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

[Econ4Every1]

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.

Oh boy. I'm not talking about "redistributing taxes". That's stupid. The government doesn't collect taxes to have money and more that you let water down the drain to supply water to the faucet. The two aren't connected and neither are taxes and spending. If you are opening the drain before adding more water it's probably because you don't want a flood. If you are taxing after you spend, its because you don't want inflation.

Oh, and it's I=S not the other way around.

 

[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.

Desire is primarily based on price. If I can't afford it it then I won't buy it; there are some who will buy what they want with little regard to price, particularly if it's with somebody else's money. Most people have to spend their money as wisely as possible, and that means demand is almost totally reliant on price. If they have to people will look for alternatives to items that they think are too expensive, or they'll go without. And that is why supply-side economics is king and always will be; as a producer if you can't bring to market a product that people want at a price they will pay then you're pretty much fucked.

And producers do not create demand, producers create supply that they hope a demand will exist for at the price point that they can make the product and get a reasonable profit. If the research indicates that the price point is too high relative to the expected demand then investors won't invest and hat means you won't get any backing from a bank.

 

[task0778]

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.

Oh boy. I'm not talking about "redistributing taxes". That's stupid. The government doesn't collect taxes to have money and more that you let water down the drain to supply water to the faucet. The two aren't connected and neither are taxes and spending. If you are opening the drain before adding more water it's probably because you don't want a flood. If you are taxing after you spend, its because you don't want inflation.

Oh, and it's I=S not the other way around.

You are talking about redistributing more money to the have-nots, are you not? Where do you plan to get that money from if not by raising taxes on the upper 1%? And don't tell me taxes and spending aren't related, our national debt exists because we spent too much money relative to the revenues that came in. Unless changes are made in our taxes and spending then that debt will grow quite large, to the point where just the interest we have to pay will approach a trillion dollars a year by some estimates. How outrageous is it to add to that debt with our prolifigate spending, thereby leaving future generations to pay the interest let alone the principle.

 

[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!!

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

top1 % pay 45% of all federal personal tax revenue so they alone pay for most welfare. sorry to rock your world

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The two aren't connected and neither are taxes and spending.

1) so, as a typical liberal you lost the debate but learned what supply side economic was?

2) and now want a new subject that you feel better prepared to handle? Don't bet on it, liberal.

"So where do our tax dollars go? Some believe most of it goes to welfare and foreign aid. Others believe defense and corporate welfare dominate the budget. In reality, health entitlements – Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare – and Social Security are the largest programs. These entitlements and interest on the debt are set to consume every dollar of taxes paid in just over 20 years.
"Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go?

 

[Econ4Every1]

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.

Oh boy. I'm not talking about "redistributing taxes". That's stupid. The government doesn't collect taxes to have money and more that you let water down the drain to supply water to the faucet. The two aren't connected and neither are taxes and spending. If you are opening the drain before adding more water it's probably because you don't want a flood. If you are taxing after you spend, its because you don't want inflation.

Oh, and it's I=S not the other way around.

You are talking about redistributing more money to the have-nots, are you not? Where do you plan to get that money from if not by raising taxes on the upper 1%? And don't tell me taxes and spending aren't related, our national debt exists because we spent too much money relative to the revenues that came in. Unless changes are made in our taxes and spending then that debt will grow quite large, to the point where just the interest we have to pay will approach a trillion dollars a year by some estimates. How outrageous is it to add to that debt with our prolifigate spending, thereby leaving future generations to pay the interest let alone the principle.

Ever play Monopoly?

When I pick up a card that say's "Bank Error in your favor, Collect $200!"

Where does that money come from?

How does it affect other players?

Let's address the interest question.

In 1988 the last year I can find reliable stats for, the government paid $214 billion in interest. If you had told someone that the interest on the debt would more than double by 2017, what do you think they would have imagined? Depression, widespread unemployment, crime?

The thing is, the economy has grown on pace with the larger interest payments such that it's still about the same percentage (or less) than it was in 1988.

Furthermore, Interest payments aren't paid from taxes. Interest has risen sharply in 20 years, yet taxes have decreased.

1 out of every 3 dollars paid in interest goes right back to the federal government to offset its debt.
1 out of every 3 dollars in interest is paid to some is private sector interest earned as income. That means that $150 billion in income was earned by the private sector thanks to interest payments. That means GDP increased by $150 billion times current velocity (about 1.4) so $150 billion in interest payments earned as income would create $210 billion in additional GDP.
The last dollar is earned by foreign interests.

Future generations won't have to pay for anything just like generations today aren't paying for past debt.

After WWII the debt was higher than its ever been, yet the 20 years that followed were some of the best in the nation's history. The children that followed benefited from the debt and the productivity it spawned.

When we cut spending for education, healthcare, welfare, we are making our children pay right now, today.

Lastly, rates are influenced by the Fed, not the market. Rates won't rise unless the Fed directes them to do so and if it does it will be because the economy is roaring.

 

[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.

Desire is primarily based on price. If I can't afford it it then I won't buy it; there are some who will buy what they want with little regard to price, particularly if it's with somebody else's money. Most people have to spend their money as wisely as possible, and that means demand is almost totally reliant on price. If they have to people will look for alternatives to items that they think are too expensive, or they'll go without. And that is why supply-side economics is king and always will be; as a producer if you can't bring to market a product that people want at a price they will pay then you're pretty much fucked.

And producers do not create demand, producers create supply that they hope a demand will exist for at the price point that they can make the product and get a reasonable profit. If the research indicates that the price point is too high relative to the expected demand then investors won't invest and hat means you won't get any backing from a bank.

Producers supply the demand. Can't disagree with that.

 

[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.

Desire is primarily based on price. If I can't afford it it then I won't buy it; there are some who will buy what they want with little regard to price, particularly if it's with somebody else's money. Most people have to spend their money as wisely as possible, and that means demand is almost totally reliant on price. If they have to people will look for alternatives to items that they think are too expensive, or they'll go without. And that is why supply-side economics is king and always will be; as a producer if you can't bring to market a product that people want at a price they will pay then you're pretty much fucked.

And producers do not create demand, producers create supply that they hope a demand will exist for at the price point that they can make the product and get a reasonable profit. If the research indicates that the price point is too high relative to the expected demand then investors won't invest and hat means you won't get any backing from a bank.

Desire is based on price? This is wrong. What you mean is desire or demand for existing products is based on price. We got from the Stone Age to here not based on existing products but on a constant supply of the new inventions. The supply of New inventions requires passion creativity entrepreneurship and lots of money. That is how you get economic growth not by lowering prices or tweaking demand with liberal government policy. Innovative supply creates demand at least that the man needed for real economic growth

 

[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.

Desire is primarily based on price. If I can't afford it it then I won't buy it; there are some who will buy what they want with little regard to price, particularly if it's with somebody else's money. Most people have to spend their money as wisely as possible, and that means demand is almost totally reliant on price. If they have to people will look for alternatives to items that they think are too expensive, or they'll go without. And that is why supply-side economics is king and always will be; as a producer if you can't bring to market a product that people want at a price they will pay then you're pretty much fucked.

And producers do not create demand, producers create supply that they hope a demand will exist for at the price point that they can make the product and get a reasonable profit. If the research indicates that the price point is too high relative to the expected demand then investors won't invest and hat means you won't get any backing from a bank.

Producers supply the demand. Can't disagree with that.

Producers do not supply demand, they create the supply based on perceived projected demand. If you can show me where I said otherwise I will admit my mistake when you do that. To say producers supply the demand for a product is sheer stupidity. Only the consumers do that depending on the price point.

 

[task0778]

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.

Oh boy. I'm not talking about "redistributing taxes". That's stupid. The government doesn't collect taxes to have money and more that you let water down the drain to supply water to the faucet. The two aren't connected and neither are taxes and spending. If you are opening the drain before adding more water it's probably because you don't want a flood. If you are taxing after you spend, its because you don't want inflation.

Oh, and it's I=S not the other way around.

You are talking about redistributing more money to the have-nots, are you not? Where do you plan to get that money from if not by raising taxes on the upper 1%? And don't tell me taxes and spending aren't related, our national debt exists because we spent too much money relative to the revenues that came in. Unless changes are made in our taxes and spending then that debt will grow quite large, to the point where just the interest we have to pay will approach a trillion dollars a year by some estimates. How outrageous is it to add to that debt with our prolifigate spending, thereby leaving future generations to pay the interest let alone the principle.

Ever play Monopoly?

When I pick up a card that say's "Bank Error in your favor, Collect $200!"

Where does that money come from?

How does it affect other players?

Let's address the interest question.

In 1988 the last year I can find reliable stats for, the government paid $214 billion in interest. If you had told someone that the interest on the debt would more than double by 2017, what do you think they would have imagined? Depression, widespread unemployment, crime?

The thing is, the economy has grown on pace with the larger interest payments such that it's still about the same percentage (or less) than it was in 1988.

Furthermore, Interest payments aren't paid from taxes. Interest has risen sharply in 20 years, yet taxes have decreased.

1 out of every 3 dollars paid in interest goes right back to the federal government to offset its debt.
1 out of every 3 dollars in interest is paid to some is private sector interest earned as income. That means that $150 billion in income was earned by the private sector thanks to interest payments. That means GDP increased by $150 billion times current velocity (about 1.4) so $150 billion in interest payments earned as income would create $210 billion in additional GDP.
The last dollar is earned by foreign interests.

Future generations won't have to pay for anything just like generations today aren't paying for past debt.

After WWII the debt was higher than its ever been, yet the 20 years that followed were some of the best in the nation's history. The children that followed benefited from the debt and the productivity it spawned.

When we cut spending for education, healthcare, welfare, we are making our children pay right now, today.

Lastly, rates are influenced by the Fed, not the market. Rates won't rise unless the Fed directes them to do so and if it does it will be because the economy is roaring.

Every single word you wrote is pure poppycock. Monopoly? Seriously? Interest payments are not paid from taxes? Seriously? Interest rates are not influenced by the market? Not the stock market, the entire market economy? What nonsense, I'm done here.

 

[Darkwind]

Rick Perry on supply and demand economics: Supply it, then demand will follow

Rick Perry, head of a department he didn't want to exist, fails to understand the theory of supply and demand



So if I put a big supply of turds out there, will Republicans rush to enjoy those turds? There's plenty of supply. Rick said if you had supply, they will come running and demand will follow.

http://amzn.to/2gaCqm8

 

[Econ4Every1]

Producers do not supply demand, they create the supply based on perceived projected demand. If you can show me where I said otherwise I will admit my mistake when you do that. To say producers supply the demand for a product is sheer stupidity. Only the consumers do that depending on the price point.

I'm not sure what we are arguing about, I couldn't agree more. Supply is based on projected demand. I can infer from that, that demand is the driver of supply.

No argument here.

Seems you should be arguing with Ed.

-Cheers

 

[Econ4Every1]

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.

Oh boy. I'm not talking about "redistributing taxes". That's stupid. The government doesn't collect taxes to have money and more that you let water down the drain to supply water to the faucet. The two aren't connected and neither are taxes and spending. If you are opening the drain before adding more water it's probably because you don't want a flood. If you are taxing after you spend, its because you don't want inflation.

Oh, and it's I=S not the other way around.

You are talking about redistributing more money to the have-nots, are you not? Where do you plan to get that money from if not by raising taxes on the upper 1%? And don't tell me taxes and spending aren't related, our national debt exists because we spent too much money relative to the revenues that came in. Unless changes are made in our taxes and spending then that debt will grow quite large, to the point where just the interest we have to pay will approach a trillion dollars a year by some estimates. How outrageous is it to add to that debt with our prolifigate spending, thereby leaving future generations to pay the interest let alone the principle.

Ever play Monopoly?

When I pick up a card that say's "Bank Error in your favor, Collect $200!"

Where does that money come from?

How does it affect other players?

Let's address the interest question.

In 1988 the last year I can find reliable stats for, the government paid $214 billion in interest. If you had told someone that the interest on the debt would more than double by 2017, what do you think they would have imagined? Depression, widespread unemployment, crime?

The thing is, the economy has grown on pace with the larger interest payments such that it's still about the same percentage (or less) than it was in 1988.

Furthermore, Interest payments aren't paid from taxes. Interest has risen sharply in 20 years, yet taxes have decreased.

1 out of every 3 dollars paid in interest goes right back to the federal government to offset its debt.
1 out of every 3 dollars in interest is paid to some is private sector interest earned as income. That means that $150 billion in income was earned by the private sector thanks to interest payments. That means GDP increased by $150 billion times current velocity (about 1.4) so $150 billion in interest payments earned as income would create $210 billion in additional GDP.
The last dollar is earned by foreign interests.

Future generations won't have to pay for anything just like generations today aren't paying for past debt.

After WWII the debt was higher than its ever been, yet the 20 years that followed were some of the best in the nation's history. The children that followed benefited from the debt and the productivity it spawned.

When we cut spending for education, healthcare, welfare, we are making our children pay right now, today.

Lastly, rates are influenced by the Fed, not the market. Rates won't rise unless the Fed directes them to do so and if it does it will be because the economy is roaring.

Every single word you wrote is pure poppycock. Monopoly? Seriously? Interest payments are not paid from taxes? Seriously? Interest rates are not influenced by the market? Not the stock market, the entire market economy? What nonsense, I'm done here.

You don't like Monopoly? That's unamerican.

Show me a line item in the Federal budget for "repayment of taxes". I'll wait.

I don't think that's what I said about interest rates. I said the market does not set the rate, how the market is doing creates the conditions that the Fed responds to when it decides what it's target should be, but the market does not set the rate.

 

[task0778]

Producers do not supply demand, they create the supply based on perceived projected demand. If you can show me where I said otherwise I will admit my mistake when you do that. To say producers supply the demand for a product is sheer stupidity. Only the consumers do that depending on the price point.

I'm not sure what we are arguing about, I couldn't agree more. Supply is based on projected demand. I can infer from that, that demand is the driver of supply.

No argument here.

Seems you should be arguing with Ed.

-Cheers

"Supply is based on projected demand. I can infer from that, that demand is the driver of supply."

And your inference would be incorrect, which is precisely what we're arguing about. Projected demand is based on the price point at which the producer can make the product, deliver it, and make a reasonable profit. If the costs of production and delivery are such that the price point is too high relative to the alternatives that are already out there, then it matters not at all what the demand is, and that is why demand is not the driver of supply. Maybe I should amend my earlier statement:

Supply is based on projected demand at a certain price point; producers pretty much know how to determine the costs of supply, and they can figure out what the price point has to be to make a reasonable profit. Then and only then can they calculate what the expected demand will be at that price point. So - Demand is driven by supply, not the other way around.

 

[Econ4Every1]

Supply is based on projected demand at a certain price point;

So - Demand is driven by supply, not the other way around.

That's a contradiction.

The incentive to supply anything at any price point is based on the belief that demand will exist. Period, full stop.

As several people here have pointed out, suppliers don't know what the demand will be so they operate on the assumption, the belief that there will be a demand for whatever it is they are creating.

Now If it were me, I would research my product, I would ask questions. I might even make a few of the things that I want to produce is very small batches (suppliers call these prototypes) so they can test what it is people like and don't like.

Of course, that still does not guarantee success because there are often factors that suppliers fail to consider. But the fact remains that the only reason to ever, ever make anything with the intention of creating profit is that you believe that there will be a demand for it. It is that demand that drives suppliers to create goods and services.

Without the capacity to consume, no amount of supply would change that fact, but without supply, people can still have the desire to demand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now If it were me, I would research my product, I would ask questions. I might even make a few of the things that I want to produce is very small batches (suppliers call these prototypes) so they can test what it is people like and don't like.
.

actually all do obviously that and still 99% fail because demand is mostly not knowable even to those who will be doing the demanding. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

demand that drives suppliers to create goods and services.

.

100% wrong, nobody knew there would be much demand for copy machines internet PCs yet they were supplied anyway and then by chance huge demand developed. So, Republican supply creates and drives demand. Policy must be directed at the passion and financial needs of Republican suppliers, not the welfare needs of poor liberal people who want more welfare to churn existing economy by demanding more hamburgers.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Without the capacity to consume, no amount of supply would change that fact.

I really suggest Econ 101 for you. That is so totally wrong and so fundamentally backwards it's hard to imagine how you got so confused! What makes an economy skyrocket is affordable supply!!
the capacity to consume comes from affordable Republican inventions. When a Ford got cheap enough that people felt it was a better use of their capacity to consume than what they had been spending the money on the car economy skyrocketed. Creating the capacity to consume is the essence of Republican capitalist supply side economics. Now do you understand?

 

[Econ4Every1]

Now If it were me, I would research my product, I would ask questions. I might even make a few of the things that I want to produce is very small batches (suppliers call these prototypes) so they can test what it is people like and don't like.
.

actually all do obviously that and still 99% fail because demand is mostly not knowable even to those who will be doing the demanding. Do you understand?

Question:

Do you know that at some point I'll be hungry? Unless there's something seriously wrong with you, the answer is yes.

My hunger is a demand that exists whether there are people making food to sell or not.

Do you know specifically what I want to eat? Unless you're my wife, you don't.

People create specific foods in order to meet my demand for food, but since I like some foods better than others people can't just offer any old food, but the food I like.

This illustrates the difference between non-specific demand that exists because of our base desires and specific demand that exists because of our preferences.

If you own a restaurant, the fact that you make food doesn't inspire me to eat, I wanted to eat before I stopped pooping my pants, but you're making food I like meets a specific demand for food that I have.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now If it were me, I would research my product, I would ask questions. I might even make a few of the things that I want to produce is very small batches (suppliers call these prototypes) so they can test what it is people like and don't like.
.

actually all do obviously that and still 99% fail because demand is mostly not knowable even to those who will be doing the demanding. Do you understand?

Question:

Do you know that at some point I'll be hungry? Unless there's something seriously wrong with you, the answer is yes.

My hunger is a demand that exists whether there are people making food to sell or not.

Do you know specifically what I want to eat? Unless you're my wife, you don't.

People create specific foods in order to meet my demand for food, but since I like some foods better than others people can't just offer any old food, but the food I like.

This illustrates the difference between non-specific demand that exists because of our base desires and specific demand that exists because of our preferences.

If you own a restaurant, the fact that you make food doesn't inspire me to eat, I wanted to eat before I stopped pooping my pants, but you're making food I like meets a specific demand for food that I have.

Do you understand the difference?

Got it. you will demand food in future. You always act like you are a kindergartner and you are the only one in the world who knows 1+1 = 2. What are economic policy implications from your kindergartners conclusion .