Obama and His Accomplishments

That's simply innovation. How a product is created is irrelevant to my argument. If the iphone is shit, no one buys it and Apple goes bankrupt. I'm simply referring to the nature of a healthy economy in an argument that's been driven in ten different directions. The premise is this, as I stated above. A healthy economy is most reliant on these two things:

1. Satisfying consumer demand (whether they want an created or one already created)
2. The availability of capital among the consumers

I probably would even argue two is most important as consumers will accept substitute products in order to acceptably satisfy their demand.

As for the idea that concentrating a massive amount of the profit amongst a very select group won't create a greater disparity in wealth, I just have to ask, Are you serious? If I'm running a $10 billion corporation and decide to exponentially expand the pay of my corporate executives and keep the lower level white collar workers wages stagnant while the cost of living increases at a faster rate than lower level salaries, won't I create a group of poorer individuals in comparison.

 

There is still a huge demand for DVDs. Someone else had a better idea as to how to provide it and after some low key success got the financial backing to take it national and crush Blockbuster.

 

Yeah, someone figured out how to cater to demand better, which made the video store obsolete.

 

They created demand for a new DVD service which happened to replace another. Otherwise we're all still going to Blockbuster. A big DVD based company was born and not because of an increase in the demand for DVDss.

 

No, people want DVDs. Creating a better way to distribute them is just catering to that demand more effectively.

Let me go back to my most salient point. A lot has been made about how the real cause of economic boon is large amounts of capital injected into companies by the wealthy to create products that people didn't realize they wanted to buy, but now do because they were marketed to them, etc. Say we have a product like the ipad. If the consumer base lacks the capital for the product, what happens? Which is the most important part of the equation?

 

Let me go back to my most salient point. A lot has been made about how the real cause of economic boon is large amounts of capital injected into companies by the wealthy to create products that people didn't realize they wanted to buy, but now do because they were marketed to them, etc. Say we have a product like the ipad. If the consumer base lacks the capital for the product, what happens? Which is the most important part of the equation?

 

I don't know why everyone is playing dumb with what you are saying, Unimane. I don't think they truly disagree with your vehicle, they just don't want to give it credence.

 

I'm not exactly shocked that a sports board in Tennessee isn't exactly jibing with my viewpoints. Were I to post on the Oregonians who Love the Lilith Fair Tour, I'm sure my responses might be a little differently received. Of course, I [uck fay]ing hate Tori Amos.

 

Because he's argued demand side Econ all day. The demand creates supply.

What he doesnt take into account in his wealth analysis is the fact that there is a greater supply of workers in other areas to make said products at a cheaper rate. Why pay person X $20 and hour when person Y will make it for $2 an hour in possibly a more effective way?

 

I have always been under the impression that demand from consumers determine what is and what isn't produced. Companies can produce a product that the consumers may not specifically demand, per se. But that product will satisfy at least one consumer demand if not more. I'm sure consumers didn't tell Steve Jobs that they specifically wanted the iPad. However, Jobs was well aware that there were consumer demands that weren't being satisfied by desktops, laptops, or iPods. As a result, he set out to satisfy that demand by producing a product that he knew would address consumer demands. I just can't see the logic behind blindly producing a product solely in the hopes that through intense marketing consumers will be convinced they want it. That's way too much of a crap shoot. I see it that all products produced have a firm foundation based in meeting a known demand. They may meet that demand in unexpected ways, but they meet demands none-the-less. Also, with the NetFlix/Blockbuster examples, Blockbuster met the demand of a public that wanted a cheaper way to watch movies. Netflix met that demand in a more efficient, convenient, and cheaper way. They didn't create the demand for watching dvds. They improved upon the way that demand was met and destroyed brick and mortar dvd rental stores.

 

I think your continued attack on Tennesseeans and their political and intellectual aptitude is both misleading and wrong. Whenever you say something I might want to agree with, you follow it with condescension about a state many of us love and care deeply about for a number of reasons. Moreover, many of us on this board left the state of Tennessee for education, work, family and so on. Some of us came back; others left for good. The board includes lawyers, professors, educators of various stripes, preachers, businesspersons, PhDs, JDs, MDs, MBAs, and so on. In short, this isn't a board full of rubes. Another of the more prominent posters in this thread who has vehemently disagreed with you grew up and resides in California! of all places, not exactly a bastion of social conservatism.

So, to be frank, just because someone isn't buying the bill of goods Barack Obama is selling is not an indication they are influenced by their overarching "Tennesseeaness". It could be that they just think your argument is wrong. Which is a perfectly valid way to interact on the board, I think.

 

"My continued attack"? What the hell are you talking about? It's a sports board in Tennessee, which means it's likely very conservative in its makeup. It also means that it's likely the opposite of my very liberal viewpoint, unlike what I would expect to see on a Oregon board full of feminists listening to Sarah McLachlan playing guitar. Hence, I would expect to see something other than constant disagreeing commentary every time I express an idea were I to post there.

I mean, please, you think that those guys who "just think you are wrong" haven't attacked my "intellectual aptitude"? Where was this little diatribe when I was getting that treatment? I mean, I simply thought they were wrong and it's a valid way to interact on the board, right?

 

The bottom line I was reading was that there would be no market for anything other than necessities, if the only thing the masses can afford (or not) are necessities. I don't think that is radical or communist. There is a reason why there are dollar stores all over the rural South, and not Apple stores.

 

Who's playing dumb? This is the basis of Obama's idiotic bottom up financing commentary. Money for the masses isn't available in any way whatsoever without investment capital. There is no justifiable argument whatsoever to justify it. The idea that there are millions of theories is silly. Among economic scholars, there aren't millions of ideas.

See, demand has always been constant for need or want filling products. Finding a way to fill that demand in an economic system has always been the fight.

 

School.

 

which is the very definition of economics.

 

Unimane, why is it that every time you discuss something your lead-in is always the same: 1) You are the board's resident liberal; 2) Since you live in Tennessee you feel "isolated" for your views; 3) Since you teach about these things for a living no one can question your authority.

Just make your point. No one cares that you grew up in the liberal wonderland that is Wisconsin and you are now forced to live among the hillbillies of Tennessee. Go back and read your posts if you don't see that implied throughout.

 

Implied?

 

made no sense to me. If you're arguing that products tend to find demand, then you're right, but makes no sense to assume demand drove the Dollar store founding. It took someone's money to make that place happen and not vice versa.

Your argument would seem to imply that the Russians could have used demand to end the market malaise that destroyed their hegemony. They couldn't and didn't and are still effectively a third world country. Something made it happen that way. Same thing happened in China, until the transfer of capital let the demand make a difference. Again, one begets the other and not vice versa.