Rick Perry schools the US on economics: Supply it, then demand will follow

[Econ4Every1]

I challenge you to name a single product created by Apple that was created that I can't describe a demand that existed with respect to any product you name, before it was created.

McIntosh TV

Well, in this case, there was obviously little demand as 10k units were shipped and production was canceled after 4 months. I'm going to go out on a limb here, without a source and say that this product failed to recover its R&D costs.

So if you are arguing that I should explain the demand for a product that obviously had no demand, that seems contrary to the challenge I proposed.

So let me restate my challenge in light of this interesting answer.

The product you cite. It needs to have covered its development costs and earned its creators a profit. Otherwise, I'll simply argue there wasn't a demand for the product in question.

Having said that, this product is a perfect example of a product that tries to recognize wants and desires but fails to succeed because of the limitations at that time. I mean, arguably it's brilliant. Years ahead of its time, but it's a perfect example of my claim that products don't create demand, they are subject to them.

If the price had been $500 instead of $3000 (inflation adjusted) perhaps at that price point people would have accepted the value of the device relative to the cost. The demand would have pushed for the infrastructure to support it and it may have succeeded instead of failed.

Great example though. Thanks for adding that. Frankly, I had forgotten all about that. Nice trip down memory lane.

My point was simple..........Not all products produced sell.............Many fail.............They put out a supply of products hoping the demand will follow..............Catch 22 to your argument..............

Every new product line is a risk that the public will not want it.

Sure. The point I was making is that demand starts with desires.

I believe that healthy sane people, at a base level desire just a few things.

They want to be happy, healthy and realize well-being and be free from unwanted pain, suffering, and sickness. Everything else we do radiates from those desires.

We buy what we buy to meet our demand to fulfill those desires.

It is the demand to actualize those base desires that are the genesis of the buyer-seller relationship.

When people invent new things, they are tapping into the demand to realize desires that already exist.

However, the desire to acquire goods and services is not the same as the means to acquire them.

You can create the best idea in the world. The demand can only exist if people have the means to acquire what they desire.

Thus, a monetary system that recognizes that demand starts with consumers wish to realize certain base desires must also ensure that the system promotes the means to purchase those things as well.

The reason that there are almost no cars in North Korea isn't that people don't desire them, it's because people lack the means to purchase them.

As far as producers, like a Steve Jobs. His brilliance wasn't just inventing the iPhone. It was doing it in such a way that it met our base desires but at a price that people had the means to acquire. That means bringing suppliers and producers together. That means inventing new techniques in production, that means communicating your vision with investors and with potential customers.....

Steve didn't "create demand" he realized it.

It is still splitting hairs................Inventors try to invent and produce something that people will LIKE and BUY.............It doesn't always mean the demand was there............Perhaps the NEED WAS THERE...................doesn't mean everyone was DEMANDING IT.

You are still thinking of demand in terms of products, I'm trying to tell you that demand starts within each person as a desire. Certain ideas and products tap into that. They realize our desires. In that way, products are important, but products are not the genesis of the buyer-seller relationship.

The product or idea doesn't create the desire, it realizes it. Therefore the relationship between the buyer and the seller starts with the buyer's desire to acquire what the seller is offering.

Some societies don't buy and sell anything at all beyond what they need to survive (and perhaps certain cultural items, religious totems etc). Is that because they lack choices or the means to make purchases? In some cases perhaps, but one need only find a society that is aware of the outside world where the means exist but the desire does not.

Now, find me a society that creates goods and services without the desire to consume them and I'll concede your point.

 

[eagle1462010]

McIntosh TV

Well, in this case, there was obviously little demand as 10k units were shipped and production was canceled after 4 months. I'm going to go out on a limb here, without a source and say that this product failed to recover its R&D costs.

So if you are arguing that I should explain the demand for a product that obviously had no demand, that seems contrary to the challenge I proposed.

So let me restate my challenge in light of this interesting answer.

The product you cite. It needs to have covered its development costs and earned its creators a profit. Otherwise, I'll simply argue there wasn't a demand for the product in question.

Having said that, this product is a perfect example of a product that tries to recognize wants and desires but fails to succeed because of the limitations at that time. I mean, arguably it's brilliant. Years ahead of its time, but it's a perfect example of my claim that products don't create demand, they are subject to them.

If the price had been $500 instead of $3000 (inflation adjusted) perhaps at that price point people would have accepted the value of the device relative to the cost. The demand would have pushed for the infrastructure to support it and it may have succeeded instead of failed.

Great example though. Thanks for adding that. Frankly, I had forgotten all about that. Nice trip down memory lane.

My point was simple..........Not all products produced sell.............Many fail.............They put out a supply of products hoping the demand will follow..............Catch 22 to your argument..............

Every new product line is a risk that the public will not want it.

Sure. The point I was making is that demand starts with desires.

I believe that healthy sane people, at a base level desire just a few things.

They want to be happy, healthy and realize well-being and be free from unwanted pain, suffering, and sickness. Everything else we do radiates from those desires.

We buy what we buy to meet our demand to fulfill those desires.

It is the demand to actualize those base desires that are the genesis of the buyer-seller relationship.

When people invent new things, they are tapping into the demand to realize desires that already exist.

However, the desire to acquire goods and services is not the same as the means to acquire them.

You can create the best idea in the world. The demand can only exist if people have the means to acquire what they desire.

Thus, a monetary system that recognizes that demand starts with consumers wish to realize certain base desires must also ensure that the system promotes the means to purchase those things as well.

The reason that there are almost no cars in North Korea isn't that people don't desire them, it's because people lack the means to purchase them.

As far as producers, like a Steve Jobs. His brilliance wasn't just inventing the iPhone. It was doing it in such a way that it met our base desires but at a price that people had the means to acquire. That means bringing suppliers and producers together. That means inventing new techniques in production, that means communicating your vision with investors and with potential customers.....

Steve didn't "create demand" he realized it.

It is still splitting hairs................Inventors try to invent and produce something that people will LIKE and BUY.............It doesn't always mean the demand was there............Perhaps the NEED WAS THERE...................doesn't mean everyone was DEMANDING IT.

You are still thinking of demand in terms of products, I'm trying to tell you that demand starts within each person as a desire. Certain ideas and products tap into that. They realize our desires. In that way, products are important, but products are not the genesis of the buyer-seller relationship.

The product or idea doesn't create the desire, it realizes it. Therefore the relationship between the buyer and the seller starts with the buyer's desire to acquire what the seller is offering.

Some societies don't buy and sell anything at all beyond what they need to survive (and perhaps certain cultural items, religious totems etc). Is that because they lack choices or the means to make purchases? In some cases perhaps, but one need only find a society that is aware of the outside world where the means exist but the desire does not.

Now, find me a society that creates goods and services without the desire to consume them and I'll concede your point.

I stand by my point that you are splitting hairs. I can't desire a product I never saw or knew existed.

They make a PRODUCT that they THINK THE PUBLIC WILL DESIRE..................aka..............that it will sale.......because people will like it. If they never put the product up to be seen then NO ONE will EVER BUY IT because it doesn't exist................

They CREATE A SUPPLY of a product.............and it WINS OR LOSES based on whether we buy it or not.

That is the best dang light I have ever owned.............skeptical at first I bought it...........DAMN GOOD LIGHT.......Saw it on TV and decided to buy it.....even bought one for my daughter................Had they not CREATED THAT PRODUCT............I would have never desired it.........because I would have never seen it to Desire it...........

They created a product............manufactured it..............and SUPPLIED IT before I ever desired it..............Flash lights are NEEDED by most people...........and getting a better light is a desire.................

I still consider this splitting hairs..............Many items FLOP because they produce a product that NO ONE BUYS............and lose money......so this is all mute to me anyway.

BTW........If you want a great light......that is it. get the recharge kit with it. It's 4 lights in 1.

 

[Econ4Every1]

They make a PRODUCT that they THINK THE PUBLIC WILL DESIRE.

Then we agree. Desire provides the demand for products.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Tim Cook is not a product innovator - a slimmer iphone is not innovation, everybody already wants a slimmer iphone.

1) if he said a slimmer iphone was an innovation I"ll pay you $10,000. Bet?
2) it is a huge innovation nevertheless given the huge innovations necessary to squash everything inside

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You have a very loud and shrill voice but it is uninformed and unproductive.

uninformed? if true you would not be so afraid to present your best example of this for the whole world to see. As it stands you have been reduced to ad hominem attack apparently because you lack the IQ for more.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They make a PRODUCT that they THINK THE PUBLIC WILL DESIRE.

Then we agree. Desire provides the demand for products.

obviously there no discernable desire or demand which is why 99% of new products fail. There are 1000's of inventions supplied a few of which catch on. Thus we want to encourage supply side economics not demand side economics.

 

[Econ4Every1]

They make a PRODUCT that they THINK THE PUBLIC WILL DESIRE.

Then we agree. Desire provides the demand for products.

obviously there no discernable desire or demand which is why 99% of new products fail. There are 1000's of inventions supplied a few of which catch on. Thus we want to encourage supply side economics not demand side economics.

New products fail because they fail to meet the desires of people, or they fail to meet the desires of people at a price point deemed acceptable.

I can like a product but be unwilling to spend the amount of money to acquire it.

It's still the desire that drives producers to create demand, but that doesn't mean that just because a producer creates a product that it will adequately meet the desires of its customers.

 

[task0778]

They make a PRODUCT that they THINK THE PUBLIC WILL DESIRE.

Then we agree. Desire provides the demand for products.

obviously there no discernable desire or demand which is why 99% of new products fail. There are 1000's of inventions supplied a few of which catch on. Thus we want to encourage supply side economics not demand side economics.

New products fail because they fail to meet the desires of people, or they fail to meet the desires of people at a price point deemed acceptable.

I can like a product but be unwilling to spend the amount of money to acquire it.

It's still the desire that drives producers to create demand, but that doesn't mean that just because a producer creates a product that it will adequately meet the desires of its customers.

IOW, supply side economics is king. If you're unwilling to spend the money to buy a product that you like because of it's price, then it behooves a company and an economy to work to provide that product (and others) at a lower price. Otherwise, foreign competition wins out. And that is what supply side economics is all about.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

New products fail because they fail to meet the desires of people,

of course 99% fail because the desires are not knowable; therefore policy must be directed at encouraging Republican capitalist supply side entrepreneurship passion and guessing. Welcome to the world of supply side economics.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They make a PRODUCT that they THINK THE PUBLIC WILL DESIRE.

Then we agree. Desire provides the demand for products.

obviously there no discernable desire or demand which is why 99% of new products fail. There are 1000's of inventions supplied a few of which catch on. Thus we want to encourage supply side economics not demand side economics.

New products fail because they fail to meet the desires of people, or they fail to meet the desires of people at a price point deemed acceptable.

I can like a product but be unwilling to spend the amount of money to acquire it.

It's still the desire that drives producers to create demand, but that doesn't mean that just because a producer creates a product that it will adequately meet the desires of its customers.

IOW, supply side economics is king. If you're unwilling to spend the money to buy a product that you like because of it's price, then it behooves a company and an economy to work to provide that product (and others) at a lower price. Otherwise, foreign competition wins out. And that is what supply side economics is all about.

Well, not really since everyone knows demand increases as price drops. Supply side is about how to make an economy grow fast and that usually happens with invention and innovation far more than gradual price decreases as you go down the production learning curve. Don't forget we got here from the stone age thanks to innovations not thanks to price decreases. I will agree though that a major price reduction would probably be caused by the supply of a new innovation.

 

[Econ4Every1]

New products fail because they fail to meet the desires of people,

of course 99% fail because the desires are not knowable; therefore policy must be directed at encouraging Republican capitalist supply side entrepreneurship passion and guessing. Welcome to the world of supply side economics.

Of course, specific desires aren't known, but that doesn't change the fact that peoples desires provide the motivation for companies to create goods & services, because while specific desires aren't known, the fact that people want things that meet desires is 100% known.

Supply side economics is the most ridiculous notion ever.

We've been in a supply side economy for the last 30 years and you see where we're at.

Wealth has moved from the bottom 80 to the top 20% for the last 30 years:

And yet we are where we are. And please, don't blame the debt. The debt as a percentage of GDP hasn't changed since 1940. Interest as a %GDP hasn't gone over 3.1% at any point in the last 60 years:

The reality is that when incentives are given to consumers there will be a greater demand for the suppliers to meet. The producers still get wealthy because the bottom 50% spends 99% of all the money the make.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[QUOTE="Econ4Every1, post: 17997024, member: 65426[/QUOTE]

of course 99% fail because the desires are not knowable;
.[/QUOTE]
Test

 

[task0778]

1. Distribution of wealth has absolutely NOTHING to do with economic growth. If you take money from person A and give it to person B you have not created any wealth, you have merely moved it from A to B. Maybe B spends it but A might invest instead of spending it, and there's a reason why Investments are a component of GDP. It ain't just spending that drives GDP, it's spending plus investments and a few other things.

2. Demand is governed by Price, just as Econ4 said and then tried to back away from. It's basic Econ 101, people will buy product X at price Y but not at price Y+1. They'll find an alternative product X2 that is at price Y or lower. Which is why supply side economics is king, as a producer/seller the price of your product determines the demand for it and that's why it's common sense to try to lower your costs so you can offer your product at a lower price. It works that way at the micro level and also the macro level too.

3. Demand side economics is bullshit. It is another way of trying to justify distribution of wealth, i.e., social justice in the eyes of some. There is NO, repeat NO instance in human history where redistribution of wealth has ever boosted economic growth anywhere. When taxes are raised, prices go up and economic growth goes down. Every freakin' time. Look around the world today at the more successful economies; they got that way by CUTTING taxes. EVERY ONE OF THEM. Not one successful economy has ever got that way by raising taxes and redistributing it. NOT ONE.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the fact that people want things that meet desires is 100% known.

yes people want things. Dah!!!!! Is there a kindergartner on earth who would disagree? So why are you saying it like a child who just learned that 1+1=2 and you are the only one on earth who knows it??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We've been in a supply side economy for the last 30 years and you see where we're at.

totally stupid!!! you obviously have no idea whatsoever what supply side economics is. It is capitalism or the encouragement of the supply of new inventions since inventions got us from the stone age to here. What we have is socialism, the exact opposite. We have the highest corporate taxes in the world and tax the top 1% for 45%
of all the revenue the federal govt gets. Our govt depends on the top 1% for revenue more than any other country on earth. What is taken at gunpoint by libcommie govt in taxes is not used to fund the supply of new inventions. Do you understand now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The reality is that when incentives are given to consumers there will be a greater demand for the suppliers to meet.

by incentives you mean welfare . that is what a libcommie always wants, more and more welfare in 10001 different forms. The big new one is free college. In fact when the libcommies gives out welfare that merely churns the existing economy and kills the incentive for the supply of new inventions. why invent something new when people have plenty of money to buy whats old? This is how libcommies slowly starved 120 million to death in the USSR and Red China.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The producers still get wealthy because the bottom 50% spends 99% of all the money the make.

wrong obviously!! They don't get rich because they are the ones who paid for the welfare in taxes that the bottom 50% spends!! There is no free lunch!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wealth has moved from the bottom 80 to the top 20% for the last 30 years:

you are a simpleton libcommie puppet who has no idea why wealth has moved to the top:

1) Top Americans have done well in a globalized world, not surprising since we had best companies before globalization and thus best positioned to take full advantage.

2) liberals have attacked American family, schools, and religion thus rendering most American unfit for work and equality. 75% can't pass basic test to serve in military or Border Patrol

3) liberal taxes, unions, and regulations shipped millions of jobs to China thus depriving millions of Americans an opportunity to acquire wealth.

4) libcommies invited in 30 million illegals to take our jobs and bid down our wages thus depriving 30 million Americans a chance to acquire wealth.

5) We spend trillions on anti poverty programs so Americans will not be poor, but this money is not counted as wealth held by the poor.

Now you can see it has nothing whatsoever to do with supply side economics!!!! Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not one successful economy has ever got that way by raising taxes and redistributing it. NOT ONE.

libcommies will claim that the poor spend 100% of what they get while the rich save thus the poor stimulate the economy more. This is stupid libcommie BS since the rich save and thus invest( S=I) in real economic growth.

 

[Econ4Every1]

The producers still get wealthy because the bottom 50% spends 99% of all the money the make.

wrong obviously!! They don't get rich because they are the ones who paid for the welfare in taxes that the bottom 50% spends!! There is no free lunch!!

No, the rich don't "pay for it", though I admit there are some that believe that should be the case.