His systems would have boom/busts faster now. Even Apple, that used to have a market cap of 1.5 trillion, is hitting it's saturation point. They're heavily based in China too. Theses theories are right wing tinfoil hats. They keep trying and ducking up global economies (because we're all interconnected because of multinationals) anywhere they try it.Our buddy David here is trying to pin the so-called business cycle on Keynesianism, as if an Austrian capitalism wouldn't have recessions and depressions. It's just laughable. Keynesianism wasn't around during those recessions and depressions in the 1800s
@David_TheMan for the prolific posting though, even if it is utter nonsense.
Desire for a good/service can exist at any price point but its not a REAL demand unless the consumer has the money to act on it.... Demand and jobs have a symbiotic relationship in terms of growing the market, like a poster said earlier this is literally us arguing the chicken or the egg, because one is a function of the other. What we do know though is that the more money the consumer has the more desires he can convert into REAL demand, increasing consumption drives economic growth, that is the argument for increase in wages. I don't care what you personally feel about GDP but it is the de facto metric by which we measure economies.
Also, the era of mass production is a bad anecdote to prove your point: it made each individual unit of labor much more efficient by increasing its productivity, which meant the value that labor returned in the form of wages was increased, this is where their eventual growth opportunities laid, since the consumers of the market now had a surplus of value to consume MORE = growth.
The last paragraph is just word vomit, none of what you said is true. A monopoly is a market where their is only a sole producer of a commodity, this is essentially the ideal that a business strives for in a capitalist free market system. Cronyism would run rampant if the government had no regulatory authority, the free market inevitably leads to
corporatocracy....socialism ≠ corporatism
How do ya'll attract this shyt....@DEAD7 I think you're no longer needed in HL breh. We now have a version of you on steroids and with a chip on his shoulder.
And I thought I had a lot on my mind.
Unions were disappearing after the Great Depression era, because people didn't need collective bargaining when the overall free market was establishing itself. Actually, this is pro your argument, but I'm pretty sure goods were a lot cheaper then, so you can have ass low minimum wages, that won't fly right now.
You really need to look up oil prices in the 70's for that answer.
You would have a point if after the depression you didn't see an increase in union membership per the graph you see it traveled up during the 40s and hit a peak , after the depression around 1956, so you seem to be wrong on a factual matter.
I know about the oil prices shooing up in the 70s and more importantly I know the economic ideology behind why gold was delinked from the dollar as well.
You don't understand the way Keynesian economics works to make the first half of your statement. It's not like you just start it, and we all shoot upwards to peak employment. When you have a supply of labor, you increase the demand for it, by increasing the demand for items/commodities that demand labor. Again, common sense. This is why you see the need for unions rise, until everyone is satisfied, which all indications of the 1950's, outside of minorities says they were. Hell, they were so satisfied that a counterculture movement started. Once sated, the supposed need for unions started dropping, while the right wing was setting up its next strike. They would be had no chance in hell, if botch ass LBJ didn't refuse to run again because of Vietnam. He gave the presidency to Nixon.
Demand is simply the want or market desire for the product, it is just as well met as it is unmet. So you are false trying to claim it is suddenly not real.
Demand and jobs do have a symbiotic relationship, demand and the need to fill the demand spur firms to enter the market which in term will create jobs that were not present before. So no again it isn't a chicken and egg argument, demand clearly determines market entry in the first place.
More money doesn't equal economic growth
You think these people are rich because of all the money they have. LOL Your contention is false.
The benefit of money comes from its value and ability to be backed, if we follow your logic to the extreme real world examples of giving people more money like zimbabwe and weimar republic germany would be success stories of the benefits of how a economy has grown because now the people have more money. Doesn't work that way.
Ending with that aside we can say this, again what grows economies are markets being expanded and new ones found, its really as simple as that for already stated reasons, its only that creates economic growth and new opportunities or expansion and higher value placed on currency in hand and in saving/storage.
Actually it doesn't disprove my point and its a perfect example specifically for the reason I gave, it took goods that were luxury and exclusive goods to the extreme uppercrust and made them common goods the working man could afford, which while killing one industry (carriage and horse industry) started up the automobile industry and meet a demand that was already in place. As for the labor value theory, it drove the price down for goods, drove the cost of labor down as well by making every man a craftsman as it were.
The GDP being a poor indicator of economic health isn't just my opinion, it ignores a great deal of economic data for a nation and is looked at that way by a host of economic schools and even the Keynesian school of mainstream economists.
The last paragraph isn't word vomit, its a history lesson about the origin of the word you are using and how it doesn't apply to capitalism
Monopoly originally was said with regard to government ordered favoritism to certain producers.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=gary_richardson
You then say cronyism runs rampent in a free market, how when there is no ability to link government with business at all?
But we do have cronyism is the various socialist corporatist governments of europe and the US today.
corporatism, crony capitalism, simply different types of socialist economic organizations
when its clear i was using money as a substitute for value, because money is the form which value takes in our economic system, giving people more value does result in more consumption = more growth.
