Total Posts:121|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Goods and Services Theory

Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2016 1:12:53 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I believe in a theory of economics which both conservatives and liberal often deny. It is called the theory of Goods and Services.

The theory of Goods and Services is very simple. It holds that there is a purpose to any economy, that every economy is not just some perpetual system, but that there exists a desired "ends" to an economy. And the ends to this is the bringing about of a state in which there is an overabundant supply of high-quality goods and services available for purchase. Any economic action works to bring about this ends, or works against it.

This theory also holds that economic law is part of natural law, and that it is not man-made law.

If this theory is correct, then it throws much traditional, conventional economic theory out the window. Suddenly, jobs are not important. Labor is simply a commodity. Trade restrictions now hurt the economy of every country in the world. And economists everywhere, politicians like Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi (to name a few, and ordinary everyday citizens are wrong.

In addition, this would mean that no matter what economic system (means) you took, each would have the same ends, by natural law (though one means could certainly be more effective in bringing about the desired ends). This includes Communism, Capitalism, Facism, Socialism, Corporatism, etc.

Everyone please argue that this theory is not the case, or if you believe it is, argue for that.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,600
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2016 8:21:10 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 12/29/2016 1:12:53 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

I have never heard of a system by this name but the description seems similar to what I have heard called Austrian economics. Two names for the same thing, or is there a difference between the two?
Are you a man of peace
Or a man of holy war?
Too many sides to you,
Don't know which any more.

So many full of life
But also filled with pain.
Don't know just how many
Will live to breathe again.
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2016 10:39:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 12/30/2016 8:21:10 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 12/29/2016 1:12:53 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

I have never heard of a system by this name but the description seems similar to what I have heard called Austrian economics. Two names for the same thing, or is there a difference between the two?

To my knowledge they are essentially the same thing. While the Goods and Services theory is slightly less complex, they both have the same sort of reasoning behind why the theories work.

Both however are held by the minority, for the most part. What is currently the most popular theory, at least in the United States, is the Jobs System theory, the idea that everyone should have work if they want it; an income, a means of support. This theory holds that the economy has no "ends" only a continuous system. Rather than focusing on the production of assets , this theory focuses on the production of income.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,600
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2016 11:02:12 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 12/30/2016 10:39:12 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

I am no economics expert, but from what I do know a system of Austrian economics or something similar like what you describe would be what I would prefer over the Keynesian (what you call the Jobs System) model. I think it is unlikely to be implimented to any meaningful degree however, due to the fact that most of the major nations of the world are democracies.
Are you a man of peace
Or a man of holy war?
Too many sides to you,
Don't know which any more.

So many full of life
But also filled with pain.
Don't know just how many
Will live to breathe again.
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2016 9:12:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 12/31/2016 11:02:12 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 12/30/2016 10:39:12 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

I am no economics expert, but from what I do know a system of Austrian economics or something similar like what you describe would be what I would prefer over the Keynesian (what you call the Jobs System) model. I think it is unlikely to be implimented to any meaningful degree however, due to the fact that most of the major nations of the world are democracies.

I agree, the Goods and Services economic model is not accepted in nearly every major country. But part of the problem appears to be that few people in general even know how economics work, which is why they just accept everything the "experts" on TV and in newspapers tell them. And what they tell them is either the Jobs System, or some sort of facist alternative, at least in America.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,600
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 10:11:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 12/31/2016 9:12:01 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
I agree, the Goods and Services economic model is not accepted in nearly every major country. But part of the problem appears to be that few people in general even know how economics work, which is why they just accept everything the "experts" on TV and in newspapers tell them. And what they tell them is either the Jobs System, or some sort of facist alternative, at least in America.

You think it's just because of what thet are being told? I don't see any reason to think that is the case. If presented with two plans, one where they are guaranteed a job and one where the nation as a whole benefits but they may not be guaranteed as good of an economic future, people will naturally preffer the latter. Because everyone votes for that, that is what is used.
Are you a man of peace
Or a man of holy war?
Too many sides to you,
Don't know which any more.

So many full of life
But also filled with pain.
Don't know just how many
Will live to breathe again.
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 6:46:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/1/2017 10:11:08 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 12/31/2016 9:12:01 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
I agree, the Goods and Services economic model is not accepted in nearly every major country. But part of the problem appears to be that few people in general even know how economics work, which is why they just accept everything the "experts" on TV and in newspapers tell them. And what they tell them is either the Jobs System, or some sort of facist alternative, at least in America.

You think it's just because of what thet are being told? I don't see any reason to think that is the case. If presented with two plans, one where they are guaranteed a job and one where the nation as a whole benefits but they may not be guaranteed as good of an economic future, people will naturally preffer the latter. Because everyone votes for that, that is what is used.

I've argued with a handful of people on the subject. Many of them only look at economics as it pertains to their lives. They have expenses, but no income, so they get a job. The see income as important, and thus are unwilling to support an economic theory in which income is unimportant, what matters is the accumulation of assets. They live in a scarcity mentality, they cannot comprehend having so much physical wealth that they no longer had need for an income. If everyone in the world held $40 million worth of physical goods and services, then there would be no need to labor for an income. But people don't see it that way. Why? Scarcity mentality.

But this is what people are taught. They are taught to go to college, get a "good" job, and then save for a house, car, family, retirement, etc. The American Dream is working until you are 65, then quitting and doing whatever all day long. Since this what people are taught, and since this is what the majority of people either practice or preach, then it becomes widely accepted. And thus, no one is willing to listen to anything different.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Jeb1000
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2017 1:10:09 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 12/29/2016 1:12:53 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:. And the ends to this is the bringing about of a state in which there is an overabundant supply of high-quality goods and services available for purchase.

Well you don't want an over abundant supply since that implies waste. What you want is supply that meets demand. But, supply-side economics does recognizes that we got from the Stone Age to here thanks to encouraging the supply of new inventions, not encouraging the demand for existing products. The demand for food or medicine, for example, is natural and does not need to be encouraged. Thus you must always vote Republican since they know to support supply side economics.
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2017 3:03:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/25/2017 1:10:09 AM, Jeb1000 wrote:
At 12/29/2016 1:12:53 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:. And the ends to this is the bringing about of a state in which there is an overabundant supply of high-quality goods and services available for purchase.

Well you don't want an over abundant supply since that implies waste. What you want is supply that meets demand. But, supply-side economics does recognizes that we got from the Stone Age to here thanks to encouraging the supply of new inventions, not encouraging the demand for existing products. The demand for food or medicine, for example, is natural and does not need to be encouraged. Thus you must always vote Republican since they know to support supply side economics.

I see a couple of problems with your reasoning:

1. An over abundant supply implies waste. What is wrong with "waste"? If there is an over abundant supply of goods and services available for consumption, and they are not being consumed (i.e., waste is brought about) than the production of these things is scaled back, as no one wants to produce something that will end up as waste.

2. new inventions are a form of technology, technology is a commodity, just like food. If we have an over abundant supply of technology, than we have several things being invented constantly, things that make quality of life better ans better (this is, after all, the purpose of technology).

3. You use the word "encourage" a lot. Nothing needs to be "encouraged", whatever that means, there has been a desire for goods and services since the dawn of time itself.

4. The demand for everything is natural, not just food and medicine. We as human beings desire nice things for ourselves, we desire to get as much for as little as possible, this is referred to as efficiency. I could write an entire book on all that humans desire, but anything they desire that isn't given to them without them having to purchase it, falls into one of the categories of either goods or services.

5. You want a supply that is higher than demand, not one that meets it. Things only become cheaper if either they lose value, or there are more of them available. Obviously, the first option is not correct, because if there is more supply than demand, not only will price go down, quality will go up as well, as producers try and make their products better and better to appeal to a majority of people.

6. Unfortunately, Republicans for the most part don't understand economics. And neither do Democrats usually. Both party members talk about how we need to lower costs for things (healthcare is a good example), but then go onto say that we need to create jobs. This is completely backwards thinking. Jobs are an economic demand for a specific commodity, in this case labor. According to the law of Supply and Demand, when demand goes up without an equal increase in supply, prices go up.This raises costs, and makes us poorer as not only a nation, but a world. Our political leaders, no matter what party they come from, should put aside such foolish talk, forget about jobs, and focusing on ways to make it cheaper to produce more goods and services.

Four things come to mind, for a start:

1. Get rid of price controls (minimum wage, import tax, agricultural and oil subsidies).

2. Stop taxing production (income tax)

3. Get rid of several different regulations that impede production (banking industry would be a good place to start)

4. Lower copyright restrictions.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Jeb1000
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2017 11:53:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/25/2017 3:03:26 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
What is wrong with "waste"?

you want supply to equal demand so there is no waste. Waste costs money to produce, is not used, but gets added to price making people poorer rather than richer. Now do you understand??
Jeb1000
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2017 11:57:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/25/2017 3:03:26 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
. You use the word "encourage" a lot. Nothing needs to be "encouraged", whatever that means, there has been a desire for goods and services since the dawn of time itself.

there may have been the desire for goods and services in the USSR and Red China but there production was discouraged and thus people were very poor. Do you understand now?
Jeb1000
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 12:00:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/25/2017 3:03:26 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
The demand for everything is natural,

true enough but the issue is that Republicans encourage supply while Democrats don't. This is why Republicans are supply siders and Democrats are demand siders. Now do you understand?
Jeb1000
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 12:09:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/25/2017 3:03:26 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
5. You want a supply that is higher than demand, not one that meets it. Things only become cheaper if either they lose value, or there are more of them available.

In economics we say we want supply to equal demand.This is called the law of supply and demand. Please don't try to reinvent the wheel. We, for example, don't want bananas going rotten on the supermarket shelf because the market supplied and , paid for more than was demanded and thus had to raise the price of all the sold bananas to cover the cost of the sold and the rotten bananas.

Next, things get cheaper thanks to productivity increases. Food got cheaper when modern farm equipment made it possible for one man to produce what was previously produced by 100,000 men.
Jeb1000
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 12:20:10 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/25/2017 3:03:26 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote: make it cheaper to produce more goods and services.

This is what Republicans do by supporting capitalism. Under capitalism if you are the cheapest producer you survive; if not you go bankrupt. More importantly , they support the supply of new inventions. That is how we got from the Stone Age to here. Make sense?
Jeb1000
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 12:24:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/1/2017 6:46:20 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote: And thus, no one is willing to listen to anything different.

So why not tell us what you have in mind that is different but not bonkers???
Jeb1000
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 12:29:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 12/30/2016 10:39:12 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

I have never heard of a system by this name but the description seems similar to what I have heard called Austrian economics.

Austrian economics is essentially Republican capitalism!!!! It got big after WW2 when Europe had been destroyed by inflation. Thus its focus was mostly on sound money. Do you understand?
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 2:52:14 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/25/2017 11:53:19 PM, Jeb1000 wrote:
At 1/25/2017 3:03:26 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
What is wrong with "waste"?

you want supply to equal demand so there is no waste. Waste costs money to produce, is not used, but gets added to price making people poorer rather than richer. Now do you understand?

Waste does cost money to produce, that is true. But it is not added to prices. It is not a loss to the public, it is a loss to those who produced a product that would not be sold. If they can't sell their products, they will stop producing them. Thus, the supply is catered to the demand, but it is not supposed to match it.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 2:55:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/25/2017 11:57:14 PM, Jeb1000 wrote:
At 1/25/2017 3:03:26 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
. You use the word "encourage" a lot. Nothing needs to be "encouraged", whatever that means, there has been a desire for goods and services since the dawn of time itself.

there may have been the desire for goods and services in the USSR and Red China but there production was discouraged and thus people were very poor. Do you understand now?

Discourage in this case probably means restrictions, and taking away what people produce to distribute it to all. By encourage, while I understand you probably mean "let them do their thing", the word "encourage", when used in this case sounds more like it would relate to subsidies, as this encourages producers (we see this a lot with things like ethanol). Thus, production should not be discouraged or encouraged, it should be left alone.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 2:57:13 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/26/2017 12:00:40 AM, Jeb1000 wrote:
At 1/25/2017 3:03:26 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
The demand for everything is natural,

true enough but the issue is that Republicans encourage supply while Democrats don't. This is why Republicans are supply siders and Democrats are demand siders. Now do you understand?

While it is true that, more often, Republicans encourage a closer version to the Goods and Services Economic System then do the Democrats, there are still far too many of them who talk about things like "creating jobs", and other things that have to do with supply, not demand.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 3:02:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/26/2017 12:09:57 AM, Jeb1000 wrote:
At 1/25/2017 3:03:26 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
5. You want a supply that is higher than demand, not one that meets it. Things only become cheaper if either they lose value, or there are more of them available.

In economics we say we want supply to equal demand.This is called the law of supply and demand. Please don't try to reinvent the wheel. We, for example, don't want bananas going rotten on the supermarket shelf because the market supplied and , paid for more than was demanded and thus had to raise the price of all the sold bananas to cover the cost of the sold and the rotten bananas.

Next, things get cheaper thanks to productivity increases. Food got cheaper when modern farm equipment made it possible for one man to produce what was previously produced by 100,000 men.

Your example could only work if the market in question was the only market in the area. Businesses such as markets can't simply raise prices to cover their mistakes, in this case ordering too many bananas. To do so would put them at a disadvantage to their competitors, who might not have made the same mistake. If the market at fault raised it's prices, they might lose customers to the second market, for want of better prices. The first market has no choice but to count this as a loss, and order less bananas next month from it's supplier.

This again has to do with supply and demand. Since there are more markets (i.e. more supply) prices go down. This is actually how supply and demand works, this is not reinventing the wheel, rather it is looking at the whole picture instead of merely part of it.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 3:11:35 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/26/2017 12:20:10 AM, Jeb1000 wrote:
At 1/25/2017 3:03:26 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote: make it cheaper to produce more goods and services.

This is what Republicans do by supporting capitalism. Under capitalism if you are the cheapest producer you survive; if not you go bankrupt. More importantly , they support the supply of new inventions. That is how we got from the Stone Age to here. Make sense?

As I've said, not all Republicans support capitalism, some only support a watered-down version of it; these are the kind of people who talk about companies producing jobs, and such. This type of thinking is central to the Jobs Systems Model, and emphasizes destruction rather than construction. In other words, the opposite of what you are talking about, which is economic progress.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 3:18:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/26/2017 12:24:33 AM, Jeb1000 wrote:
At 1/1/2017 6:46:20 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote: And thus, no one is willing to listen to anything different.

So why not tell us what you have in mind that is different but not bonkers???

Alright. A system where we emphasize increase of supply, not demand, and work towards the ends, instead of working towards the means to an ends. This is not bonkers, this what has helped bring us to where we are today, and will only take us forward if we use it properly.

I will also make a very controversial statement: Communism and Capitalism, as economic systems, have the same ends, only different means to obtaining them. The end-goal of each system is to bring about a state in which there exists an over abundant supply of goods and services. The only difference is the means by which these systems try to obtain these ends.

The reason capitalism works better in moving towards it's objective has to do with natural law. The law of supply and demand is not man-made, only man-recognized. We live under it, and can either work with it or attempt in vain to work against it, for it cannot be changed, much like the weather or tides of the oceans.

The capitalistic system works with natural law, the communistic system works against it. This why communism cannot work effectively.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 3:21:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/26/2017 12:29:06 AM, Jeb1000 wrote:
At 12/30/2016 10:39:12 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

I have never heard of a system by this name but the description seems similar to what I have heard called Austrian economics.

Austrian economics is essentially Republican capitalism!!!! It got big after WW2 when Europe had been destroyed by inflation. Thus its focus was mostly on sound money. Do you understand?

Sort of. Money is merely a trade medium, inflation is merely brough about when this medium is altered by it's creators, also within the law of supply and demand. When the supply of money is increased, it's value drops, inflation occurs. When the supply is decreased, the value goes up, and deflation occurs.

Deflation is good for an economy, and exists on an almost constant basis in a healthy one. Inflation, on the other hand, is a sure sign that an economy is not running as it should, and this is the fault of the government at hand trying to control it. Of course, this only applies with government created currency, that is, it being the government's error.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
John_C_1812
Posts: 618
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 5:33:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At what point does Plagiarism become counterfeiting?

"Money is merely a trade Medium." If that were true money would have need a serial number as a method of security. It is a receipt on dept. or on service provided.

The issue is if it is for services that are provided unless the service is directly linked to things that are within the scope of governing they create inflation in the form of rising taxation.
Jeb1000
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 11:15:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/26/2017 3:21:49 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

Deflation is good for an economy,

Actually, deflation is very bad. It occurs when money supply goes down and prices go down. This causes depression because there is no incentive to buy anything. It is always smarter to wait till tomorrow when prices will be lower. Now do you understand?

This is why the Fed is charged with causing no inflation or deflation. Hope you get it now.
Jeb1000
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 11:21:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/26/2017 3:18:27 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:. A system where we emphasize increase of supply, not demand,

capitalism is about emphasizing supply, demand, and price. Are you trying to say you are a capitalist?
Jeb1000
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 11:23:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/26/2017 5:33:21 AM, John_C_1812 wrote: they create inflation in the form of rising taxation.

inflation is caused by monetary policy that inflates the currency, i.e, increases the amount of currency relative to goods and services. Thus taxation is fiscal policy and has nothing to do with inflation.
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2017 12:07:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/26/2017 5:33:21 AM, John_C_1812 wrote:
At what point does Plagiarism become counterfeiting?

Counterfeiting is plagiarism of money, specifically fiat money. Plagiarism of fiat money is counterfeiting, plagiarism of a book is not.

"Money is merely a trade Medium." If that were true money would have need a serial number as a method of security. It is a receipt on dept. or on service provided.

Money is an invention of a trading medium. Something of real value in and of itself, like cigarettes, makes excellent trade medium. Money that has no real value, only a representation of value is fiat money. People will only take it in exchange for things of actual value as long as they are confident that others will do the same. To instill this sense of monetary-confidence, governments often back their printed currency with the full faith and credit of the government that printed it. This is the "security" of which you speak.

Money is not a receipt, it is a representation of value. You traded your labor for money for example, and then traded the money for food. This is using a medium, trading something you have (labor) for something you don't want (money) and then trading that for something you do want (food). This is little more than sophisticated bartering.

The issue is if it is for services that are provided unless the service is directly linked to things that are within the scope of governing they create inflation in the form of rising taxation.

Rising taxation does not produce inflation, what produces inflation is when the medium of trade decreases in value, for example, a government prints more fiat money. This is actually a tax in and of itself, one on people who own large amounts of the currency, or medium.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 581
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2017 12:27:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/26/2017 11:15:11 PM, Jeb1000 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 3:21:49 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

Deflation is good for an economy,


Actually, deflation is very bad. It occurs when money supply goes down and prices go down. This causes depression because there is no incentive to buy anything. It is always smarter to wait till tomorrow when prices will be lower. Now do you understand?

This is why the Fed is charged with causing no inflation or deflation. Hope you get it now.

Deflation is not bad, it is the opposite of a tax. When money loses value, and you own large amounts of it, you are taxed as a saver. When the opposite happens under the same scenario, you are getting more value for your money. You are richer, what you have now has more purchasing power.

Depression is not caused by people not buying things. While this is what is taught under the Jobs System Theory, it is not accurate.

Think about this scenario for a moment: You as an individual have everything you could ever possibly need. You have paid in cash for a lifetimes source of food, delivered to you upon your discretion (i.e., when you are hungry). The same goes for everything else you could ever want or need. If you paid in advance, upfront, for every need or want you could ever possibly desire in your entire lifetime, would you ever need to buy anything again?

Of course not. You have it all, what else is there to buy? Think of it almost as infinite credit that you have already paid for.

Now, imagine this were the case for every human being in the world. Would people need to buy things? No.

Here's what this scenario looks like under the two competing economic systems: Under the Jobs System theory, the economy has crashed, we are in a depression (because the markets are not moving). Under the Goods and Services theory, we have peaked in success as an economy.

So, people not buying things when they don't need them is beneficial to an economy, not harmful. When deflation occurs, and prices drop, this is a benefit to an economy because everyone can get more for less, thus, working towards the economy's "ends" as outlined in the Goods and Services theory.

As an added note, I'd like to point out that depressions are not caused by lack of buying. They are caused by theft, which takes one of two forms. Either inflation, which is a tax, which is theft, or bankruptcy, which is where people do not pay back what they have borrowed, thus, they have stolen from their creditors.

You claim to be a capitalist, yet you speak as if you support the Jobs System Theory. This is not capitalism, this is not the embrace of construction. Rather, it is the embrace of destruction. Though several people who believe in this theory claim to be capitalists, their theory is not one that embraces the founding principles behind capitalism, should you look at the entire picture, and not just part of it.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death