Thread is still going? Unbelievable
Are we still arguing general economics with no specific examples?
It'd be a lot easier to argue as such e.g.:
"Joe makes $7.59 an hour. The money he makes does not equal an opportunity for savings. If he cannot save he cannot buy a car which hurts the auto industry. The displacement of industry that is located to one specific region makes it difficult to acquire the same job elsewhere. The living cost and distance from Joe's family make it impossible for him to acquire the better job.
The president directly effected this aspect of the economy by.... etc."
That was just an example. It's much more factual and non biased based on facts instead of opinions. I don't even necessarily agree with it. The idea behind economics is to try and buy as cheaply as possible and sell as high as possible. This action while beneficial to the main proprietors directly contradicts the idea that the cheaper something is the easier the entry level for other new businesses. While competition can sometimes be bad for example it created a flood in the market, I find healthy competition is where one price doesn't go higher while another goes lower for different services and products. Low price is only bad if it can't keep up with a higher price. If all things are low priced everyone wins.
I find economics to be highly manipulated. Cheap whole sale costs are primary to retail and the mass commercialized retail market that is of the highest mark up. However, when land is limited and demand gets too high, prices are too high then whole salers themselves raise prices as overhead is swamped by high lease of real estate. When everything is too expensive, everyone loses. Prices can't just climb and climb and meanwhile it's said that the competition is healthy. No the monopoly makes the cost of living unaffordable. Competition becomes too easy for things everyone can provide while it becomes impossible for more difficult limited and exclusive things.
Not sure how the president directly effects this. However, it's impossible to compete with too big to fail businesses. Naturally if something fails it fails and new competition steps in. When it's too big to fail it just means potential investment is lost and the losing "giant" is "refurbished" using the same failing formula as before.
The money needed today and salaries needed today to sustain basic living costs are ridiculous. It'd make more sense if instead of raising the bar to sustain a living if things were more cheap and affordable. The argument is when the wealthy acquires more money they reinvest it in New ventures and lower prices equal less venture in the market and equate to stagnation. This is bullshit, when something is cheap it sells easily. It sells more. People win. And there is no "necessity" for a wealthy person to reinvest their money if they don't have to. Rich people don't have to make more. Hungry people have to make more. Why it's a common argument that the rich are the most motivated is beyond me. It's lower on the totem that the need for more resources is born from. This demand drives the desire to supply more and for companies to grow more.
The richest obviously benefit the most but for more growth to occur the demand to need it must obviously be matched by those that need the resources therefore = the middle of the class system must be able to afford it
How can the next fucking president fix this aspect of a fucked up system?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|