So you want better paying jobs?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No.. .sorry to rock your world but the one time they had to stand up and deny funding for it, they caved.

ah but they voted 100% against it in the first place which cant be mere coincidence. Now do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Establishment GOP caved and essentially accepted Obamacare as something we all just have to get used to now....

stupid and absurd, if it made sense politically to oppose funding they of course would have to get reelected. Still over your head??

 

[Boss]

Demand is NOT natural... DESIRE is natural.

dear, people who are starving demand and desire food. Sorry to rock your world.

Sorry... in an economic system, you cannot have "demand" until you have supply. You are talking about DESIRE. You confuse the two then apply some philosophical bullshit to solid free market capitalist principles in an attempt to justify your stupidity and support for crony capitalism.

sorry to break your heart but here is wiki quote from page one on supply and demand:


If desire for goods increases while its availability decreases, its price rises. On the other hand, if availability of the good increases and the desire for it decreases, the price comes down. ”
— Ibn Taymiyyah, Supply and demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well now you are confusing yourself more by going to Wikipedia and using "desire" in the context of discussing an already existing market with supply and demand. I have no problem with their rather simple explanation of supply and demand. Desire does drive demand, if people didn't desire something it wouldn't be in demand. That's not what you were arguing. You said that demand creates supply. It doesn't because they both need to exist. One doesn't create the other. Demand and desire are not the same thing in THIS context.

You keep missing the point entirely. The words "demand" and "supply" have specific meanings in the context of a discussion on economic principles and free market capitalism. You can't be attaching out-of-context words to them and create your own economic argument. That's not in any Economics textbook I've ever read. Just because people WANT something, doesn't mean there is a DEMAND.

Here's an example: I want my Jetsons Flying Car, dammit! We were supposed to have those by now! Well? The technology is there... if they build drones, they can build flying cars. And I am quite sure a LOT of people would LOVE to have a flying car... how cool would that be? So here you have an example of something that is desired and there would certainly be a demand for... where is the supply? Where is the Henry Ford of flying cars?

PROBLEM #1: The average person wouldn't be able to purchase the technology.
PROBLEM #2: You can't just let the general public fly freely in the skies.
PROBLEM.... #3657.... You get my point?

.
.
.
.
.

In economics parlance, the supply and demand are already assumed to exist. It really doesn't have anything to do with innovations or technologies brought to commercial success... that is a different argument. If you are going to be a cheerleader for supply and demand, you should at least understand the concepts of what you're cheering.

In a free market system, supply and demand work in relation to each other to determine a price equilibrium and a fair market value and trade. Capitalist profit is the result but that always involves two parties in mutually agreed transaction of commerce. The capitalist has something he values less than the $$$ of the consumer. The consumer values what the capitalist has as much as the $$$. Therefore, a mutual transaction is made.

Competition in this system is what keeps capitalists from being greedy. A greedy capitalist soon discovers a less-greedy capitalist has taken all their business. Profit is simply a tangible calculation percentage on a ledger sheet until it's realized. So capitalists aren't out there just jacking up profit margins because they want to buy a new yacht on the backs of consumer slaves. They want to make as much profit as possible but they have to remain competitive.

One thing that KILLS competition is government collusion with Big Business. It does more to prevent and destroy individual free market capitalism in America than anything a Socialist could ever dream up. Kills it dead and wipes it out forever. Ruthlessly... as Big Business marches on, you see?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. You said that demand creates supply.?

dear, does it occur to you you have a literacy problem when you argue against Econ 101 textbooks and page one of wiki on supply and demand. You are in kindergarten but you huge ego is preventing you from knowing it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You said that demand creates supply.

no dear, I am a Republican supply-sider. We believe Say's
law-namely, supply creates demand. Again you have a literacy problem. I'm twice your age and twice your education so don't let this opportunity slip by.

 

[Boss]

The Establishment GOP caved and essentially accepted Obamacare as something we all just have to get used to now....

stupid and absurd, if it made sense politically to oppose funding they of course would have to get reelected. Still over your head??

Yeah, the Establishment GOP lost me on Obamacare. You don't do things because they are politically expedient or because you need to get re-elected. Cruz ran on the promise he would fight Obamacare with every breath and wouldn't rest until it's repealed. He stuck with that and attempted to use the ONLY means the House had of preventing it's implementation.

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner decided they didn't want to dig their heels in. It was going to mean... *GASP* ...a government shut down! If they had stood firm with Cruz and Lee, they would have forced the Democrats to delay the implementation. Instead, they passed it and then turned like rabid dogs on Cruz.


so yeah.... absolutely DONE with the establishment GOP. Hope they rot in hell!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Demand is NOT natural... DESIRE is natural.

dear, people who are starving demand and desire food. Sorry to rock your world.

Sorry... in an economic system, you cannot have "demand" until you have supply. You are talking about DESIRE. You confuse the two then apply some philosophical bullshit to solid free market capitalist principles in an attempt to justify your stupidity and support for crony capitalism.

sorry to break your heart but here is wiki quote from page one on supply and demand:


If desire for goods increases while its availability decreases, its price rises. On the other hand, if availability of the good increases and the desire for it decreases, the price comes down. ”
— Ibn Taymiyyah, Supply and demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well now you are confusing yourself more by going to Wikipedia and using "desire" in the context of discussing an already existing market with supply and demand. I have no problem with their rather simple explanation of supply and demand. Desire does drive demand, if people didn't desire something it wouldn't be in demand. That's not what you were arguing. You said that demand creates supply. It doesn't because they both need to exist. One doesn't create the other. Demand and desire are not the same thing in THIS context.

You keep missing the point entirely. The words "demand" and "supply" have specific meanings in the context of a discussion on economic principles and free market capitalism. You can't be attaching out-of-context words to them and create your own economic argument. That's not in any Economics textbook I've ever read. Just because people WANT something, doesn't mean there is a DEMAND.

Here's an example: I want my Jetsons Flying Car, dammit! We were supposed to have those by now! Well? The technology is there... if they build drones, they can build flying cars. And I am quite sure a LOT of people would LOVE to have a flying car... how cool would that be? So here you have an example of something that is desired and there would certainly be a demand for... where is the supply? Where is the Henry Ford of flying cars?

PROBLEM #1: The average person wouldn't be able to purchase the technology.
PROBLEM #2: You can't just let the general public fly freely in the skies.
PROBLEM.... #3657.... You get my point?

.
.
.
.
.

In economics parlance, the supply and demand are already assumed to exist. It really doesn't have anything to do with innovations or technologies brought to commercial success... that is a different argument. If you are going to be a cheerleader for supply and demand, you should at least understand the concepts of what you're cheering.

In a free market system, supply and demand work in relation to each other to determine a price equilibrium and a fair market value and trade. Capitalist profit is the result but that always involves two parties in mutually agreed transaction of commerce. The capitalist has something he values less than the $$$ of the consumer. The consumer values what the capitalist has as much as the $$$. Therefore, a mutual transaction is made.

Competition in this system is what keeps capitalists from being greedy. A greedy capitalist soon discovers a less-greedy capitalist has taken all their business. Profit is simply a tangible calculation percentage on a ledger sheet until it's realized. So capitalists aren't out there just jacking up profit margins because they want to buy a new yacht on the backs of consumer slaves. They want to make as much profit as possible but they have to remain competitive.

One thing that KILLS competition is government collusion with Big Business. It does more to prevent and destroy individual free market capitalism in America than anything a Socialist could ever dream up. Kills it dead and wipes it out forever. Ruthlessly... as Big Business marches on, you see?

lots of words to cover up your ignorance dear. Why not tell us what your subject is. Do you have any idea??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. You don't do things because they are politically expedient or because you need to get re-elected.!

dear I'm a Republican and thus like to see Republicans get re elected! Hard to believe thats over your head?

 

[Boss]

You said that demand creates supply.

no dear, I am a Republican supply-sider. We believe Say's
law-namely, supply creates demand. Again you have a literacy problem. I'm twice your age and twice your education so don't let this opportunity slip by.

And again... in economics context, Say's Law applies to a market that already exists. Nothing is created if it's already there. Say's Law is about INCREASING demand through INCREASING supply. I agree with this, it's Econ 101. It's not Supply creating Demand.

I'll bet as much money as your fool ass has that you're not twice my age. Unless you're 112.
I'll also bet that you don't have a double major.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He stuck with that and attempted to use the ONLY means the House had of preventing it's implementation.

sure, because he comes from a state where that position would get him reelected. A child would know that!! Sorry

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's not Supply creating Demand.

again you have a literacy problem:

Say's Law and Supply Side Economics
www.friesian.com/sayslaw.htm
‎
Ford's understanding, which was the opposite of Say's Law, may be called "demand side" economics, just as Say's Law itself may be called "supply side" economics.

 

[Boss]

. You don't do things because they are politically expedient or because you need to get re-elected.!

dear I'm a Republican and thus like to see Republicans get re elected! Hard to believe thats over your head?

Well I don't give a damn about Republicans. I am a conservative free market capitalist who believes in free market capitalism and free enterprise. I'm not interested in feathering the nests of political high-rollers to keep the corporate machine going. I had rather us return to our core principles of free market fairness and eliminate the government collusion and legalized corruption. I want to see small businesses flourish and people become wealthy in the process.

Can't get there with morons like you misrepresenting free market capitalism the way you do.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm not interested in feathering the nests of political high-rollers to keep the corporate machine going.

Me too that's why I support Republicans who voted 100% against Obamacare!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

misrepresenting free market capitalism the way you do.

dear, it shows a lack of character to continue and to pass up the opportunity to learn.

 

[Boss]

It's not Supply creating Demand.

again you have a literacy problem:

Say's Law and Supply Side Economics
www.friesian.com/sayslaw.htm
‎
Ford's understanding, which was the opposite of Say's Law, may be called "demand side" economics, just as Say's Law itself may be called "supply side" economics.

YES AGAIN>>>
DEALS WITH
ALREADY EXISTING
SUPPLY AND DEMAND!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's not Supply creating Demand.

again you have a literacy problem:

Say's Law and Supply Side Economics
www.friesian.com/sayslaw.htm
‎
Ford's understanding, which was the opposite of Say's Law, may be called "demand side" economics, just as Say's Law itself may be called "supply side" economics.

YES AGAIN>>>
DEALS WITH
ALREADY EXISTING
SUPPLY AND DEMAND!

and????????????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's not Supply creating Demand.

again you have a literacy problem:

Say's Law and Supply Side Economics
www.friesian.com/sayslaw.htm
‎
Ford's understanding, which was the opposite of Say's Law, may be called "demand side" economics, just as Say's Law itself may be called "supply side" economics.

YES AGAIN>>>
DEALS WITH
ALREADY EXISTING
SUPPLY AND DEMAND!

and????????????????

in any case jobs pay far more now than in the stone age because Republicans supplied so many new inventions that made work far more productive and therefore far more higher paying.

 

[Boss]

It's not Supply creating Demand.

again you have a literacy problem:

Say's Law and Supply Side Economics
www.friesian.com/sayslaw.htm
‎
Ford's understanding, which was the opposite of Say's Law, may be called "demand side" economics, just as Say's Law itself may be called "supply side" economics.

YES AGAIN>>>
DEALS WITH
ALREADY EXISTING
SUPPLY AND DEMAND!

and????????????????

And... You can not create something that already exists!

Say's Law does not say supply creates demand. Supply can't create demand. It may generate MORE demand... is that what you mean? Generating MORE of something is not creating something. Why do you want to be so obtuse? Are you retarded? Seriously... I ask because you're acting like it.

 

[Boss]

in any case jobs pay far more now than in the stone age because Republicans supplied so many new inventions that made work far more productive and therefore far more higher paying.

Well the Republican party didn't start until 1861. The term "supply side economics" was coined in the mid 1970s. Say's Law originated in 1803. So you are saying that no one made any money, invented anything or had any products to buy or sell before then?

I've already addressed the argument that increasing productivity increases wages. In some cases it can and other cases it doesn't. There are too many variables which are unknown in a hypothetical. The thing that we KNOW from principles of free market capitalism, is that the laws of supply and demand always work. Increase demand for labor... reduce supply of labor... wages rise.

 

[initforme]

Anything that pays $10 is not really a true job. Its something you show up for and not much more. Make tper hour jobs hurt people.hat$12 instead. $10​