Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's called "the hokey spokie."Every one of your posts on this subject are so well worded that if you were on a debate team, you opponents would have a score of zero.
Well worded idiocy is still idiocy, and it doesn't win debates, at least not until recently
The saddest part is that so many will point to anticipated demand and say that's not demand. If they don't know that "supply and demand" are fundamental to economics, do they know what demand is, anticipated or not?
So now it's "anticipated demand?" When I took economics, the instructor never used this term. The you switch from "anticipated demand" to "supply and demand." Is the "demand" in the later phrase the same as the "demand" in the prior?
You're dancing all over the place, deanie.
Well, the production of the game is exactly what created the jobs, if only long enough to determine the venture was a failure. The anticipation of profit that you say created those jobs only existed because the investor believed their was a demand by a demographic for the game. When the investors learned that a demand for their particular game did not exist, production of the game ceased as did the jobs. Hence it was the anticipation of demand that created the jobs, and the realization of there not being demand that ended the jobs. Do you really not grasp this?
If the demand for the game did not exist...then how did demand create jobs? You disprove your own contention. Obviously what created jobs was the anticipation of profit.
The demand did exist in the minds of the investors, or as I have pointed out, existed in reality but the investors did not execute the production in a way that would make a profit. Other games were successful. The demand for these types of games existed. Why would investors invest in making a product if they didn't believe there was a demand?
If the demand for the game did not exist...then how did demand create jobs? You disprove your own contention. Obviously what created jobs was the anticipation of profit.
The demand did exist in the minds of the investors, or as I have pointed out, existed in reality but the investors did not execute the production in a way that would make a profit. Other games were successful. The demand for these types of games existed. Why would investors invest in making a product if they didn't believe there was a demand?
You're starting to use doublespeak, Camp. Did the demand exist or did it not? Did the game not sell because it was priced at $49.95? Would it have sold if it were priced at $39.95? At $29.95? If it WERE priced at those levels what profits would be realized? Lowering the price might very well increase demand but if doing so decreases the profit generated investor interest will wane. The rule of thumb is that investors won't risk capital on speculative ventures unless there is sufficient anticipated profit to make it worth their while.
There is only one reason why investors invest...and that's to make a profit. If there is no anticipation of profit nobody with a functioning brain is going to risk their capital in the first place. You don't go to investors and announce "we think we can sell 100,000 units of this product next year!"...you go to them and say "we think you can make a profit of $22 dollars on each unit sold and we think we can sell 100,000 units!" If you DO go to someone with a sales pitch about how much demand you foresee the very first thing out of any savvy investors mouth is going to be "can you price that so it sells and if so how much profit do you anticipate?" If that profit margin isn't attractive (and profit margins are affected by things like new EPA regulations and minimum wage increases) then that venture capital will "sit out" until it becomes attractive. We have trillions of dollars of capital presently sitting on the sidelines because there isn't enough anticipated profit in business expansions to warrant risking it.
The demand did exist in the minds of the investors, or as I have pointed out, existed in reality but the investors did not execute the production in a way that would make a profit. Other games were successful. The demand for these types of games existed. Why would investors invest in making a product if they didn't believe there was a demand?
You're starting to use doublespeak, Camp. Did the demand exist or did it not? Did the game not sell because it was priced at $49.95? Would it have sold if it were priced at $39.95? At $29.95? If it WERE priced at those levels what profits would be realized? Lowering the price might very well increase demand but if doing so decreases the profit generated investor interest will wane. The rule of thumb is that investors won't risk capital on speculative ventures unless there is sufficient anticipated profit to make it worth their while.
There is only one reason why investors invest...and that's to make a profit. If there is no anticipation of profit nobody with a functioning brain is going to risk their capital in the first place. You don't go to investors and announce "we think we can sell 100,000 units of this product next year!"...you go to them and say "we think you can make a profit of $22 dollars on each unit sold and we think we can sell 100,000 units!" If you DO go to someone with a sales pitch about how much demand you foresee the very first thing out of any savvy investors mouth is going to be "can you price that so it sells and if so how much profit do you anticipate?" If that profit margin isn't attractive (and profit margins are affected by things like new EPA regulations and minimum wage increases) then that venture capital will "sit out" until it becomes attractive. We have trillions of dollars of capital presently sitting on the sidelines because there isn't enough anticipated profit in business expansions to warrant risking it.
Don't disagree with any of what you have to say. No argument from me. Only difference seems to be that I insist customer demand, real or anticipated, is included as a key element that moves the producers to produce. Might be the dumbest idea for a product ever thought of. Diamond encrusted gold fish hooks might be some idiots idea for a good product. They will only produce them because they believe they will sell. The belief they will sell means the idiot anticipates a demand for the product. The workers that produce the stupid diamond encrusted gold fish hooks will laugh all day while they get paid to make the dumb ass product. Fact will still remain, a nut job saw a demand for the product and decided to produce it. Demand created jobs producing extremely expensive fish hooks.
Now, while I got a smart guy on the line, about that question regarding services or products that exist that don't have a demand for the service or product........
You're starting to use doublespeak, Camp. Did the demand exist or did it not? Did the game not sell because it was priced at $49.95? Would it have sold if it were priced at $39.95? At $29.95? If it WERE priced at those levels what profits would be realized? Lowering the price might very well increase demand but if doing so decreases the profit generated investor interest will wane. The rule of thumb is that investors won't risk capital on speculative ventures unless there is sufficient anticipated profit to make it worth their while.
There is only one reason why investors invest...and that's to make a profit. If there is no anticipation of profit nobody with a functioning brain is going to risk their capital in the first place. You don't go to investors and announce "we think we can sell 100,000 units of this product next year!"...you go to them and say "we think you can make a profit of $22 dollars on each unit sold and we think we can sell 100,000 units!" If you DO go to someone with a sales pitch about how much demand you foresee the very first thing out of any savvy investors mouth is going to be "can you price that so it sells and if so how much profit do you anticipate?" If that profit margin isn't attractive (and profit margins are affected by things like new EPA regulations and minimum wage increases) then that venture capital will "sit out" until it becomes attractive. We have trillions of dollars of capital presently sitting on the sidelines because there isn't enough anticipated profit in business expansions to warrant risking it.
Don't disagree with any of what you have to say. No argument from me. Only difference seems to be that I insist customer demand, real or anticipated, is included as a key element that moves the producers to produce. Might be the dumbest idea for a product ever thought of. Diamond encrusted gold fish hooks might be some idiots idea for a good product. They will only produce them because they believe they will sell. The belief they will sell means the idiot anticipates a demand for the product. The workers that produce the stupid diamond encrusted gold fish hooks will laugh all day while they get paid to make the dumb ass product. Fact will still remain, a nut job saw a demand for the product and decided to produce it. Demand created jobs producing extremely expensive fish hooks.
Now, while I got a smart guy on the line, about that question regarding services or products that exist that don't have a demand for the service or product........
And once again...the reason to produce them is NOT because they think they will sell...it's because they think that they will sell and bring in enough of a profit to justify the risk of capital. If you don't have anticipated profits...then you don't have production!
Don't disagree with any of what you have to say. No argument from me. Only difference seems to be that I insist customer demand, real or anticipated, is included as a key element that moves the producers to produce. Might be the dumbest idea for a product ever thought of. Diamond encrusted gold fish hooks might be some idiots idea for a good product. They will only produce them because they believe they will sell. The belief they will sell means the idiot anticipates a demand for the product. The workers that produce the stupid diamond encrusted gold fish hooks will laugh all day while they get paid to make the dumb ass product. Fact will still remain, a nut job saw a demand for the product and decided to produce it. Demand created jobs producing extremely expensive fish hooks.
Now, while I got a smart guy on the line, about that question regarding services or products that exist that don't have a demand for the service or product........
And once again...the reason to produce them is NOT because they think they will sell...it's because they think that they will sell and bring in enough of a profit to justify the risk of capital. If you don't have anticipated profits...then you don't have production!
Wrong because you have limited your thinking to the pure profit motive and discounted other motives. You are admitting that demand is a key factor and actually a necessity, but you have added unnecessary caveats regarding a profit motive.
Products can be produced by non profit groups and governments without having a profit motive. The demand is the necessity and absolute, not the profit. The demand can exist and production occur without the profit. The profit can not exist without the demand.
Labor is antecedent to capital.
Demand creates jobs.
All the bankers can die and farmers will be fine.
Farmers die and so do the bankers.
I didn't see any Republicans who told this person they were wrong.
So the question is, "Do Republicans see any connection between "demand" and "jobs"?
My personal opinion is that demand if the foundation of every single job ever created in the entire 6,000 year history of the world.
If "demand" creates jobs, then rain creates umbrellas.
Now you COULD make the point that perhaps EVERYTHING should be run by the government or by non-profits but when it's free market capitalism that created most of the world's wealth why would you want to go down that road? Free market capitalism works because it takes human nature into account...having everything run by a central government never seems to work. So why do we keep shifting more and more of our economy into the public sector?
You are correct. When you threw that brick through the glass window you created a demand for two things. One, a new window and two, a window repair person.
You continue to ask questions, but seem unable or unwilling to answer the one that was asked of you. What product or service exist that does not have a demand for it in it's equation? If demand is not the key element in job creation, why can you not name a product or service that exist without that key element?
Rain creates a demand for umbrellas; demand for umbrellas creates jobs producing umbrellas.
Demand creates jobs.
Labor is antecedent to capital.
Demand creates jobs.
All the bankers can die and farmers will be fine.
Farmers die and so do the bankers.
. . . they provide a service almost as vital at the farmers who grow your food. No bankers? Nobody to loan money for seeds and new equipment. No loans...no crops.
Rain creates a demand for umbrellas; demand for umbrellas creates jobs producing umbrellas.
Demand creates jobs.
Then why did people do without umbrellas for millennia? Was there no rain until the last thousand years?
Ignorance creates leftism.
Rain creates a demand to design an umbrella
You are correct. When you threw that brick through the glass window you created a demand for two things. One, a new window and two, a window repair person.
You continue to ask questions, but seem unable or unwilling to answer the one that was asked of you. What product or service exist that does not have a demand for it in it's equation? If demand is not the key element in job creation, why can you not name a product or service that exist without that key element?
Bravo Brian, brilliant rope-a-dope.
Oh, here is what you missed Camp - because you have never had even an introductory course in economics.
{The broken window fallacy was first expressed by the great French economist, Frederic Bastiat. Bastiat used the parable of a broken window to point out why destruction doesn't benefit the economy.
In Bastiat's tale, a man's son breaks a pane of glass, meaning the man will have to pay to replace it. The onlookers consider the situation and decide that the boy has actually done the community a service because his father will have to pay the glazier (window repair man) to replace the broken pane. The glazier will then presumably spend the extra money on something else, jump-starting the local economy. (For related reading, see Economics Basics.)
The onlookers come to believe that breaking windows stimulates the economy, but Bastiat points out that further analysis exposes the fallacy. By breaking the window, the man's son has reduced his father's disposable income, meaning his father will not be able purchase new shoes or some other luxury good. Thus, the broken window might help the glazier, but at the same time, it robs other industries and reduces the amount being spent on other goods. Moreover, replacing something that has already been purchased is a maintenance cost, rather than a purchase of truly new goods, and maintenance doesn't stimulate production. In short, Bastiat suggests that destruction - and its costs - don't pay in an economic sense. }
What is the broken window fallacy?
Rain creates a demand for umbrellas; demand for umbrellas creates jobs producing umbrellas.
Demand creates jobs.
Then why did people do without umbrellas for millennia? Was there no rain until the last thousand years?
Ignorance creates leftism.
Rain creates a demand to design an umbrella
No, it created the imputes.
Words have meanings, too bad leftists don't have brains.
