Rshermr
VIP Member
And MORE proof that cons have no concept of the meaning of economic demand. Jesus, that was a stupid post. Jesus. I mean really, really stupid. Another conservative post that proves that this clown is incapable of actual ability to have a discussion. Totally iincapable. Jesus.I never said that.
However, by keeping our minimum wage at pathetically depressed levels, it doesn’t improve employment prospects in the least. As a matter of fact, it makes it matters worse, since it takes demand out of the economy and lowers the prospects of someone on unemployment benefits or other types of assistance from reentering the workforce.
Because you don't grasp Keynes, you are prone to absurdity. I understand, you read Krugman and think that you have a grasp of Keynes - but Krugman is a fraud who employs gobbledy-gook as his primary.
I demand an airship to replace the truck I drive. I want it to use no fuel and be fast and safe. So where is my airship? I demanded it? Millions have a demand for this kind of transportation, so where is it?
Aggregate demand does not, and cannot drive production. It may influence production goals, but will not and cannot drive production. Keynes understood this, you don't. You remain convinced of some fairy tale divide between "supply side" and "demand side." One problem, "demand side" simply doesn't exist.
Your above claim is particularly stupid and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of markets. I'm going to clue you in on something, ready? Repeat after me; "Labor is a commodity." Labor is a component of cost. As the skill of the laborer declines, the availability increases, as availability increases, value decreases. Yet you assert that by inflating cost without adding value, you will somehow increase the prospect of laborers.
Wages are source of demand and an input cost. For example, if we reduce wages and demand falls, it has more of a negative impact than any cost savings derived from paying workers less wages. If we look at today’s pathetic minimum wage, it’s not even in the universe of what could be deemed a living wage. Just sayin’…
So, if wages fall, then people will no longer demand food, shelter, energy, iPhones...
Are you sure you've thought this through?
For instance, you are trying to argue keynsian theory without the slightest idea of what stimulating economic demand means. You just made a statement that shows how ignorant you actually are. And made an attack on a person who actually has a very solid economic background.
All of which just makes my ongoing point. As soon as you see someone lead with personal attacks, you know that person has no ability to discuss economic concepts. You said:
So, your concept is that if there is an increase in incomes of individuals, who would like to buy what they could not previously afford, that producers will refuse their money. Jesus, you are stupid. And you may want to try the google, dipshit. Put in demand side economics and see what pops up. Jesus you are stupid.Aggregate demand does not, and cannot drive production. It may influence production goals, but will not and cannot drive production. Keynes understood this, you don't. You remain convinced of some fairy tale divide between "supply side" and "demand side." One problem, "demand side" simply doesn't exist.
"Demand Side Economics - A school of economic thought founded by the UK economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) and developed by his followers. Its main assertion is that the aggregate demand created by households, businesses and the government and not the dynamics of free markets is the most important driving force in an economy."
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/demand-side-economics.html#ixzz2Z8kMWzK6
I am sure you will be admitting your mistake. We are all holding our breath. Jesus, and you had the balls to suggest that someone else did not understand keynsian economics. Did you work at getting that stupid, or were you born that way????
Last edited: