What "Supply and Demand" have to do with "Capitalism":

[Flopper]

The ultimate goal of unregulated capitalism is to control the supply so they can demand whatever they want for the product.

The ultimate goal of government controlled capitalism is to artificially inflate the price so that they can demand whatever they want for the supply.

Which makes more sense?

Totally unregulated capitalism eventually leads to monopolies, destruction of the middle class, and a host of social problems. All major economies are regulated today. The goal is to provide sufficient regulation to protect the people without overly burdening business.

 

[expat_panama]

Totally unregulated capitalism...

--is a straw man.

It has not and can not exist in real life because it's like saying 'totally unregulated families' or 'totally unregulated religions'. These have never existed on a national level anywhere so we don't need to waste our time with them. On the other hand, we have in real life seen super power governments totally regulating their economies, religions, and families, and it makes sense to guard against it happening in America.

 

[editec]

Supply/demand balance as it plays out on the MICO-economic scene is fairly easy to grasp.

Supply/demand imbalance on the MACO-economic scale is apparently something some of you will never understand.

If you want to see that imblance in real numbers take a look at INCOME EQUITY numbers.

Right now SUPPLY has more money than it needs and DEMAND is down.


Both parties are demanding solutions to that imbalance that will only exascerbate this imbalance.

Giving more tax breaks to the rich IS giving more money to the SUPPLY SIDE/

Firing workers in government or reducing social services is reducing money on the DEMAND SIDE.

Now that isn't really all that complex.

So to ignore this, or to say that this is not a problem demands a kind of willful ignornance that plenty of folks here are signing onto.

 

[sassmcghee]

Features of capitalism
In a capitalist system private households need goods. They buy these goods from the income that they have. Some households have more income than others. Sometimes only one member of a household has a job, at other times both husband and wife go to work. Then they have more money to buy goods. This is the demand side of the economy.

On the other side companies and businesses offer private households goods and services. They produce the goods that they think consumers will want to buy. To do this they need workers to produce these goods and services. This is the supply side of the economy.

Companies and households get together at markets. Here they exchange goods, services and jobs (labour). A market is a place where people buy and sell things. In a capitalist society the prices of goods, services and labour are determined by supply and demand. If a lot of people want to buy a certain product its price will go up. Products that are mass produced usually have low prices.

Capitalism | How governments regulate the economy | Supply and Demand | History of Capitalism

English-Online
Articles in Easy, Understandable English for Learners

I found this especially for "anti science" and "anti education" USMB Republicans who don't believe that anyone who says "Supply and Demand" understands "Capitalism".

I really believe they are worth "salvaging". They just need a little education and then their positions can possibly become "coherent".

This is why their saying, "Corporations make jobs" is retarded. Without "demand", corporations won't make jobs. They are not charities. When people don't have money, there is no demand, which means "no jobs". There has to be a "demand".

This is why we need to rebuild America. Rebuilding America's infrastructure will also rebuild America's economy. Why? Because people will have jobs. That means they will have disposable income. That means "demand". THEN comes "supply". A rebuilt infrastructure will generate even more jobs. Corporations are attracted to easy and inexpensive transportation, electricity, roads and bridges. Yes Virginia, it's just that simple and that's how it really works in real life.

When you say

This is why we need to rebuild America. Rebuilding America's infrastructure will also rebuild America's economy.

can you explain specifically what you are proposing? What is your plan?

You are new here, I can tell. Welcome to the board, and your introduction to rdean, USMB's village idiot.

Sorta new, I have been lurking for quite some time. I have already spotted several.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The ultimate goal of unregulated capitalism is to control the supply so they can demand whatever they want for the product.

The ultimate goal of government controlled capitalism is to artificially inflate the price so that they can demand whatever they want for the supply.

Which makes more sense?

Totally unregulated capitalism eventually leads to monopolies, destruction of the middle class, and a host of social problems. All major economies are regulated today. The goal is to provide sufficient regulation to protect the people without overly burdening business.

I think you need examine your premise, the only monopolies that have ever existed in history were all supported by the government. If you have some sort of example to prove me wrong feel free to post it.

By the way, the more heavily regulated an economy is, the more money businesses spend on government lobbying efforts. If you really want to get money out of politics you should be advocating for fewer regulations, not more.

Did you ever try the "everyone else is doing it" argument with your parents? Did it work?

 

[mudwhistle]

The ultimate goal of unregulated capitalism is to control the supply so they can demand whatever they want for the product.

Oh....that's why Obama cut off Deep-Sea Oil Drilling.

So he can score big in Brazil and force us to wean ourselves off of fossil-fuels.

Umm the gulf oil spill might have something to do with that.
According to the investigation capitalistic enterprises were to blame for that spill.

Plus by cuttin off the deep sea oil supply Obama keeps the price of oil up.
As I keep saying a 3rd Bush term.

The Gulf Oil Spill was just an excuse.

Explain to me why he's investing in Deep-sea Drilling off the coast of Brazil but not here?

Btw, the spill was an excuse to cut off our domestic oil supply.

Fast & Furious was going to be a way to push through new gun laws. It just didn't work as well as the oil spill did for him.

 

[rdean]

Totally unregulated capitalism...

--is a straw man.

It has not and can not exist in real life because it's like saying 'totally unregulated families' or 'totally unregulated religions'. These have never existed on a national level anywhere so we don't need to waste our time with them. On the other hand, we have in real life seen super power governments totally regulating their economies, religions, and families, and it makes sense to guard against it happening in America.

Does that explain "Wall Street", "Derivatives" and "the Great Recession"? Oops.

 

[rdean]

Oh....that's why Obama cut off Deep-Sea Oil Drilling.

So he can score big in Brazil and force us to wean ourselves off of fossil-fuels.

Umm the gulf oil spill might have something to do with that.
According to the investigation capitalistic enterprises were to blame for that spill.

Plus by cuttin off the deep sea oil supply Obama keeps the price of oil up.
As I keep saying a 3rd Bush term.

The Gulf Oil Spill was just an excuse.

Explain to me why he's investing in Deep-sea Drilling off the coast of Brazil but not here?

Btw, the spill was an excuse to cut off our domestic oil supply.

Fast & Furious was going to be a way to push through new gun laws. It just didn't work as well as the oil spill did for him.

So tell wise one, do oil companies simply go around drilling everywhere until they "catch" oil because there is oil "everywhere" if only they were allowed to drill for it?

 

[rdean]

Supply/demand balance as it plays out on the MICO-economic scene is fairly easy to grasp.

Supply/demand imbalance on the MACO-economic scale is apparently something some of you will never understand.

If you want to see that imblance in real numbers take a look at INCOME EQUITY numbers.

Right now SUPPLY has more money than it needs and DEMAND is down.


Both parties are demanding solutions to that imbalance that will only exascerbate this imbalance.

Giving more tax breaks to the rich IS giving more money to the SUPPLY SIDE/

Firing workers in government or reducing social services is reducing money on the DEMAND SIDE.

Now that isn't really all that complex.

So to ignore this, or to say that this is not a problem demands a kind of willful ignornance that plenty of folks here are signing onto.

And without "DEMAND", the rich will NOT make jobs. The right wing doesn't believe this. Those with money are referred to as the "Job Creators" and spoken with great "reverence". The emphasis on "Creators". Bow and scrape. Give them even more money and they will "relent" and "create jobs" because they are the "JOB CREATORS".

 

[rdean]

Features of capitalism
In a capitalist system private households need goods. They buy these goods from the income that they have. Some households have more income than others. Sometimes only one member of a household has a job, at other times both husband and wife go to work. Then they have more money to buy goods. This is the demand side of the economy.

On the other side companies and businesses offer private households goods and services. They produce the goods that they think consumers will want to buy. To do this they need workers to produce these goods and services. This is the supply side of the economy.

Companies and households get together at markets. Here they exchange goods, services and jobs (labour). A market is a place where people buy and sell things. In a capitalist society the prices of goods, services and labour are determined by supply and demand. If a lot of people want to buy a certain product its price will go up. Products that are mass produced usually have low prices.

Capitalism | How governments regulate the economy | Supply and Demand | History of Capitalism

English-Online
Articles in Easy, Understandable English for Learners

I found this especially for "anti science" and "anti education" USMB Republicans who don't believe that anyone who says "Supply and Demand" understands "Capitalism".

I really believe they are worth "salvaging". They just need a little education and then their positions can possibly become "coherent".

This is why their saying, "Corporations make jobs" is retarded. Without "demand", corporations won't make jobs. They are not charities. When people don't have money, there is no demand, which means "no jobs". There has to be a "demand".

This is why we need to rebuild America. Rebuilding America's infrastructure will also rebuild America's economy. Why? Because people will have jobs. That means they will have disposable income. That means "demand". THEN comes "supply". A rebuilt infrastructure will generate even more jobs. Corporations are attracted to easy and inexpensive transportation, electricity, roads and bridges. Yes Virginia, it's just that simple and that's how it really works in real life.

When you say

This is why we need to rebuild America. Rebuilding America's infrastructure will also rebuild America's economy.

can you explain specifically what you are proposing? What is your plan?

You are new here, I can tell. Welcome to the board, and your introduction to rdean, USMB's village idiot.

And you, are simply a drunken ass hat. Always have been. Always will be. It's what defines you.

 

[rdean]

Features of capitalism
In a capitalist system private households need goods. They buy these goods from the income that they have. Some households have more income than others. Sometimes only one member of a household has a job, at other times both husband and wife go to work. Then they have more money to buy goods. This is the demand side of the economy.

On the other side companies and businesses offer private households goods and services. They produce the goods that they think consumers will want to buy. To do this they need workers to produce these goods and services. This is the supply side of the economy.

Companies and households get together at markets. Here they exchange goods, services and jobs (labour). A market is a place where people buy and sell things. In a capitalist society the prices of goods, services and labour are determined by supply and demand. If a lot of people want to buy a certain product its price will go up. Products that are mass produced usually have low prices.

Capitalism | How governments regulate the economy | Supply and Demand | History of Capitalism

English-Online
Articles in Easy, Understandable English for Learners

I found this especially for "anti science" and "anti education" USMB Republicans who don't believe that anyone who says "Supply and Demand" understands "Capitalism".

I really believe they are worth "salvaging". They just need a little education and then their positions can possibly become "coherent".

This is why their saying, "Corporations make jobs" is retarded. Without "demand", corporations won't make jobs. They are not charities. When people don't have money, there is no demand, which means "no jobs". There has to be a "demand".

This is why we need to rebuild America. Rebuilding America's infrastructure will also rebuild America's economy. Why? Because people will have jobs. That means they will have disposable income. That means "demand". THEN comes "supply". A rebuilt infrastructure will generate even more jobs. Corporations are attracted to easy and inexpensive transportation, electricity, roads and bridges. Yes Virginia, it's just that simple and that's how it really works in real life.

When you say

This is why we need to rebuild America. Rebuilding America's infrastructure will also rebuild America's economy.

can you explain specifically what you are proposing? What is your plan?

Because the right wing has no plan. That's why they work on "anti abortion, and anti gay rights, make English the national language, get rid of fluoride and so on".

Did you miss that part listed above? It's pretty damn specific, wouldn't you say?

 

[Flopper]

The ultimate goal of government controlled capitalism is to artificially inflate the price so that they can demand whatever they want for the supply.

Which makes more sense?

Totally unregulated capitalism eventually leads to monopolies, destruction of the middle class, and a host of social problems. All major economies are regulated today. The goal is to provide sufficient regulation to protect the people without overly burdening business.

I think you need examine your premise, the only monopolies that have ever existed in history were all supported by the government. If you have some sort of example to prove me wrong feel free to post it.

By the way, the more heavily regulated an economy is, the more money businesses spend on government lobbying efforts. If you really want to get money out of politics you should be advocating for fewer regulations, not more.

Did you ever try the "everyone else is doing it" argument with your parents? Did it work?

Yes, there are examples of non-government supported monopolies.
Western Union grew throughout the 19th century and the 20th century, acquiring more than 500 smaller competitors. Its monopoly power was almost complete in 1943 when it bought Postal Telegraph, Inc., its chief rival.
Standard Oil was one the most famous of the US monopolies. By 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales of oil in the US. In 1911 the Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
US Steel at one time produced nearly ¾ all steel in the US.
De Beers for many years manipulated and control the diamond market.
AT&T Long Lines enjoyed a near-total monopoly on long distance telephone service in the United States for most of the 20th century.

Monopolies are still illegal but I think people will agree that when it comes to entry-level competition, the playing field is far from level. Even though the huge chain companies out there don't technically own the entire market, they dominate so much of it they pretty much eliminate any hope of ever successfully competing with them.


I don't advocate more regulations. I advocate smarter regulations. Most state, local, and federal regulation, serve the local communities and the nation well without creating undue hardships for businesses. However, there are some regulations that are just plain dumb and should be eliminated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Features of capitalism
In a capitalist system private households need goods. They buy these goods from the income that they have. Some households have more income than others. Sometimes only one member of a household has a job, at other times both husband and wife go to work. Then they have more money to buy goods. This is the demand side of the economy.

On the other side companies and businesses offer private households goods and services. They produce the goods that they think consumers will want to buy. To do this they need workers to produce these goods and services. This is the supply side of the economy.

Companies and households get together at markets. Here they exchange goods, services and jobs (labour). A market is a place where people buy and sell things. In a capitalist society the prices of goods, services and labour are determined by supply and demand. If a lot of people want to buy a certain product its price will go up. Products that are mass produced usually have low prices.

Capitalism | How governments regulate the economy | Supply and Demand | History of Capitalism

English-Online
Articles in Easy, Understandable English for Learners

I found this especially for "anti science" and "anti education" USMB Republicans who don't believe that anyone who says "Supply and Demand" understands "Capitalism".

I really believe they are worth "salvaging". They just need a little education and then their positions can possibly become "coherent".

This is why their saying, "Corporations make jobs" is retarded. Without "demand", corporations won't make jobs. They are not charities. When people don't have money, there is no demand, which means "no jobs". There has to be a "demand".

This is why we need to rebuild America. Rebuilding America's infrastructure will also rebuild America's economy. Why? Because people will have jobs. That means they will have disposable income. That means "demand". THEN comes "supply". A rebuilt infrastructure will generate even more jobs. Corporations are attracted to easy and inexpensive transportation, electricity, roads and bridges. Yes Virginia, it's just that simple and that's how it really works in real life.

When you say

This is why we need to rebuild America. Rebuilding America's infrastructure will also rebuild America's economy.

can you explain specifically what you are proposing? What is your plan?

Because the right wing has no plan. That's why they work on "anti abortion, and anti gay rights, make English the national language, get rid of fluoride and so on".

Did you miss that part listed above? It's pretty damn specific, wouldn't you say?

Plan? I thought you said we do "Schemes"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Totally unregulated capitalism eventually leads to monopolies, destruction of the middle class, and a host of social problems. All major economies are regulated today. The goal is to provide sufficient regulation to protect the people without overly burdening business.

I think you need examine your premise, the only monopolies that have ever existed in history were all supported by the government. If you have some sort of example to prove me wrong feel free to post it.

By the way, the more heavily regulated an economy is, the more money businesses spend on government lobbying efforts. If you really want to get money out of politics you should be advocating for fewer regulations, not more.

Did you ever try the "everyone else is doing it" argument with your parents? Did it work?

Yes, there are examples of non-government supported monopolies.
Western Union grew throughout the 19th century and the 20th century, acquiring more than 500 smaller competitors. Its monopoly power was almost complete in 1943 when it bought Postal Telegraph, Inc., its chief rival.
Standard Oil was one the most famous of the US monopolies. By 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales of oil in the US. In 1911 the Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
US Steel at one time produced nearly ¾ all steel in the US.
De Beers for many years manipulated and control the diamond market.
AT&T Long Lines enjoyed a near-total monopoly on long distance telephone service in the United States for most of the 20th century.

Monopolies are still illegal but I think people will agree that when it comes to entry-level competition, the playing field is far from level. Even though the huge chain companies out there don't technically own the entire market, they dominate so much of it they pretty much eliminate any hope of ever successfully competing with them.


I don't advocate more regulations. I advocate smarter regulations. Most state, local, and federal regulation, serve the local communities and the nation well without creating undue hardships for businesses. However, there are some regulations that are just plain dumb and should be eliminated.

Western Union had government land grants that where not available to its competitors.

If US Stell only produced 75% if the steel in the US it was never a monopoly, even though it was backed by government tariffs and protectionism.

DeBeers is a government monopoly holdover from the days of the British Empire.

AT&T is another example of a government supported monopoly.

Not a single example of monopoly resulting from an unregulated free market, why is that? The reason the playing field is uneven is because government regulations impose high costs and unreasonable prerequisites on startups, not because monopolies are somehow stifling competition through an unregulated market.

Want to try providing more example of governments creating monopolies?

 

[Flopper]

I think you need examine your premise, the only monopolies that have ever existed in history were all supported by the government. If you have some sort of example to prove me wrong feel free to post it.

By the way, the more heavily regulated an economy is, the more money businesses spend on government lobbying efforts. If you really want to get money out of politics you should be advocating for fewer regulations, not more.

Did you ever try the "everyone else is doing it" argument with your parents? Did it work?

Yes, there are examples of non-government supported monopolies.
Western Union grew throughout the 19th century and the 20th century, acquiring more than 500 smaller competitors. Its monopoly power was almost complete in 1943 when it bought Postal Telegraph, Inc., its chief rival.
Standard Oil was one the most famous of the US monopolies. By 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales of oil in the US. In 1911 the Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
US Steel at one time produced nearly ¾ all steel in the US.
De Beers for many years manipulated and control the diamond market.
AT&T Long Lines enjoyed a near-total monopoly on long distance telephone service in the United States for most of the 20th century.

Monopolies are still illegal but I think people will agree that when it comes to entry-level competition, the playing field is far from level. Even though the huge chain companies out there don't technically own the entire market, they dominate so much of it they pretty much eliminate any hope of ever successfully competing with them.


I don't advocate more regulations. I advocate smarter regulations. Most state, local, and federal regulation, serve the local communities and the nation well without creating undue hardships for businesses. However, there are some regulations that are just plain dumb and should be eliminated.

Western Union had government land grants that where not available to its competitors.

If US Stell only produced 75% if the steel in the US it was never a monopoly, even though it was backed by government tariffs and protectionism.

DeBeers is a government monopoly holdover from the days of the British Empire.

AT&T is another example of a government supported monopoly.

Not a single example of monopoly resulting from an unregulated free market, why is that? The reason the playing field is uneven is because government regulations impose high costs and unreasonable prerequisites on startups, not because monopolies are somehow stifling competition through an unregulated market.

Want to try providing more example of governments creating monopolies?

I think most people would agree that if a company such as Standard oil controls 91% of the production and 85% of the sales it is a monopoly. You do not have to have 100% control of production or sales in order to monopolize the market.

De Beers Investments is the privately held, ownership company of De Beers Société Anonyme (DBSA), and is registered in Luxembourg. It is made up of three shareholdings: Anglo American plc has a 45% shareholding, Central Holdings (the Oppenheimer family) has a 40% shareholding, and the Government of the Republic of Botswana owns 15% directly.
De Beers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wiseacre]

The flip side of the demand/supply relationship is prices. When prices rise, demand begins to tail off. Less Demand is not the cause, it is the result. Look at Netflix, when they raised their prices they lost oodles of customers. Had they kept prices as they were, it wouldn't have happened, or at least not as precipitously.

Which is one reason why the supply side of the economy cannot be dismissed. It's true that people will pay through the nose for some things, whatever is the hot thing of the moment or whatever must be purchased for necessity. But businesses mostly want to avoid price hikes so they can keep their market share. To do that they try to keep costs down as much as possible. If the prices are going up based on increased labor and other costs, then you are not going to get an increase in demand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, there are examples of non-government supported monopolies.
Western Union grew throughout the 19th century and the 20th century, acquiring more than 500 smaller competitors. Its monopoly power was almost complete in 1943 when it bought Postal Telegraph, Inc., its chief rival.
Standard Oil was one the most famous of the US monopolies. By 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales of oil in the US. In 1911 the Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
US Steel at one time produced nearly ¾ all steel in the US.
De Beers for many years manipulated and control the diamond market.
AT&T Long Lines enjoyed a near-total monopoly on long distance telephone service in the United States for most of the 20th century.

Monopolies are still illegal but I think people will agree that when it comes to entry-level competition, the playing field is far from level. Even though the huge chain companies out there don't technically own the entire market, they dominate so much of it they pretty much eliminate any hope of ever successfully competing with them.


I don't advocate more regulations. I advocate smarter regulations. Most state, local, and federal regulation, serve the local communities and the nation well without creating undue hardships for businesses. However, there are some regulations that are just plain dumb and should be eliminated.

Western Union had government land grants that where not available to its competitors.

If US Stell only produced 75% if the steel in the US it was never a monopoly, even though it was backed by government tariffs and protectionism.

DeBeers is a government monopoly holdover from the days of the British Empire.

AT&T is another example of a government supported monopoly.

Not a single example of monopoly resulting from an unregulated free market, why is that? The reason the playing field is uneven is because government regulations impose high costs and unreasonable prerequisites on startups, not because monopolies are somehow stifling competition through an unregulated market.

Want to try providing more example of governments creating monopolies?

I think most people would agree that if a company such as Standard oil controls 91% of the production and 85% of the sales it is a monopoly. You do not have to have 100% control of production or sales in order to monopolize the market.

De Beers Investments is the privately held, ownership company of De Beers Société Anonyme (DBSA), and is registered in Luxembourg. It is made up of three shareholdings: Anglo American plc has a 45% shareholding, Central Holdings (the Oppenheimer family) has a 40% shareholding, and the Government of the Republic of Botswana owns 15% directly.
De Beers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think most people would agree that taking a vitamin supplement is good for you. That does not make it true. By definition, if a company has any competition, it is not a monopoly.

By the way, monopolizing a market is a business strategy, and is perfectly legal almost everywhere. You monopolize a market by becoming the go to company in that market. Red Adair monopolized the market for putting out oil well fires for years, even though he always had competition.

I never said DeBeers was not privately held, I said it was a government backed monopoly. There are other sources of diamonds today, but Debeers is working very hard to restrict them through government lobbying in order to prop up the prices. Since most countries that produce actually depend on diamonds for a significant portion of their budget they are happy to go along with the fiction that diamonds are rare and should cost more. In reality diamonds are one of the most common gemstones in the world.

 

[Flopper]

By definition, if a company has any competition, it is not a monopoly.

According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. Thus, the existence of a second firm within the market, no matter how small or insignificant would preclude the existence of a monopoly. If this is what you mean, you are probably correct. However, the more accepted use of the term monopoly is control of all or nearly all of a market. This is how courts view a monopoly and this why the Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By definition, if a company has any competition, it is not a monopoly.

According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. Thus, the existence of a second firm within the market, no matter how small or insignificant would preclude the existence of a monopoly. If this is what you mean, you are probably correct. However, the more accepted use of the term monopoly is control of all or nearly all of a market. This is how courts view a monopoly and this why the Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil.

The courts follow the law, which is written in such a way that it is possible to define a company with a market share of less than 50% as a monopoly, which is why the FCC wanted to step in and prevent the AT&T/T-Mobile deal.

 

[Care4all]

we have one Insurer in maine who owns 87% of the health insurance policies within the state....

In articles that I had read on the topic, and heard on the evening news, they spoke of this company as a Monopoly and they said that some gvt entity considered owning something like 70% of the market place was considered a monopoly or rather has the same negative effects as a monopoly....

carry on guys, i just wanted to add my simplistic 2 cents.