Edwird
Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
Edwird...I get what you're saying but think....does it matter what you believe (or I)?
Not usually, no. In any of these discussions, do facts matter? Not usually, no. In any case, it's not "belief," from this standpoint. Calculable aggregate spending is measured, and directly tied to increase in income of a particular sector, not "believed." Sorry to disappoint.
quote:
What matters is...when the cost of production increases beyond the "natural point"...what do producers do?
So tell us, then; what do you consider to be this magical "natural point," advise us of the calculation and its derivation thereby.
quote:
Aim as best as they can to lower costs.
Except when it comes to executive management bonuses, sure.
Next.
quote:
If your electricity costs doubled...would you say (as a private...non corporate citizen)..."fuck it...I deserve electricity....65 degree's be damned I want...no...I DESERVE...I am DUE 75 degrees!!!"
That sounds eerily like "I want, no, I deserve! to pay my workers slave wages!"
Next.
I mean; it's not the same situation at all, except that it's twisted that way in your head. Carry on.
quote:
or...would you close your windows and doors....wear a sweater....chop some of the tree's on your lot....close your fridge faster, and put plastic on your windows?
However slim the difference might be between renting a slum apartment and running a successful business . . .
News you can use;
The value of any job is reliably measured by productivity as obtained thereby. Productivity was historically tied to real wages ever since the end of WW II. That is, until the 1980s onward, whereafter productivity held course in terms of reliable increase, while real wages flattened. The increasing discrepancy between the two is tied directly to management excess in own compensation, and it's measurable, not "belief."
It is also measurable that increase in income is more directly tied to increase in aggregate spending regarding the lower quintiles than else where, which helps the overall economy, even to benefit of rich folks.
Take a geology class and get a clue. Nature favors the imaginative over the dull-witted, though it might take some years to suss it all out.
Nature doesn't care how stupid people are, that's a fact.
If we can't figure out how to take care of our own, WTF is 'nature' supposed to do about it? It's not going to bother, I can assure you.
Back to daily affairs; if every producer or supplier is dealing with the same increase in costs, from whatever the source, it won't matter as long as demand for what they are supplying still exists. If the demand curve says that a bunch of people go away at the instance of a price increase, then so be it. That's what you are saying, even if you don't understand what you are saying.
Increase in national aggregate spending is the wave of the future. That's econ 301 and econ 461.
Latch onto it or be left behind.
< Message edited by Edwird -- 6/27/2017 7:30:39 PM >
|
RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread