To people who support the Mises institute, we would disagree with such a policy. Economists are not politicans. But you on the other hand, advocate such a thing. I mean, you do talk about “optimal distribution.” And you question it as being moral? I guess if I wanted to use your logic, it is because so that excessive exploitation does not occur. That is what one of those economists would say.
Not to the meaning I intend. You are not arguing with me unless you understand me. Questions about my meaning are quite relevant. Statements about my meaning, when you know it is not my intent, is being oblivious.
What does marketing produce? What is marketing looking for? Why look for demand if there is too much of it? Demand is short of supply. There is no scarcity.
Arman, also note in the Wikipedia article. If scarcity is not affecting products, then the price of products should be very low.
FTA: As informational goods can be copied at negligible cost, they do not need to be scarce. This is why copies of software such as GNU/Linux are typically available for very little cost. However, proprietary software and many other products are kept artificially scarce through intellectual property protection laws, most commonly copyrights and patents.
If something is not scarce, the price should be non-existant, or very cheap. So if there is no scarcity, then high prices should not really exist. Would you argue that? So would you say the cost of making oil is cheap? Or the cost of making all goods very easy to do?
But I’ve never heard of such a thing from an economist. Seem to me that they are all just too busy defending their pet theory.
Limited does not mean that demand exceeds supply. Unlimited would mean low or no price. I am not contending that anything is unlimited, but that no product available has supply falling short of demand. There is no scarcity.
Marketing produces information. You ignored me by saying “why look for demand if there is too much of it?” There will ALWAYS be too much demand. And what I mean by demand, is simply the beggar in the street who wants something, but can’t afford it. That is potential demand. Actually, that is how all goods in one way or another…started off. I mean, cars were once thought of as a “luxury item.” That only members of the super-elite could afford them. Nowadays, everyone can afford them. It is because marketing brought the information that these goods were lowering in price…as well as production(which was the primary factor in lowering prices of cars). Marketing plays an important role in a business. It in some ways, convinces the consumer that their product is better than anyone else’s. That they give you more for your dollar than the competitor. It’s like an auction in a sense. But because there is too much demand, does not mean marketing is useless.
Also, not to the meaning you intend? So I can not “question” your meaning or disagree with it? I have to accept it as fact?
"But I’ve never heard of such a thing from an economist. Seem to me that they are all just too busy defending their pet theory. "
Maybe you haven’t read up on all of them. It might be one of those economists who is being “censored” by the mainstream.
I first notice that you are ending ALL of your statements with “there is no scarcity.” Why do you do this? Secondly, there are plenty of products available that has supply falling short of demand. The effects of seeing this is rising prices. If you see prices rising, that means supply is falling short of demand. Just like how Oil is becoming. Prices are rising because of the difficulty of obtaining more oil. Demand for oil is increasing because countries like China and other second-world nations are developing, and their demand for oil will increase.
Also, limited does mean demand exceeds supply, if you assume demand for goods(economic goods) are unlimited.
It means demand is increasing or supply is falling. Does this statement make sense to you??? Of course not, because by your contention demand is always unlimited and so how can it increase??? And how can marketers seek demand if it isn’t scarce it must be unlimited. You defuse the argument by confusing the argument. You do not seek comprehension but only confusion.
Demand as I mean it and you mean it and every thinking person in the world means it does not mean plain want!! Demand rises and falls. Supply rises and falls. Always supply is in excess of demand. There is no scarcity.
And if we can stop arguing about the meaning of my statement, then we can rationally address the validation for my statement. Your arguments over what I mean are irrational.
So it doesnt matter who’s running a business because whatever the consumer demands the business will supply. If the business owner decided to put piles of doodoo on his shelf he will have done it because of customer demand. It has to be customer demand or he wouldn’t have put it on the shelf. He has no rational thought himself but is a mere manifestation of demand. He is merely an animal, a gopher.
Each entity, whether they’re buying corn and eating it or buying 52 cents and buying more corn, are engaging in a trade. What each does with that trade does not affect the fact, they made a trade. They each chose to trade what they had for what the other had. These trader, both of them, are rational human beings.
If a consumer buys an appple and gets it home and it’s got a worm in it, does that mean he demanded the worm? Did he demand the worm or want a worm-free apple? If he wanted a worm-free apple, does it matter that his wants are met?
Also, I solved your, ‘food protectionism’ advocacy. Fill your basement w/ canned foods and water. If free trade of food continues, it keeps prices lower. If prices are lower it increase one’s disposable income. This increases food security because more money is available for more food. There’s not a lot of people doing this though, is there? I guess there’s just no demand for it. I guess we can have the government demand it.
Arman, can a choice be rejected, ie not taken?
When demand is sought out…
One guy has stuff and he’s looking for someone else that has stuff. He wants to have stuff that other people want so that he’s able having trading power. If two traders have what each other wants, they effect a transaction with their demands. Why is it that one of these traders is the gopher and the other the human being?
What does it mean when one aspires to be in a position to demand (economic definiton)? What term fits that definition?
Because consumer dollars are much more limited than product supply. Trade today is not all equal. The competition over the consumer dollar is fierce. Competition over a checkout, not so much. Customers are not chosen by the business, but the business is chosen by the customer. Demand is eagerly sought. Supply is carefully chosen. Supply exceeds demand. There is no scarcity.
“1.to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right: He demanded payment of the debt.”
What is sought is the authority or means to make the demand.
I made no distinctions about what is being traded.
So who’s the gopher and who’s the human: A trader with stuff and another trader with stuff, trading their stuff for each other’s stuff.
Aspiring to be in the position to demand (eco. def.).
Is there a single word you can use to fit that definition?
or, The aspiration to be in such a position
You’re talking barter then, and not the cash society that we live in. It is a completely different economy.
How does cash remove one trader’s humanness or his ability to think?