grown the federal government more than the Democrats, so, um, what was your point?

As for the Chamber of Commerce comments:

“Too many of the solutions he proposed rest on higher taxes, more spending, and an avalanche of new regulations. The way to create the jobs Americans need is to grow our free enterprise economy, not to further expand the federal government.”

There is no rebuttal to this because it's a vague response to specific complaints. If Donohue actually wants to be part of a solution then he should mention specific fixes, but you can guarantee they'll be centered around lowering taxes on his wealthy funders which we've shown over and over do nothing useful for a recovering economy or job creation.

This isn't to say the Dems are a beacon of shining light, but I'm still more disappointed in the GOP for completely failing on just about every true conservative position.

Dd

[Harlowe]

Yeah Republicans are crazy for believing in capitalism, right?

Again: The dirty word: "Capitalism"

lol @ implying that only Republicans are capitalists. Damn, you're a fucking retard.

If he is implying that, then Jaro speaks the truth.

[Erinos]

Careful now! Some of you are about to expose yourselves, but you already have a long time ago. Why should the rich have all the money when there are all those poor people who don't want to work! Redistribution of the wealth! Right? Why deny your beliefs? Let it all hang out!

[Jarochai Alabaster]

So...if you have nothing of substance to contribute, why are you here?