The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

[Kshartle]

Right on all counts. Excellent exposition!

Hey thanks. Maybe next time I can cut it in half and use simple examples to make it clearer. You're probably better at that. I just don't have the time to make it shorter 

[moda0306]

Started reading the article, can't finish, so bad.

This guy says that rich people can't create as many jobs as poor people because and I quote "We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators. It’s simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but I don’t buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my “manager pants.”? I guess I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money away in savings, where it doesn’t do the country much good."

So this guy thinks jobs are created by spending money and that saving your money costs the economy. Holy Christ this is the level of economic nonsense I'd expect from Obama.

Did he not produce anything of value to earn all that money? The economy is better because of what he did to produce his income, not his enjoyment of the money he earned.

He thinks if he bought more pants and cars the economy would grow. In reality, if he and other rich people pissed all their money away on stuff they didn't want, all they would do is stimulate a boom in industries that couldn't be sustained once they were out of money. He would create a misallocation of resources, pushing people to leave more sustainable jobs and the result would be an eventual contraction and unemployment.

On the other hand if he has savings he can put it to good use by seeking out profitable investments. Profitable investments create more capital that stimulates productivity, making workers more valuable and lowering prices. It makes the economy better. Even if just puts the money in the bank it is now available to loan out to entrepreneurs.

He is either economically illiterate or just pandering to his audience. I don't know who his audience is so I can't say. Clearly they are economically illiterate though.

Being willing to part with currency in favor of a material good produced and for sale is absolutely vital to a functioning economy.  Further, one person's expenditure is another person's income, so this idea that money spent is at the cost of savings is nonsense.  Savings = Investment.  You can't break this economic reality.  To the extent it has anything to do with spending, it would be the nature of spending... whether money was spent on consumption vs investment.

Nobody "creates jobs."  Jobs are the natural result of demand and supply for human capital.  People willing to part with economic resources to buy a product or service are TAKING A RISK.  People willing to part with their time to start a business for their own economic gain (not for charity) are ALSO taking a risk.  Supply and demand are two sides of the same coin.  Both are required in an economy, and they are required at some level of consistency & equilibrium.  We can't have a 1 year food supply hiccup that leaves us with NO food production for 365 days and be ok at day 366. We can't all "stop buying Apple products" for 365 days and still have Apple exist in the same manner at day 366. 

The "suppliers" require stupid risk-taking by consumers in buying stuff they can't afford and to leverage their work for profit, to the extent they are an employee.  And the "consumers" rely on the suppliers to give them employment opportunities and stuff to buy, both of which they pay for with their own time and money.  It's really that simple.  No need to gum it up with bs phrases like "job creators."  A business owner hires someone to provide a service for him because he believes it's the most profitable option for him... no different than I do when I hire a guy to roof my house.

[Kshartle]

Being willing to part with currency in favor of a material good produced and for sale is absolutely vital to a functioning economy. 

No it's not.

If I spend my entire life building singing songs for $500 a day and I live in a carboard box and eat what other people throw out, the rest of the world is not worse off because I burnt the slips of paper for warmth instead of traded them for clothes, a car, a house, better food.

Actually the rest of the world is better off. The rest of the world never had to actually trade something of value. It got my songs for free. All I got was worthless slips of paper. The value of my song was essentially provided for free. I never took anything in return for the songs.

Money is superior to barter in that it allows for a much greater degree of specialization, but the world is not better off because I trade my slips of paper for stuff, it's only better off if I produce something of value.

[Libertarian666]

Being willing to part with currency in favor of a material good produced and for sale is absolutely vital to a functioning economy. 

No it's not.

If I spend my entire life building singing songs for $500 a day and I live in a carboard box and eat what other people throw out, the rest of the world is not worse off because I burnt the slips of paper for warmth instead of traded them for clothes, a car, a house, better food.

Actually the rest of the world is better off. The rest of the world never had to actually trade something of value. It got my songs for free. All I got was worthless slips of paper. The value of my song was essentially provided for free. I never took anything in return for the songs.

Money is superior to barter in that it allows for a much greater degree of specialization, but the world is not better off because I trade my slips of paper for stuff, it's only better off if I produce something of value.

Again, this is so simple that I guess only a very sophisticated person could fail to understand it.
Thanks!

[moda0306]

Being willing to part with currency in favor of a material good produced and for sale is absolutely vital to a functioning economy. 

No it's not.

If I spend my entire life building singing songs for $500 a day and I live in a carboard box and eat what other people throw out, the rest of the world is not worse off because I burnt the slips of paper for warmth instead of traded them for clothes, a car, a house, better food.

Actually the rest of the world is better off. The rest of the world never had to actually trade something of value. It got my songs for free. All I got was worthless slips of paper. The value of my song was essentially provided for free. I never took anything in return for the songs.

Money is superior to barter in that it allows for a much greater degree of specialization, but the world is not better off because I trade my slips of paper for stuff, it's only better off if I produce something of value.

K,

In an "economy" (let's call this fictional land Unicornia) where people produce only for their own consumption (if you can even call this an economy), you are right.  That's not really an economy, though.  In OUR economy, the VAST majority of producers require outside consumers, and steady ones at that.  Factories don't exist to provide their owners with 100,000 widgets for his personal use.  They exist to SELL those widgets for profit to CONSUMERS.  Those consumers have to part with economic resources to secure the item.  Parting with economic resources involves risk, especially if these are discretionary expenditures.

But if you envision an economic system based on people producing only for their own consumption, I think cardboard boxes and table scraps is a pretty good visualization of what kind of economy you will have.

And I wasn't talking about fiat money.  Gold money will do fine.  I'm still at a loss if I part with it for a deteriorating material good.  If I part with gold coins to purchase a manicure, I'm in a more risky economic scenario after the manicure than before.  The producer of that manicure is in a LESS risky economic scenario than before the manicure.  I'm surprised we're managing to find points of disagreement on this.

[moda0306]

+100
Exactly.  In today's climate, I suspect a minimum wage hike will be counter-productive, because it will engender even more ill-will toward the beneficiaries.

It was only a 1.5 to 2 generations ago that executives were paid single digit multiples of what a median worker is paid.  Now it is in the hundreds or thousands.  Why?  IMO, it is because greed became culturally acceptable.  And it is very easy for such a thing to spiral out of control (which it has).

Economies of scale and information abundance would also explain a lot of that.

How so?

If companies are far more large and complex due to more economies of scale, a CEO today is DOING MORE than a CEO back in the 1950's.  He's "more important" in relation to the bottom line of a lot more money.  But the line-worker isn't.  Even if we didn't have machines doing people's work... but we have that "problem" to contend with as well.  Information is so much more important in these companies now that labor.

Basically, all the most basic functions of a non-technical human being are being replicated by machines.  These machines work for far-larger companies than the ones back in the 1950's, and someone has to manage the whole thing.  I don't think it is nearly the conspiracy a lot of others do. I think it's unfortunate, but not a NWO kind of thing.

[Kshartle]

one person's expenditure is another person's income, so this idea that money spent is at the cost of savings is nonsense. 

It's not about money spent, it's about production consumed. If I produce $100 worth of economic value (as evidenced by the money paid for my good/service), then I spend $60 on consumption and the government spends the other $40 on consumption then the entire value of my production is consumed. There is nothing left over to grow capital and the economy can't grow.

When I save part of my income I now have produced more than I've consumed (or the government on my behalf). I've made that additional production available for others in the form of the ability to borrow my purchasing power (a bond). I can use the purchasing power to purchase an investment that I take direct ownership of (a stock, a small business, a tool to make me more efficient).

Imagine a tiny economy, you and me. You catch two fish per day and I gather firewood for both of our shelters. We each eat one fish per day and have fire at night. That takes up all our time. Even though you catch two fish per day you don't consume two fish, you consume one fish and one fire, just like me. In order to improve our lives, we need to make a net to fish with. I have an idea for one, but I have no time to make one.

So I approach you with a proposal. We need to eat, but we can shiver through the night, at least for a few days. If you will go without a fire for one night I'll build a net instead of gather firewood. The net will let you catch 4 fish per day. All I ask is you now get me 2 fish per day instead of one henceforth.

So you feed us for a day and go cold at night. That is underconsumption and savings. Your underconsumption enables me to make a captial investment and build a net for you. Now you can easily supply me with 2 fish per day, have two yourself plus fire, maybe fish less if you only want one, etc. Now you have leasiure time for the first time ever, if you so desire.

I can underconsume now without requiring your sacrifice and build my own net because it only costs me half as much firewood for a fish as before. I could even make an ax so that I can gather firewood in half the time, that's direct ownership of capital borne of my underconsumption (going cold myself).

This is how an economy grows. It grows because of savings and capital investment which comes from savings. It DOESNT come from slips of paper, they just represent the value of a certain amount of goods and services the holder is ENTITLED to from others. 

You have to understand economics to understand this stuff. You have to understand what savings are, what they represent, where purchasing power comes from, how the economy is a reflection of the collective production and consumption patterns of everyone. It's all been explained in many many posts.

You have to drop a lot of false beliefs about money that have been taught by the Keynsiens.-SP

[Kshartle]

Being willing to part with currency in favor of a material good produced and for sale is absolutely vital to a functioning economy. 

No it's not.

If I spend my entire life building singing songs for $500 a day and I live in a carboard box and eat what other people throw out, the rest of the world is not worse off because I burnt the slips of paper for warmth instead of traded them for clothes, a car, a house, better food.

Actually the rest of the world is better off. The rest of the world never had to actually trade something of value. It got my songs for free. All I got was worthless slips of paper. The value of my song was essentially provided for free. I never took anything in return for the songs.

Money is superior to barter in that it allows for a much greater degree of specialization, but the world is not better off because I trade my slips of paper for stuff, it's only better off if I produce something of value.

Again, this is so simple that I guess only a very sophisticated person could fail to understand it.
Thanks!

In defense of the very sophisticated members here, they are under a non-stop blitz of dissinfo from the TV, teachers, government, textbooks, Krugman, Mosler, Roche probably.

the reality that we need to do work and can't just create wealth magically by printing it is very sobering. It's a seductive idea to think there is a statist shortcut called print and spend that can magically make us all wealthier.

Repeat after me everyone, to consume you must produce. P comes before C always and forever.

[Kshartle]

And I wasn't talking about fiat money.  Gold money will do fine.  I'm still at a loss if I part with it for a deteriorating material good.  If I part with gold coins to purchase a manicure, I'm in a more risky economic scenario after the manicure than before.  The producer of that manicure is in a LESS risky economic scenario than before the manicure.  I'm surprised we're managing to find points of disagreement on this.

This is false. You don't have the gold but you have your manicure. You valued the manicure more than the gold and the security it brought you, that's why you traded for it. If you made the trade you believed you would be better off maybe in this instance you misscalculated but at least now you know you don't value manicures as much.

The riskiness of your current situation is just one factor in the decision making process. Maybe you prefer to have gold but how on Earth can you know what's better for someone else?

deteriorating material good? How about a hut? Or a horse? Are you better off having gold or one of those? Answer = it depends, you can't say with certainty for everyone all the time, you can only observe their freely made choices and conclude they are acting in their own self interest.

[Kshartle]

In OUR economy, the VAST majority of producers require outside consumers, and steady ones at that.

That is just a natural consequence of the REAL REQUIREMENT - production of something of value. If other people value it they will trade you the value they created for it.

If I can produce everything I need I don't need someone else who is willing to trade me for stuff. The simple fact is it's more efficient for me to produce what I'm good at. That's a LOT more valuable and allows me to trade for more stuff I want than I could produce on my own.

it's ONLY the production of value that matters, not the consumption or purcahse of it by others. If it's valuable, they'll trade for it, no need to worry

[Kshartle]

, but the world is not better off because I trade my slips of paper for stuff, it's only better off if I produce something of value.

Again, this is so simple that I guess only a very sophisticated person could fail to understand it.
Thanks!

I have the feeling if you explained this in ancient Greece or Egypt people would look at you like "duhhh, thanks captain obvious". Here in the 21st we are so sophisticated we have less economic underestanding than people 2,300 years ago.

[moda0306]

And I wasn't talking about fiat money.  Gold money will do fine.  I'm still at a loss if I part with it for a deteriorating material good.  If I part with gold coins to purchase a manicure, I'm in a more risky economic scenario after the manicure than before.  The producer of that manicure is in a LESS risky economic scenario than before the manicure.  I'm surprised we're managing to find points of disagreement on this.

This is false. You don't have the gold but you have your manicure. You valued the manicure more than the gold and the security it brought you, that's why you traded for it. If you made the trade you believed you would be better off maybe in this instance you misscalculated but at least now you know you don't value manicures as much.

The riskiness of your current situation is just one factor in the decision making process. Maybe you prefer to have gold but how on Earth can you know what's better for someone else?

deteriorating material good? How about a hut? Or a horse? Are you better off having gold or one of those? Answer = it depends, you can't say with certainty for everyone all the time, you can only observe their freely made choices and conclude they are acting in their own self interest.

K,

You're right... economic risk is just part of the equation.  But it's just part of the same equation when a producer makes things of value for sale.  There are all sorts of economic transactions in our economy that actually INCREASE our financial risk.  This is ok, but let's not pretend it's not happening, and then credit the "sacrifice" of the producer. 

But there is NEVER one-sided production.  Consumption requires an exchange of value.  You PRODUCE a widget to me for me to use.  I PRODUCE time/energy/knowledge for my employer for money.  I then trade that time/energy/knowledge for your product instead of sitting on my dollar or producing someone else's.  For the vast majority of an economy that consists of non-essential purchases, I take a financial RISK by consuming those items.  If I buy a nicer car... if I buy a fancy watch... if I buy a video game system... if I buy a big house.  I'm giving up FINANCIAL RESOURCES in trade for your production.  These financial resources are things I could have used to manage some risk in the future.

Further, if a whole economy deems a certain type of spending to be too risky, the inventory of that production drops in real value... potentially significantly.  This could have drastic effects on the profits of the producer.  Because the producer has arranged his affairs to a steady demand and at current prices, assuming they will slowly rise, a sharp drop in demand for their product due to consumers deciding to take LESS RISK by buying their goods/services could be devastating.  Steady demand matters, dude.  There's no way for most producers to get value out of their products unless they can sell the vast majority of it.  Selling products involves consumers taking RISK!  Perhaps it is worth it sometimes, but producers NEED consumers to take that risk

Don't think so?  Go buy a Ferrari, and let me know how you feel.  You'll have a hell of a lot of fun driving, but you'll feel far less financially secure.  Ferrari, as a producer of exotic super cars, is not going to stay solvent without people putting themselves at financial risk to acquire their product.

[moda0306]

No it's not.

If I spend my entire life building singing songs for $500 a day and I live in a carboard box and eat what other people throw out, the rest of the world is not worse off because I burnt the slips of paper for warmth instead of traded them for clothes, a car, a house, better food.

Actually the rest of the world is better off. The rest of the world never had to actually trade something of value. It got my songs for free. All I got was worthless slips of paper. The value of my song was essentially provided for free. I never took anything in return for the songs.

Money is superior to barter in that it allows for a much greater degree of specialization, but the world is not better off because I trade my slips of paper for stuff, it's only better off if I produce something of value.

Again, this is so simple that I guess only a very sophisticated person could fail to understand it.
Thanks!

In defense of the very sophisticated members here, they are under a non-stop blitz of dissinfo from the TV, teachers, government, textbooks, Krugman, Mosler, Roche probably.

the reality that we need to do work and can't just create wealth magically by printing it is very sobering. It's a seductive idea to think there is a statist shortcut called print and spend that can magically make us all wealthier.

Repeat after me everyone, to consume you must produce. P comes before C always and forever.

Nobody says that "printing money" magically makes us wealthier.  In fact, it doesn't even in nominal terms (the private sector's balance sheets don't change in nominal asset value), which is why it doesn't generate inflation the way you falsely believe. 

You can continue to follow Schiff, who has been embarrassingly wrong in various predictions he's made and analysis he's done.  I'll stick with my sophisticated pundits.  At least they can predict the outcomes of deficits and "printing money" during a bad recession.

[Kshartle]

Further, if a whole economy deems a certain type of spending to be too risky, the inventory of that production drops in real value... potentially significantly.  This could have drastic effects on the profits of the producer.  Because the producer has arranged his affairs to a steady demand and at current prices, assuming they will slowly rise, a sharp drop in demand for their product due to consumers deciding to take LESS RISK by buying their goods/services could be devastating.

Ok are you saying when people don't value what you're producing as much as they used to you need to produce something of greater value, agreed!

That is called the market. What the government and Keynseians think is the government can magically make stuff more valuable by stealing money from some people and overpaying for stuff. That's them stimulating demand but it's all false demand.

Spending is just a reflection of people valuing what you made. They don't magically make it valuable because they spend for it, they spend for it because it's valuable. It's the creation of value that matters, the consumption will always follow it, no worries.

[Kshartle]

Nobody says that "printing money" magically makes us wealthier.  In fact, it doesn't even in nominal terms (the private sector's balance sheets don't change in nominal asset value), which is why it doesn't generate inflation the way you falsely believe. 

Balance sheet changes don't make us wealthier, only having more stuff does. I thought Krugman explained in his book how the money printing would stimulate demand which then stimulates more production which then means we're wealthier. Isn't that the entire idea I hear every single day from those people? Are you saying you don't agree with that now?

Where do you think inflation comes from? We have a lot more stuff than we used to and the general price level is higher. If it's not more money causing the price level to go up you must think we actually have less stuff.

[Pointedstick]

Something must be produced before it can be consumed.

But that thing will only be produced if the producer forecasts that it will be consumed.

Desert island example: I can't use a fishing rod until I produce it. But I would only produce a fishing rod if I anticipated using it because there were catchable fish.

Modern economy example: I can't use an iPhone until Apple produces it. But Apple only produced the iPhone when they anticipated that people would want to buy it.


Does anybody disagree with any of this?

[moda0306]

one person's expenditure is another person's income, so this idea that money spent is at the cost of savings is nonsense. 

It's not about money spent, it's about production consumed. If I produce $100 worth of economic value (as evidenced by the money paid for my good/service), then I spend $60 on consumption and the government spends the other $40 on consumption then the entire value of my production is consumed. There is nothing left over to grow capital and the economy can't grow.

When I save part of my income I now have produced more than I've consumed (or the government on my behalf). I've made that additional production available for others in the form of the ability to borrow my purchasing power (a bond). I can use the purchasing power to purchase an investment that I take direct ownership of (a stock, a small business, a tool to make me more efficient).

Imagine a tiny economy, you and me. You catch two fish per day and I gather firewood for both of our shelters. We each eat one fish per day and have fire at night. That takes up all our time. Even though you catch two fish per day you don't consume two fish, you consume one fish and one fire, just like me. In order to improve our lives, we need to make a net to fish with. I have an idea for one, but I have no time to make one.

So I approach you with a proposal. We need to eat, but we can shiver through the night, at least for a few days. If you will go without a fire for one night I'll build a net instead of gather firewood. The net will let you catch 4 fish per day. All I ask is you now get me 2 fish per day instead of one henceforth.

So you feed us for a day and go cold at night. That is underconsumption and savings. Your underconsumption enables me to make a captial investment and build a net for you. Now you can easily supply me with 2 fish per day, have two yourself plus fire, maybe fish less if you only want one, etc. Now you have leasiure time for the first time ever, if you so desire.

I can underconsume now without requiring your sacrifice and build my own net because it only costs me half as much firewood for a fish as before. I could even make an ax so that I can gather firewood in half the time, that's direct ownership of capital borne of my underconsumption (going cold myself).

This is how an economy grows. It grows because of savings and capital investment which comes from savings. It DOESNT come from slips of paper, they just represent the value of a certain amount of goods and services the holder is ENTITLED to from others. 

You have to understand economics to understand this stuff. You have to understand what savings are, what they represent, where purchasing power comes from, how the economy is a reflection of the collective production and consumption patterns of everyone. It's all been explained in many many posts.

You have to drop a lot of false beliefs about money that have been taught by the Keynsiens.-SP

K,

I totally agree that an economy grows due to capital investment and production.  But once you get outside of ridiculous 2-man scenarious, flows, inventory, and 3rd party consumption of that production on a consistent basis actually matter.  Have you ever been involved in a management of a business?  Steady inflows of customers is key.  There's too much invested capital and fixed costs to just produce and forget about distribution, or to go through periods where you produce WAY under productive capacity because the economy deemed it too risky to consume your product in lieu of holding onto their money.

To a producer, consumption is a DECISION made by non-producing entities.  The producer can't use 100,000 widgets.

Overall, our constraint is supply.  But our economy is built on the VAST majority of our production being consumed on a STEADY basis by others, and using money, not barter, to do so.  Further, once a person has made a supply decision (working for income), they now have reserves that they may or may not deploy into the economy.  It's a resource just like the widget-maker's inventory is.  At that point, both parties have accumulated production.  One in the form of money (let's assume gold).  One in the form of inventory.  Both are assets that we value.  They then trade.  How this part takes place is VITAL to why companies run the way they do. 

[Kshartle]

Something must be produced before it can be consumed.

But that thing will only be produced if the producer forecasts that it will be consumed.

Desert island example: I can't use a fishing rod until I produce it. But I would only produce a fishing rod if I anticipated using it because there were catchable fish.

Modern economy example: I can't use an iPhone until Apple produces it. But Apple only produced the iPhone when they anticipated that people would want to buy it.


Does anybody disagree with any of this?

Nope. Everything that's produced is done so because of the belief that it has value, either to the producer or to someone else.

[Kshartle]

Overall, our constraint is supply.  But our economy is built on the VAST majority of our production being consumed on a STEADY basis by others, and using money, not barter, to do so.  Further, once a person has made a supply decision (working for income), they now have reserves that they may or may not deploy into the economy.  It's a resource just like the widget-maker's inventory is.  At that point, both parties have accumulated production.  One in the form of money (let's assume gold).  One in the form of inventory.  Both are assets that we value.  They then trade.  How this part takes place is VITAL to why companies run the way they do.

Yes

[Pointedstick]

Something must be produced before it can be consumed.

But that thing will only be produced if the producer forecasts that it will be consumed.

Desert island example: I can't use a fishing rod until I produce it. But I would only produce a fishing rod if I anticipated using it because there were catchable fish.

Modern economy example: I can't use an iPhone until Apple produces it. But Apple only produced the iPhone when they anticipated that people would want to buy it.


Does anybody disagree with any of this?

Nope. Everything that's produced is done so because of the belief that it has value, either to the producer or to someone else.

It seems like you agree with everything I wrote except that you substituted "has value" for "will be consumed." Is that correct?

[Kshartle]

Something must be produced before it can be consumed.

But that thing will only be produced if the producer forecasts that it will be consumed.

Desert island example: I can't use a fishing rod until I produce it. But I would only produce a fishing rod if I anticipated using it because there were catchable fish.

Modern economy example: I can't use an iPhone until Apple produces it. But Apple only produced the iPhone when they anticipated that people would want to buy it.


Does anybody disagree with any of this?

Nope. Everything that's produced is done so because of the belief that it has value, either to the producer or to someone else.

It seems like you agree with everything I wrote except that you substituted "has value" for "will be consumed." Is that correct?

Yes it's just a little more preceise.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm splitting atoms. You don't neccesarily consume a capital good or say, a peice of art. Using the word consume carries some other confusing meanings whereas saying something is only produced if the producer believes it "has value" is just more correct.

Consume isn't wrong but then it could confuse capital goods with true consumption goods and other catagories like art that are debateable.

People will produce gold through mining it and refining but there is zero intention of consumption. It's produced mearly to have since it has uhhhhhh....intrinsic value  - maybe we shouldn't go there.

[Pointedstick]

Okay fine.

My point is that nobody produces something that they don't forecast that the intended recipient of the good or service can make use of/consume/enjoy/looking at/demonstrate with their actions that they value/etc.

Do you agree with that?

[Kshartle]

Okay fine.

My point is that nobody produces something that they don't forecast that the intended recipient of the good or service can make use of/consume/enjoy/looking at/demonstrate with their actions that they value/etc.

Do you agree with that?

yes

[Pointedstick]

Awesome.

So then, if you agree that production is done only when it coincides with forecasts of projected consumption appreciation/enjoyment/valuation whatever…

…then would it be safe to say that you actually agree that production and consumption appreciation/enjoyment/valuation/whatever are in fact symbiotic? That consumers consume appreciate/enjoy/value/whatever what has been produced for them, and producers produce what they forecast will be consumed appreciated/valued/enjoyed/whatevered?

[Libertarian666]

Awesome.

So then, if you agree that production is done only when it coincides with forecasts of projected consumption appreciation/enjoyment/valuation whatever…

…then would it be safe to say that you actually agree that production and consumption appreciation/enjoyment/valuation/whatever are in fact symbiotic? That consumers consume appreciate/enjoy/value/whatever what has been produced for them, and producers produce what they forecast will be consumed appreciated/valued/enjoyed/whatevered?

I'm not kshartle, obviously, but I agree with that and I think he will also.
However, and this is key, the producer will NOT produce anything that he doesn't think can be purchased by value-for-value by someone else. In other words, the fact that someone wants to consume something doesn't make him a consumer unless he can actually provide value-for-value.