An unmet demand however wont lead to any economic impact, so its not a REAL demand, real demand is that which is sated in consumption and can be measured objectively. Your original argument was
"fact of the matter is more jobs don't grow the economy, expanded markets and new markets do." that is a chicken or egg argument because you cant have new or expanded markets without more jobs, its a symbiotic relationship that leads to economic growth.
You cherry-picked the word money and made a semantical argument
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.
GDP isn't perfect but it is effective at giving us an objective idea of an abstract concept.
Ye i could give you the etymology of the word and what it means in Greek that doesn't mean shyt... monopolies existed before modern economies, monopolies can also exist in non-capitalist systems but monopolies are inextricably linked with capitalism, because capitalism has a tendency towards monopoly, it is the END GAME that a business strives for, the ideal market condition.
Cronyism runs rampant in a free market, when the government has no regulatory power AT ALL, that's when you get corporatism. removing regulation is not the answer to crony capitalism.
yes the demand is still real, not fake or whatever you want to claim.
Demand is met when it is supplied, but the act of the market indicating a demand is still real.
My original argument hasn't really been disproved or really addressed by you, you attempt to sidestep it, but you never address the logical point. Will a firm enter a estalblished market or enter a new market if knows there is no demand for the production in said market? The answer is clearly no.
With my previously analogy, if I make wooden teeth today and hire a factory and workers to make them, if there is no demand has the economy grown? No, I will be out of business, why? Because I misallocated my investment in a market in which there was no demand, and the market rejected me.
I didn't cherry pick anything, I"m getting to the underlying problem with your reliance on everything outside of the essential fact that market growth or market creation is the only thing that increases the size of an economy. Money doesn't, jobs don't.
GDP isn't perfect at all, and it doesn't provide objectivity or a good measure of economic health.
You could give me the greek origin of the word, and if you did you would be right, just like I was factually right about the early designation of what a monopoly initially meant, not just domination of the market, but government enabled domination of a market.
Yes monopolies can exist in non-capitalist system, they typically do, its easier to form in non-capitalist systems where you can create artificial barriers of entry into markets if you are politically connected.
Monopolies aren't inextricably linked with capitalism as with any other system, in fact in a free market the ability to create a monopoly is extremely hindered, this is why your robber barons of the US worked to create government policy to stop competition, ie capitalism.
Nope monopoly isn't the end game for all business in a capitalist system. Profitablitity is, and even that varies depending on the owner/s.
Cronyism can't run rampent in a free market, because in a free market there is no government link at all with the business class. There for its impossible to appoint buisness insiders to make policy or aid their companies, because there is no government apparatus to do so.
