 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
imran, can you explain how supply creates its own demand?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
what if the equalibrium is too low for anyone to actually buy or sell or produce anything?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
Well what im getting at is what if economic conditions are so poor that no one is willing to risk anything in production, and supplying, and people are too worried about the future to actually go out and spend.
the problem i see with supply side economics from what you described is it doesnt have a good way to help get out serious economic problem like a depression. You can manufacture all day long but if people cant afford it they wont buy it.
that leads to another problem though, which is depreciation. if you keep reducing the prices people will keep waiting to buy until it reaches a lower price. If the price is too low to cover expenses though, and the company cant pay people, then people wont keep buying.
the only way i can see supply side working is if the supply increases proportionally to ones disposable income.
or maybe im looking at this going the wrong way. if you decrease supply for something there will be more demand for it. But less supply means less manufacture and in turn means less workers(if a company wants to turn a profit). If there is less people willing to buy the prices will be reduced to meet equalibrium.
That still doesnt solve the problem of what to do with people who cant afford something and thus arent willing to buy.
i think this is where the government can help through tax cuts, but tax cuts directed at the majority of people who buy products. giving tax cuts to a small amount of people who are likely to save that money and dont have a propensity to consume the same amount as 10 other people does little to stimulate spending and production.
im looking at it this way. if you give 100 people that make less than 60k a year, 4000 dollars they are more likely to spend all that money in the economy than giving 10 people 40,000 dollars who make over 600k.
and please, feel free to correct me because im not really learned in economics. ive taken one college level course and most the time i spent in that class was working on music.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Imran Siddiqui

|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970 time: 00:27
|
|
quote: Well what im getting at is what if economic conditions are so poor that no one is willing to risk anything in production |
I'm not sure this actually comes into the minds of supply-side theorists, because they figure there ALWAYS will be someone that will make something (which is probably true), and people will go out and buy something (they have to, or else they can't survive, really).
quote: the problem i see with supply side economics from what you described is it doesnt have a good way to help get out serious economic problem like a depression. You can manufacture all day long but if people cant afford it they wont buy it. |
Yes, I agree with you, somewhat. I'm sure the argument is more production will lead to more jobs, which leads to people that can buy the goods. The only problem is will producers be willing to take that risk (to hire more)?
Though, I guess I can also see that depressions are rare (and for the most part, the GD was unforeseen). Usually the economy follows a boom-bust cycle, so producers, knowing this, might be more willing to hire people and go into short term debt if they believe recovery is upon them.
I think the best way to deal with serious economic problems is a combination of demand and supply side. If you simply focus on the demand side, people may be willing to spend a lot, but there may not be anything to spend money on (well, there will be something, but not stuff they really might want ). Perhaps they will place it in savings, that will increase investment, but that is gonna take time. You add supply side tactics (such as lowering interest rates) so that people invest more, giving corporations more money (at a faster clip than a demand side policy), which they can invest in R&D (or new projects) and more workers (some to make new projects and some just 'cause) .
For ordinary turn of mill economic tinkering (which should be at a minimum, IMO), I think you should focus on the supply side, such as shifting interest rates. For recessions and depressions, a combination may do the trick.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
I agree with ya imran on a combination of systems. The thing that gets to me though is the idea that many people on both sides have; that only THEIR ideology is the one that will work.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|