The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:41 am

Mountaineer wrote:
Kshartle wrote: To add to that, there is no demand until production takes place. You can't demand what hasn't been produced. There was no demand for iPhones until the first ones were made.
It sure seems that iPhones, after the first or second model, have sure been in demand prior to their being produced.  What do you call that?  Anticipation?

How about all the "kickstart" projects where advertising tries to drum up demand and if enough demand is evident, the "producer" gets around to making it?

... Mountaineer

demand vs. desire

Producers ultimately only produce something for others if others are producing what they want. They don't do it for the benefit of the consumer. This is a critical point that is misunderstood with disastrous consequences. The use of money and the highly specialized economy make it appear that they are doing it for their customers but that is the wrong conclusion. Government policies exploit this incorrect conclusion.

The authoritarian class (Dear Follower) tells the leisure class and pseudo-intellectuals (his base), he can steal for them and it's morally good because it will benefit producers by giving them more customers. It's a 100% scam based on lies and false beliefs.

Regarding kickstarter or other production supposedly driven by demand, let's set one up for a time machine. We'll learn very quick that this "demand" is just a "desire". Desire won't help create the production and there will be no actual demand for time machines (since we'll never make one).
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:01 am

Kshartle wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
Kshartle wrote: To add to that, there is no demand until production takes place. You can't demand what hasn't been produced. There was no demand for iPhones until the first ones were made.
It sure seems that iPhones, after the first or second model, have sure been in demand prior to their being produced.  What do you call that?  Anticipation?

How about all the "kickstart" projects where advertising tries to drum up demand and if enough demand is evident, the "producer" gets around to making it?

... Mountaineer

demand vs. desire

Producers ultimately only produce something for others if others are producing what they want. They don't do it for the benefit of the consumer. This is a critical point that is misunderstood with disastrous consequences. The use of money and the highly specialized economy make it appear that they are doing it for their customers but that is the wrong conclusion. Government policies exploit this incorrect conclusion.

The authoritarian class (Dear Follower) tells the leisure class and pseudo-intellectuals (his base), he can steal for them and it's morally good because it will benefit producers by giving them more customers. It's a 100% scam based on lies and false beliefs.

Regarding kickstarter or other production supposedly driven by demand, let's set one up for a time machine. We'll learn very quick that this "demand" is just a "desire". Desire won't help create the production and there will be no actual demand for time machines (since we'll never make one).
demand - desire ----> semantics my friend, semantics

demand |di?mand|
noun

• Economics the desire of purchasers, consumers, clients, employers, etc., for a particular commodity, service, or other item: a recent slump in demand | a demand for specialists.

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:23 am

MangoMan wrote: Joe has a profitable service business, but is not working 40 hours per week because he just doesn't have enough clients due expense in his services. There is demand for those services, but many people feel that they can not afford them so they go without. More production [Joe's labor] would be driven by the existence of more available money assuming the additional cash would make his services [or at least give consumers the perception that they are] affordable.

You could make the argument that the availability of additional money into the system would drive up the price for Joe's service, especially if there was more printing done, but if the services were already being utilized by the people who could already afford it and then more people all of a sudden could use the service, too, I don't see the price going up until Joe is at full capacity 40 hours per week and doesn't want/need to work more. At that point, Joe raises his prices until an equilibrium is reached and he works the desired number of hours for his desired maximum profit.

Is this not valid logic?
It is not. I wish it were as simple as creating money or shuffling it around. If we could simply get more production by creating money out of thin air then everyone everywhere would be wealthy, there would be no such things as recessions and depressions. That alone should demonstrate that more money can't help the economy, else why ever limit it's creation?

To address your scenario more specifically though, Joe would like to work 40 hours or more producing his goods or services and people would like to buy stuff from him. They can't afford it because the price is higher than they're willing to spend. The REAL reason is not a lack of money in the system. The real reason is a lack of offsetting production. If they produced more value they would have more to trade. Even if the money supply stayed EXACTLY the same, the general price level would drop.

More goods + same money supply = lower general price level.

A lower general price level would mean Joe's costs of production would go down, as well as the cost of the things he wants to buy. This would enable him to lower his prices, spurring demand for his goods and services further.

Remeber the economic law, lower price = higher demand.

In the crazy economically illiterate world where the authoritarian class is trying to train us that up is down, intelligent people are being convinced that higher prices (inflation  :D ) will lead to higher demand. This is utter nonsense.

Introducing more money in the system will only cause the general price level to go up, damaging real demand for self-sustaining production in order to support false demand that will collapse when the money printing stops. If the new money goes to net consumers it is simply a transfer of wealth from net producers to net consumers. This discourages production and makes us poorer and makes the economy worse.

The solution to Joe's immediate problem would be solved by the people wanting his goods having more money, agreed. They can only have more money if they are more productive themselves (win-win), the entire economy produces more and lowers the general price level (win-win), or the government steals for them (win-lose instantly, but ultimately lose-lose).

Ultimately only production matters. That is the critical point that needs to be understood. That way whenever someone talks about just "putting money in people's pockets to spend" you understand they are either lying or dumb.

Production spurs production. Consumption doesn't spur production. People produce to trade for value. Value creation begetts more value creation.


If I was unclear on any point pug I'll be happy to expound. If I made a mistake please correct me those who understand this stuff well.
Last edited by Kshartle on Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Pointedstick » Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:46 am

Kshartle, you have described several ideas and people as "dumb" in this thread. I find it difficult to engage with you when you are so closed-minded and openly dismissive of points of view that are not your own.  For the benefit of everybody, I would appreciate it if you would attempt to refrain from insulting people and things you disagree with, and if you would make more of an effort to understand how and why people might hold positions that are different from your own. I would ask that you try to imagine that is may be possible that you could actually be wrong about something, and to that effect, It would be nice if you discussed things with more humility and less blustery, insulting, self-assuredness. It is rather rude and I do not believe I am alone in the belief that it drags down the quality of our discussions here.

We are all on a big search for truth. That search comes to an end when we become convinced that we have already found it.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:33 am

Mountaineer wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: It sure seems that iPhones, after the first or second model, have sure been in demand prior to their being produced.  What do you call that?  Anticipation?

How about all the "kickstart" projects where advertising tries to drum up demand and if enough demand is evident, the "producer" gets around to making it?

... Mountaineer

demand vs. desire

Producers ultimately only produce something for others if others are producing what they want. They don't do it for the benefit of the consumer. This is a critical point that is misunderstood with disastrous consequences. The use of money and the highly specialized economy make it appear that they are doing it for their customers but that is the wrong conclusion. Government policies exploit this incorrect conclusion.

The authoritarian class (Dear Follower) tells the leisure class and pseudo-intellectuals (his base), he can steal for them and it's morally good because it will benefit producers by giving them more customers. It's a 100% scam based on lies and false beliefs.

Regarding kickstarter or other production supposedly driven by demand, let's set one up for a time machine. We'll learn very quick that this "demand" is just a "desire". Desire won't help create the production and there will be no actual demand for time machines (since we'll never make one).
demand - desire ----> semantics my friend, semantics

demand |di?mand|
noun

• Economics the desire of purchasers, consumers, clients, employers, etc., for a particular commodity, service, or other item: a recent slump in demand | a demand for specialists.

... Mountaineer
ok, demand vs. wishful thinking  :o

My wishing for a car doesn't cause anyone to make a car. Only if I have purchasing power to buy the car will it be made for me. In order for me to have the purcahsing power I have to have made something myself or stole something someone else made or convince them to give it to me. Or I can have guys with guns declare that slips of worthless paper be traded for things of real value and then beg them to print some and give it to me.

I'm done. It's all there. The reason the not so subtle difference in reality vs. non-reality is important is because the masters are trying to sell you theft based on lies. Falling for it hurts the economy, makes us poorer and creates resentment and more problems. Giving out money to help people buy stuff won't help producers. Consumers don't benefit the producers, it's the other way around.

I know "Dear Follower" has said that if welfare moms and burger flippers have more money to spend then we'll all be better off. Has he ever been right about anything? That alone I feel is a slam dunk argument, even if it's just a reverse "appeal to authority". We can call it "appeal to ignorance".
Last edited by Kshartle on Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by moda0306 » Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:03 am

I'll get back to this later, but in a barter society, we wouldn't have issues with demand "lagging."  It would be purely a supply problem.  Once you monetize an economy, you remove its ability to efficiently trade production for production directly... because you're using money instead.  This is vital to the next part I'll get to.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Pointedstick » Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:04 am

So, no, then.
Kshartle wrote: Only if I have purchasing power to buy the car will it be made for me. In order for me to have the purcahsing power I have to have made something myself or stole something someone else made or convince them to give it to me. Or I can have guys with guns declare that slips of worthless paper be traded for things of real value and then beg them to print some and give it to me.
You keep repeating this as if there's anyone disagreeing with you. Can you actually identify where any of us has claimed that people with no purchasing power drive production?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by stone » Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:58 am

Kshartle
Giving out money to help people buy stuff won't help producers. Consumers don't benefit the producers, it's the other way around.
One wrinkle I can see in this is that innovative products only become worth creating if the very large development cost can be spread over many units sold. I had a go posting about that (prompted a while back by one of doodle's threads on here). http://directeconomicdemocracy.wordpres ... also-rich/
Technological innovations have very high development costs relative to the unit cost of the product. A product such as a new medicine or an innovative electronic gadget becomes dramatically cheaper to produce per unit item if the development costs are spread across many more units sold. Imagine if we lived in a world with greater disparities of wealth than we do now. Imagine if the market for the latest medicine or electronic gadget was 1/10000th the current size. Those few who could still afford such items would have to pay massively more to cover the development costs. That dynamic works in the opposite direction too. Imagine if the potential market for the latest product was all seven billion people on earth. Then development costs would be spread so thinly they would hardly be noticed. Capital goods such as the robotic workers themselves also have the same economy of scale. It starts to make financial sense if many factories staffed with robots are to be built but not if just a few.

Clearly having an economy directed towards technological development is critically dependent on having lots of potential customers. When development costs are high relative to on-going production costs, then a large market is a great benefit and when they aren’t, it isn’t. The direction of the economy thus steers towards innovation when everyone can afford the latest technology and away from it when they can’t. There is no sense in having a fancy robot factory if it is just going to be idle due to lack of customers.

To me it looks as though we are at a fork in the road. We can choose to distribute ownership widely (I’ve written a pdf about a suggested route towards sufficiently widespread ownership), develop lucrative innovative technologies and all be served by robots or we can choose to have just a few in the owning class, fail to develop technology, and so become mired in conflict and poverty as resources run out.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by moda0306 » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:20 pm

Pointedstick wrote: So, no, then.
Kshartle wrote: Only if I have purchasing power to buy the car will it be made for me. In order for me to have the purcahsing power I have to have made something myself or stole something someone else made or convince them to give it to me. Or I can have guys with guns declare that slips of worthless paper be traded for things of real value and then beg them to print some and give it to me.
You keep repeating this as if there's anyone disagreeing with you. Can you actually identify where any of us has claimed that people with no purchasing power drive production?
This ties in with the point I'd like to make about money.  In a barter economy, "purchasing power" is, by definition, production.  Whether I give someone a chicken, plumbing services or marry his homely daughter for him :), I am providing something of LITERAL productive value to someone.

The problem is this is super inefficient.  We try to find mediums of exchange, even if it's just another form of production that works pretty well as money (pelts, salt, etc).

And as things get even more efficient, we try to leverage our productive capacities with debt.  Debt allows us to leverage our future productive capacity, another person's money, and yet another person's production for higher benefit.  (or go on vacations funded by credit cards... but let's focus on needs for now).

So if malinvestment or economic misallocation of resources happen in a barter economy, people suffer a little bit, but that is ok & natural.  They'll just have to work a bit harder to get access to someone else's production than they thought.  Even debts can be paid with production, because that's how they MUST have been denominated to begin with. I can literally accelerate my debt reduction by CHOOSING to produce more.  I can just work harder, and people will accept that work as repayments of debt, or they will pay me through their hard work.  Either way, value is effectively being exchanged and this economy is more robust, but less efficient, than a monetized economy.

But when your accumulated production is held as money rather than actual barterable assets, all your purchases generally require money, and all your debts are denominated by money, you've put yourself in a bit of a pickle.  You've allowed one asset (let's say gold)... often on that isn't really used for much actual production, to be absolutely vital to the entire economy.

For instance imagine if we had a world-wide gold based monetary infrastructure.  Imagine a similar world in a different dimension that decided that shiny yellow metals don't do much for them, and they just would rather use barter... but other than that EVERYTHING is the same in terms of REAL resources.

Now imagine that some aliens came and used a matter transport device to steal all the gold in both societies.  The barter economy wouldn't notice.  The gold-based economy would collapse, even though NO productive capacity has actually been taken.  Nobody was murdered.  Factories were fully functional.  Infrastructure still worked.  All the aliens did was push a button and stole all the means of payment.  This is essentially (on steroids) what I mean by a "demand problem."  You don't have enough means of payment to pay your fixed costs (debt, insurance, overhead, etc) AND make a decent living on top of it, so you refuse to send those means of payments on the productive capacity of others.  It would work JUST FINE if you knew how to work in a barter payment infrastructure, but the monetary society lost that business acumen (at the level that they'd need it to keep doors open) long ago

In modern economies, understanding how PAYMENT SYSTEMS actually work is EXTREMELY important, especially as leverage is use more often (even if used efficiently).  Production is ultimately the final measure of economic wealth, but we don't EXPRESS our propensity to consume someone else's production by producing something else.  We EXPRESS it by transferring money to a producer.  A producer, mind you, that MUST make payroll, pay debts, keep the lights on, pay for insurance, etc.

Now perhaps this "money" is all just a machination of the state (we had a debate a while back regarding whether even gold as money was pretty heavily state-driven, initially).  But this is how businesses actually function today.  Cash flows are HUGE.

Even though our fiat confetti has no theoretical intrinsic value, if you destroyed all of it (make everyone's bank account go to zero), and we all woke up tomorrow with just as much REAL wealth, we'd still have a massive economic crisis the likes of which we've never seen.  Even if all "confetti liabilities" got erased too (it sure would be hard to pay a mortgage with no USD's in existence), we'd still have to figure out how to pay bills while everything stalls out.

The whole point is that regardless of what your STATIST opinions might be on counter-cyclical monetary/fiscal policies, people who run businesses HAVE to understand cash-flow rigidities and management.  CASH is how people actually EXPRESS their purchasing power.  I can't just show up with technical knowledge of how to build the best widget in the world and expect to know what I need to about business management.

Understanding payment infrastructure matters immensely.  Perhaps it is just a state-made nightmare, but it's something to understand and manage, with huge importance, just like taxes and regulation.

And to come back full circle, this is why it's so IMPORTANT to understand why we have to put adequate value on those willing to part with cash to buy a product.  If cash is the only asset that will satisfy means of payment, people are putting themselves AT RISK when they expend their accumulated production (in cash form) to trade for another form of production that does NOT satisfy payment in any/all instances. 

Keep in mind, I'm not saying CONSUMPTION is important.  I truly agree that a car destroyed or a ditch unnecessarily dug is a net LOSS of wealth.  But the TRADE is important.  It is IMPORTANT to BMW that they sell so many BMW's.  Not that they necessarily be blown up by a government stimulus program.  Try not to conflate respect for cash-flows with thinking that cash-flows are real wealth.  They are not.  They facilitate creation of real wealth IN THE REAL WORLD, and it's extremely important to understand how jimmying with cash in the real world will affect things, because as utterly useless as my confetti is theoretically, if I don't pay the bank some of it every month, my REAL house gets taken away from me.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:26 pm

stone wrote: Kshartle
Giving out money to help people buy stuff won't help producers. Consumers don't benefit the producers, it's the other way around.
One wrinkle I can see in this is that innovative products only become worth creating if the very large development cost can be spread over many units sold. I had a go posting about that (prompted a while back by one of doodle's threads on here).
Development costs on new technology aren't spread around on units sold, unless you can somehow pre-sell new technology/products. The costs are of course covered by investors ahead of time in anticipation of profit. You don't need many units sold though, it could just be one. If I could build just one time machine for 1 BN I'm sure we could get investors and sell it for a big profit  ;D.

Now I agree with you that costs of development, which are just the first stage of production must eventually be covered by the buyers else the investors take a loss, but that's the case with literraly everything that's produced for consumption by someone other than the producer.

The snipet that you dropped in here says "A product such as a new medicine or an innovative electronic gadget becomes dramatically cheaper to produce per unit item if the development costs are spread across many more units sold. "

Well ok I agree but I don't get the point. He's just saying an investor/producer is better off developing products that can be sold at a profit. That's the same with everything, complex or not.

If I've missed a deeper point Stone please bash me over the head with it.
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:27 pm

MangoMan wrote: When you say "more goods + same production = lower general price level" are you referring to to Joe or the entire economy?
Whooops I meant:

more goods + same money supply = lower general price level
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by moda0306 » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:33 pm

Sorry for the long-ass post fellas... but there's one more thing I want K to toss around his head.

If we can agree that DESTRUCTION of all the fiat money in the world would cause MASSIVE destruction of REAL wealth (even if it was replaced magically with equivalent FMV of gold), we would have a massive financial crisis due to the payment system upset...

(can we agree on this?)

...then perhaps, as a matter of logic, we could POSSIBLY have SOME possible positive effect in a financial crisis of INCREASING the amount of fiat garbage on someone's balance sheet?  That this will INDUCE greater production of wealth... maybe.... JUST MAYBE!?

Because underlying this all is the fundamental reason investment hasn't soared, and production hasn't ramped up.  Producers are not seeing demand in excess of their already-existing productive capacity.

And this would be ok if it were just in the housing sector, where there was massive over-investment of our resources.  But it wasn't.  Manufacturing was way down as well.  I don't see how the supply-siders here can truly say that it's simply a matter of taxes and regulation as to why businesses aren't hiring more.  They are factors, sure, but only when they actually NEED another employee's production, or NEED to add an addition to their factory.

I can truly understand the feeling that "moda's missing something, here," and that there's more to this phenomenon than just "inadequate demand caused by a monetized economy & leverage," but doesn't this stuff at least make you wonder a little bit?  Low inflation in spit of "money printing?"  Low interest rates in spite of high deficits?  Lags in other areas than just housing?  Demand not in excess of productive capacity?

K... I have to say I'm surprised none of this empirical evidence doesn't make you think that maybe you're missing something.  That maybe there's more to economics than producing something of value.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:36 pm

MangoMan wrote: if Obama gives them money and they now utilize Joe's services when they would not have before the transfer of wealth, Joe still wins. Maybe Joe loses a bit when he goes to the grocery and prices are higher because of the extra money being printed/redistributed, but overall Joe wins more than he loses. And FYI, I am a moderate who leans right and I think there is way too much welfare in this country. But my own personal situation is similar to Joe's, so believe me when I tell you that this is reality, at least in my world.
:D well we all live in the same world so let's help each other figure it out.

If they have more purchasing power because Obama gave it to them, he had to take it from someone else. That someone else now has less to buy from other people. If the money was stolen directly via taxes then it's obvious who has less.....it's producers with income. If the purchasing power was stolen indirectly through inflation then it's dollar holders who have less. The dollar holders didn't get anymore dollars, but now prices are higher. They will now demand/purchase/consume less other things. Now those producers must reduce production. Obama promised to make things better, alas, he's made them worse.


The economic production has now shifted from the true sustainable market demand (which had Joe working 30 hours) to the false, centrally planned government demand (having Joe working 40 hours). When the market fights back we get a recession and everyone looks around and cries about slack in the labor market. They ask the government to cure it by putting money in people's pockets but the government created it in the first place by doing just that!
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:40 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
MangoMan wrote: When you say "more goods + same production = lower general price level" are you referring to to Joe or the entire economy?
Whooops I meant:

more goods + same money supply = lower general price level
Regardless. You didn't respond to the rest of the post...
let me finish first......(she said)
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by moda0306 » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:41 pm

Kshartle wrote:
MangoMan wrote: if Obama gives them money and they now utilize Joe's services when they would not have before the transfer of wealth, Joe still wins. Maybe Joe loses a bit when he goes to the grocery and prices are higher because of the extra money being printed/redistributed, but overall Joe wins more than he loses. And FYI, I am a moderate who leans right and I think there is way too much welfare in this country. But my own personal situation is similar to Joe's, so believe me when I tell you that this is reality, at least in my world.
:D well we all live in the same world so let's help each other figure it out.

If they have more purchasing power because Obama gave it to them, he had to take it from someone else. That someone else now has less to buy from other people. If the money was stolen directly via taxes then it's obvious who has less.....it's producers with income. If the purchasing power was stolen indirectly through inflation then it's dollar holders who have less. The dollar holders didn't get anymore dollars, but now prices are higher. They will now demand/purchase/consume less other things. Now those producers must reduce production. Obama promised to make things better, alas, he's made them worse.


The economic production has now shifted from the true sustainable market demand (which had Joe working 30 hours) to the false, centrally planned government demand (having Joe working 40 hours). When the market fights back we get a recession and everyone looks around and cries about slack in the labor market. They ask the government to cure it by putting money in people's pockets but the government created it in the first place by doing just that!
Purchasing power lies not just in production (or productive capacity) in a modern economy but in efficient means of payment, which is money.  See my other posts for some of what I think best illustrates the dynamics of this.  We are NOT in a barter economy.  Managing payment systems is vital to the process of production in the modern economy, even though it just moves fiat confetti around.  Try not paying your mortgage for a few months :).
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:42 pm

moda0306 wrote: Sorry for the long-ass post fellas...
It's not that long.....(she said) ZING!
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by stone » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:45 pm

Kshartle wrote:
stone wrote: Kshartle
Giving out money to help people buy stuff won't help producers. Consumers don't benefit the producers, it's the other way around.
One wrinkle I can see in this is that innovative products only become worth creating if the very large development cost can be spread over many units sold. I had a go posting about that (prompted a while back by one of doodle's threads on here).
Development costs on new technology aren't spread around on units sold, unless you can somehow pre-sell new technology/products. The costs are of course covered by investors ahead of time in anticipation of profit. You don't need many units sold though, it could just be one. If I could build just one time machine for 1 BN I'm sure we could get investors and sell it for a big profit  ;D.

Now I agree with you that costs of development, which are just the first stage of production must eventually be covered by the buyers else the investors take a loss, but that's the case with literraly everything that's produced for consumption by someone other than the producer.

The snipet that you dropped in here says "A product such as a new medicine or an innovative electronic gadget becomes dramatically cheaper to produce per unit item if the development costs are spread across many more units sold. "

Well ok I agree but I don't get the point. He's just saying an investor/producer is better off developing products that can be sold at a profit. That's the same with everything, complex or not.

If I've missed a deeper point Stone please bash me over the head with it.
I think that unless you have potential to have enough units sold, innovative products such as medicines that cost billions to develop simply won't get invented. So in a world where everyone is rich, the very rich (along with everyone else) will be able to get that innovative medicine for say £100, whilst in a world where all but a few are poor, the few rich people may be able to afford a personal physician or whatever but what really matters simply won't have been invented. 
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:53 pm

Kshartle wrote:
moda0306 wrote: Sorry for the long-ass post fellas...
It's not that long.....(she said) ZING!
That's two!  I'm sensing you may have some repression issues today?  Is it brown or white eyes?  :o

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:56 pm

stone wrote: I think that unless you have potential to have enough units sold, innovative products such as medicines that cost billions to develop simply won't get invented. So in a world where everyone is rich, the very rich (along with everyone else) will be able to get that innovative medicine for say £100, whilst in a world where all but a few are poor, the few rich people may be able to afford a personal physician or whatever but what really matters simply won't have been invented.
Yes. It would be a much better and happier world if everyone was rich. Better products would be created. We would have an explosion of wealth creation as production would begett production.

The big question on everyone's minds seems to be "how do we get there"?

Unfortunatly it looks like wealth redistribution is winning out over capitalism.  :'(
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:59 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
moda0306 wrote: Sorry for the long-ass post fellas...
It's not that long.....(she said) ZING!
That's two!  I'm sensing you may have some repression issues today?  Is it brown or white eyes?  :o

... Mountaineer
I am feeling a bit financially repressed. I just got my paycheck and it included 13 hours of OT at time and a half. I was absolutely beasted by taxes. I am singlehandedly supporting a welfare family that I've never met. 

I guess it's good that whatever I would have demanded is now in the hands of a plutocrat politician. Hopefully he/she redistributes it wisely. I'm such a jerk I would have just saved and invested it and helped no one.  :P
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:02 pm

Kshartle wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
Kshartle wrote: It's not that long.....(she said) ZING!
That's two!  I'm sensing you may have some repression issues today?  Is it brown or white eyes?  :o

... Mountaineer
I am feeling a bit financially repressed. I just got my paycheck and it included 13 hours of OT at time and a half. I was absolutely beasted by taxes. I am singlehandedly supporting a welfare family that I've never met. 

I guess it's good that whatever I would have demanded is now in the hands of a plutocrat politician. Hopefully he/she redistributes it wisely. I'm such a jerk I would have just saved and invested it and helped no one.  :P
13 hours OT not bad for one day of producing, or is that consuming?  That leaves you 3 hours for polyphasic experimentation!! ;D

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by moda0306 » Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:17 pm

Kshartle wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
Kshartle wrote: It's not that long.....(she said) ZING!
That's two!  I'm sensing you may have some repression issues today?  Is it brown or white eyes?  :o

... Mountaineer
I am feeling a bit financially repressed. I just got my paycheck and it included 13 hours of OT at time and a half. I was absolutely beasted by taxes. I am singlehandedly supporting a welfare family that I've never met. 

I guess it's good that whatever I would have demanded is now in the hands of a plutocrat politician. Hopefully he/she redistributes it wisely. I'm such a jerk I would have just saved and invested it and helped no one.  :P
How are you "single-handedly" supporting anyone?  That's just fiat paper they gave you with "no value"!? :)

I kid... no need to reply.  I'd rather have you respond to my other annoyingly long posts.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:26 pm

MangoMan wrote: Not trying to being a dick here, but just to play devil's advocate:
If you spent less time posting here while on the clock, would that 13 hours of OT even have been necessary?
And how is *that* theft different than the type you are always referring to?  ;D
ah-ha-ha, loaded question on #2.

I only charge for time worked, so an 11 hour day might = 8 hours charged.

I work all different hours. Sometimes 11 at night, sometimes like today I started at 5AM.

I assure you I only charge necessary hours  ;) and my employer bills me out for 100% of my time at triple my rate to them.

I have carte blanch to charge however many I want so my GF doesn't understand how my usual 50 hour workweek turns into 40 charged. She's seen me posting here and suspects though............................
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:27 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: That's two!  I'm sensing you may have some repression issues today?  Is it brown or white eyes?  :o

... Mountaineer
I am feeling a bit financially repressed. I just got my paycheck and it included 13 hours of OT at time and a half. I was absolutely beasted by taxes. I am singlehandedly supporting a welfare family that I've never met. 

I guess it's good that whatever I would have demanded is now in the hands of a plutocrat politician. Hopefully he/she redistributes it wisely. I'm such a jerk I would have just saved and invested it and helped no one.  :P
13 hours OT not bad for one day of producing, or is that consuming?  That leaves you 3 hours for polyphasic experimentation!! ;D

... Mountaineer
Ohhh I am a net producer by far.  >:(
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

Post by Kshartle » Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:52 pm

Pointedstick wrote: If nobody in a certain country happens to want nuclear weapons, for example, then nobody will make them for those people's consumption. If nobody happens to want lectures in LGBTQQ studies, then none will be produced. If neither moda nor Kshartle or I, marooned on our desert island, happen to want any spears, then none of us will produce any. If I am alone on that island and I do not enjoy the taste of one of the fruits that grows there, then I will not produce any for myself by picking them.

It's really not that controversial a point, I don't think, to say that what gets produced is driven by what is desired in the first place.
It is not contraversial PS and I agree to very large extent. Again this is all stuff that is pretty obvious truth. The problem is when this obvious truth is morphed into a lie for benefit of authoritarians. EX - "Producers make stuff that consumers want so we must spur demand and growth by giving consumers money!"

I was trying to go one step further in understanding the dynamics of the actions taking place so we can see that stuff like that sentence are false, that's all. I agree with about 90% of what you and moda are saying, well, 95% of yours and 85% of his  8). The point is there is a big freaking dot that needs to be connected and that's regarding who is important in the consumer vs. producer relationship so we can stop supporting the guys hurting the economy (the communists/leftists/bleeding hearts/liberals/fascists/etc.).
Post Reply