It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's talk about supply, demand, and billionaires.

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   
This may be a fairly long read, and I will not have a TL;DR though anyone else is welcome to make one.

It seems like a whole lot of people do not understand the concept of supply and demand - So I am here to explain what I believe the case to be, and dispel what I believe to be myths. If you disagree, I'd like to discuss that as well! Open topic, open mind.

Let's get into the meat of this and start with demand.

Demand, in short, is a consumers desire for a product, it is one of two crucial aspects of any economy. In many markets, this is where the entire process starts. People do not desire to grow gardens - They desire to buy groceries, to buy produce from others.
So, consumers are very important here, as they are the ones with the actual money in their pocket, with a desire for a product. Consumers create demand in the fact that they do not have something they desire. But what would their money and desires be without supply?

Supply, on the other hand, is a persons ability to obtain or create and then trade, or sell a product which other people desire. Supply is also very important because it is the other side of this same coin in economics. Supply and demand have a unique relationship to each other in that both must exist for trade to be successful. All capitalistic/free market economies rely on this relationship between supply and demand.

So, going further than this - Who actually produces that which is sold to other? Where do we get supply, essentially?

Some would say the rich, some people may list some major companies...But how true is this?

How responsible is the Walton family for me having cheetos in my cupboard? What role did they play exactly?

Did they grow the corn which was turned into the crisp?

Did they help in the processing of dairy and other plant products in which are combined to create the final cheese crisp?

Did they help in the process of creating the bag in which carries the cheetos?

The answer to all of these is NO.

The Waltons did not create the supply, nor did they create the demand in any case. The consumers are responsible for demand, and workers in general are responsible for supply.

Walmart does create a convenient meeting place for a seller to find a buyer, that is all.

So why are huge companies, and billionaires alike praised so often by so many in this country? What did they do, exactly? Plenty of smaller stores exist in a community before a Walmart comes along and puts them out of business. Plenty of farmers markets and such exist before super-stores come around.

Now this isn't to say the Walmart alone is entirely to blame for putting others out of business, no, the aspect of "going out of business" is also attributed to people on all sides of the equation. The consumers are the most important part of any business, and for whatever reason the consumer chose - The other business no longer viable due to a large enough portion of the "demanders" using their purchasing power to show what is the most preferred in their mind.

I still do not attribute extreme importance to Walmart, however. People have desired to purchase groceries at a market for a long time, and will continue to do so for a long time. There is no shortage of people willing to open a store for people to fulfill their purchasing desires. Walmart is not essential whatsoever - The worker that creates the product is, and the person that desires to buy the product is.

That being said, this next part is where I start to place blame upon Walmart and other huge companies for ills in our economy, including local businesses failing, including our own livelihoods becoming worse off over the years, including trickle-up economics.

It is my opinion that major corporations have hijacked the system and deemed themselves the most important aspect of the economy. Neither the producers, nor the consumers of products. The average person is not educated to know how powerful a consumer is, and society as a whole is not the type to start fighting when life gets hard. We have been put into a position by businesses to "beg" for our very jobs, even if those jobs pay minimum wage, a wage you can barely live on these days. We have been manipulated into a position where we believe that we cannot afford or find another way than to buy groceries at Walmart. We have website after website and news channel after news channel saying the economy is down, that everyone with a job needs to be grateful for that job and that we need to just keep accepting the amazing circumstances we have been blessed with. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, really.

WE ARE THE ECONOMY.

No stupid news channel nor stock market exchange can tell us anything about ourselves - We allow it to, for some reason, but it doesn't make it true. We believe so many things we here in the news and just accept these circumstances as normal. We accept that not being paid a living wage is just "supply and demand".

Those who create the supply, can also demand. Again, this isn't some corporation, it's not some billionaire, it's not some name brand. We, as the ones with the money, and we being the ones who do the producing, have infinitely more power than any company could ever hope to have. We are under an illusion that we do not have this power, we are under an illusion drawn by elites and the rich to believe that we are not the ones in power. That we have no control, that we must barely make it by and make sure to make every dollar go further by shopping at walmart... The truth doesn't matter when it's not seen. Ignorance, complacence, denial, apathy, acceptance, there's a lot of reasons that people as a whole do not know their own power...

I could keep going, but for now, I take a pause to see if my message so far has any merit in the eyes of you fellow ATS members. Let me know what you think.

I hope you all are having a great weekend!

-Deadlyhope.




posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I've tried to say the same thing many times. It's the consumers that create jobs.

If you give a billionaire another billion and there is no increased demand from consumers they will just sit on it- and in fact that's exactly what happened.

If consumers have more money they will create demand which will in turn create jobs. Once the demand is there, companies have no problem managing cash flow to make the supply.

In truth, there are very few companies large or small who when FACED WITH INCREASED DEMAND can not expand due to cash flow problems. Cash flow problems usually are cause by decreased demand.
edit on February 6th 2016 by Daughter2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Daughter2

Exactly, I argue that "job creator" is too often attributed to the rich and powerful.

I create a job by enjoying eating cheetos - along with many others!

Business owners organize places for jobs, they don't create them, we do.

We are nearly every part of the economic machine.

We are educated to believe we are the least important part.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Removed because I took ambien and rambled on about gibberish not related to the op..

My apologies


-Christosterone
edit on 6-2-2016 by Christosterone because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Very ill composed post.

Debate the merit of my points, this isn't about socialism. I did not say anything about slicing the pie equally and giving the government ownership of land and business.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

No one said all wealthy people are evil - it's just giving them MORE money doesn't mean they will go out and hire people.

And if you look at most 3rd world countries they tend to have a small group of very wealthy people along with a large group of people living in poverty - along with very little government regulation.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Daughter2

Wealthy people being evil is only possible faucet of the equation.

Less "evil" is necessary when the average populace is not well educated.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
There's a fundamental problem with this, for people to be able to demand they must be able to afford that demand. Money needs to be in the hands of consumer so they can buy more to create this demand. As all the wealth is in the hands of the wealthy and the general populace is struggling to just get by, there's no money with which to create this demand. It does fall to the rich, because like a sponge they've sucked up all the cash flow.

We can't create a demand so they can expand and create more jobs because we have no purchasing power.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

We still are and continue to be the purchasing power.. Though it's less, now. I am arguing that the fundamental problem could be changed if we allowed ourselves to exercise our power as we are every part of the economic system.

We both consume and produce. The rich are nothing without us.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

There's a balance and the scale is tipped. In order for balance to be maintained as much needs to go up as down. If more goes up and less goes down, then there's no balance and buying power for those at the bottom become less and less til no one can purchase anything. The issue is wages not keeping up with inflation. The rich are shooting themselves and everyone in the foot, but they can't seem to stop hoarding wealth rather than keeping a proper flow balance.

It reminds me of hoarders where they're just not willing to give anything up, even if they know it's for their own good. The people at the bottom live week to week, we spend ALL of our money, it goes back into the economy, we actually do our part, we have to just to live. There's little to no savings at the bottom. For a healthy economy money has to flow throughout it. There's only one place where that flow is being cut off and that's at the top where it keeps building up more and more into offshore bank accounts to never be seen again.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
In capitalism there are two ways to get paid. A worker gets paid to work, that is one way. The other way is invest, or buy something, and then sell it later at a higher price.

Walmart buys all of the stuff they sell. Walmart gets a payday after the stuff and operating costs and wages it has invested in are paid.

That delay between buying and selling and the risk that not enough stuff will be sold is the reason that the successful businessman gets more money than a worker.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

That's what we've been taught, at least.

To let things continue to trickle up, and stay there due to risks and due to effort...

I say it's all taught to us that way to make us think no other business models exist, when I see mom and pop shops pay their workers more all the time. I see better work conditions, higher pay, etc in small markets that big business cannot make a reasonable presence.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
A job is an useful and important thing. A necessary thing in that stuff has to be made and someone has to make it.

However, starting economics from the standpoint of a job is complicated and fraught with deceptive cross roads.

Economics starts with scarcity. Demand follows from scarcity. Supply is an indicator of how difficult or costly provision of a good or service will be. Competition keeps prices low or quality high. The lower the price the more consumers will buy, and therefore the more profit that can gotten.

The maximum number of jobs comes from as many businessmen as possible trying to make money.
edit on 6-2-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
In capitalism there are two ways to get paid. A worker gets paid to work, that is one way. The other way is invest, or buy something, and then sell it later at a higher price.

Walmart buys all of the stuff they sell. Walmart gets a payday after the stuff and operating costs and wages it has invested in are paid.

That delay between buying and selling and the risk that not enough stuff will be sold is the reason that the successful businessman gets more money than a worker.



That theory is fine - there's nothing wrong with a business owner or inventor making a lot of money - it's just decreasing the standard of living so the very rich can have a higher standard will eventually drag down profits for all but the very rich.

That's why money is getting MORE condensed in a smaller population.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Semicollegiate

That's what we've been taught, at least.

To let things continue to trickle up, and stay there due to risks and due to effort...

I say it's all taught to us that way to make us think no other business models exist,


Profit is essential to any business model. Perhaps a profit in gratitude or subservience instead of money is the other business model. The beginning of feudalism.



when I see mom and pop shops pay their workers more all the time. I see better work conditions, higher pay, etc in small markets that big business cannot make a reasonable presence.


Great when the situation makes it the best business.

I think robotics is going to make basic models of products way cheaper, but customization and service of those products will become a new industry.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
In capitalism there are two ways to get paid. A worker gets paid to work, that is one way. The other way is invest, or buy something, and then sell it later at a higher price.

Walmart buys all of the stuff they sell. Walmart gets a payday after the stuff and operating costs and wages it has invested in are paid.

That delay between buying and selling and the risk that not enough stuff will be sold is the reason that the successful businessman gets more money than a worker.



That theory is fine - there's nothing wrong with a business owner or inventor making a lot of money - it's just decreasing the standard of living so the very rich can have a higher standard will eventually drag down profits for all but the very rich.

That's why money is getting MORE condensed in a smaller population.


The standard of living is ONLY increased by more production of consumer goods. Money is a way to coordinate workers, resources, production machinery and customers. Money is worthless without stuff to spend it on.

Rich people having more money means that something has messed up the production process.
edit on 6-2-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You start economics from demand, essentially. Someone wants something.

So, someone goes out and makes that something happen. Because the desire of the other person causes a situation where person A is willing to compensate person B in a way that's worth it to person B.

None of this includes corporations, on a basic level.

I argue that corporations add nothing to the equation.. They just steal from it.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
A JOB CREATOR is an Employer...nobody else.

When a business owner is profiting but cannot handle the work load, he/she has to actively take about 5 legal steps with forms and notices...has to keep records, has to advertise for help wanted, interview, instruct, pay, etc. Etc.

Consumers do not create jobs. Money does not. The worker does not.

Nobody but the EMPLOYER does with his/her conscious choice and subsequent actions.

An employer DECIDES if his/her business is at a place where a new HERE is acceptable after weighing the financial risk vs. reward.

This is not up for interpretation.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You start economics from demand, essentially. Someone wants something.

So, someone goes out and makes that something happen. Because the desire of the other person causes a situation where person A is willing to compensate person B in a way that's worth it to person B.

None of this includes corporations, on a basic level.

I argue that corporations add nothing to the equation.. They just steal from it.


Historically, corporations are good at making something known to be in demand. Typically corporations can make those things cheaper and in higher quantity.

Corporations have a vested interest in the status quo though. Corps like everything to stay the same, so planning is easier and can even be tweeked. Coprs don't like new technology or new paradigms or changes of any kind.

However, without the lethal force power of government, corps can't do anything but offer a better product, which is something that they are good at. All of the bad effect of corps come from the use of gov power.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

So no one is self employed?

Farmers markets don't exist?

No one free lances?

It's absolutely up for interpretation.

What came first, a single man selling potatoes, or a business offering a man a job to sell his potatoes at their shop?
edit on 6-2-2016 by deadlyhope because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join