February 10, 2014

Say's Law of Markets, And Why Money and Wealth Are Not the Same Thing
— Monty

Jean-Baptiste Say, an 18th-century economist and follower of Adam Smith, recognized one of the most fundamental laws in all economics: the entirely common-sense observation that consumption requires production. This axiom is called Say's Law of Markets.

However, this axiom is often mis-stated as "production creates its own demand". This is incorrect -- production is necessary for consumption to take place, but production anticipates demand, it does not cause it. Production is speculative in this sense. The simple act of producing some good or service does not, in and of itself, create demand for that good or service. (This is true even for basic commodities.)

What Say's Law really says is that production is the source of wealth. Market-driven production creates value and provides choice to consumers. Inventors and innovators bring new products to market, and as consumers are exposed to these new products, demand rises with the utility or desirability of these new products. New markets are opened by innovators who are able to tap into needs and wants that consumers didn't even know they had until a new product or service is offered. This matters because many people (particularly Keynesians) tend to think of an economy in consumption-centric terms. This is the whole idea behind monetary stimulus: if people have more money to spend, they'll spend this money on goods and services, and the increased demand will invigorate production/supply. But this worldview comes into conflict with Say's Law, because it is on the production side that value is created and where innovation takes place.

Keynesians, especially those of the modern school, tend to use "money" and "wealth" interchangeably. Because they think of "wealth" in terms of consumption, they tie wealth directly to purchasing power: how many goods and services a consumer can buy. Ergo, more money equals more wealth because you can buy more stuff with more money.

This line of reasoning completely misunderstands what wealth really is. Wealth is only loosely connected to money, believe it or not. Wealth is a more complex notion, and is only partly measured by purchasing power.

So what is "wealth", really? (I could write a whole book on the difference between "wealth" and "money", but I'll try to boil it down.) Wealth is options. Wealth is choice. Wealth is variety. Wealth is agency - being able to do what you want to do when you want to do it. Wealth is surfeit - having more than the essentials of life. It is comfort, leisure, ease - or at least the agency and option (those words again) to avail oneself of leisure. Simply put, wealth is stored value that can be drawn down in various ways, only some of which involve the exchange of money for goods and services. And how is wealth created? Through production, because production must necessarily precede consumption.

Money correlates with wealth because money is a medium of exchange and a store of value. Rich people have a lot of money because they are wealthy, not the other way around. Wealth allows us to buy a bigger house or better car or nicer furniture. It pays for a nice dinner for two at an upscale restaurant. Note well: wealth buys these things, not money per se. Consumption is the draw-down of wealth, not the simple expenditure of money.

Money is the oil in the machine of an economy, but money is not in and of itself wealth. If I am stranded on a desert island with a thousand gold coins, I am just as poor as if I were a homeless vagrant living in an alleyway somewhere, because I cannot exchange my gold for things I want or need. It does not give me options or variety or comfort. My gold facilitates neither production nor consumption absent a market mechanism that makes use of it.

So: back to Say's Law of Markets. Wealth lies in production because it is production of goods and services which creates value. As a consumer, I have a vast array of choices in a free-market economy: I can buy an Apple iPad or a Samsung tablet; I can buy a Toyota car or a Ford truck; I can live in an apartment or a house (or a tent or a box over a subway grate). Consumption drains my wealth; production enhances it. I work at a job (production) to create wealth, and then expend that wealth buying goods and services. It's my choice as to what kind of balance I want to strike between production and consumption; if I want to increase my wealth, I must produce more value than I consume. This is as true for an entire economy as it is for an individual. (And "value" is the all-important word in that sentence. Producing goods of little to no value, or of negative value, will actually decrease net wealth due to the consumption of raw materials, time, and other inputs.)

Say's Law does not guarantee success on the production side, needless to say. If I decide to produce popsicle-stick models of the Eiffel Tower, or anchovy-flavored ice-cream, there may not be enough of a demand for those things to allow me to make a profit. Demand may not coalesce around a new product or service even if I invest a lot of money, time and energy into it; I may simply have miscalculated the latent demand. In such cases, my initiative will fail and I will need to try something else. This is Schumpeterian "creative destruction" at work, and it is how "failure" contributes to economic growth and dynamicism. Perhaps my next venture as a producer will succeed, and perhaps it will not, but I won't know until I try. (This is where the "risk vs reward" aspect of a market economy comes into play.)

But here's the key point: even a failed venture creates at least some value. Something new is brought into the world, something that did not exist before. The failed venture added some value to the market, even if that value was not enough to satisfy the need for profit (and may not even have offset the costs of the inputs). It is up to the producer to set a minimum bar for profitability. The criteria for "success" may vary, and may not be predicated on monetary profit -- the venture may be conducted for charitable reasons, or perhaps because the producer is already a billionaire and wants to spend his fortune doing something he likes regardless of profit. Ultimately, though, a productive venture must create value of some kind to be successful. In the case of the billionaire, we cannot call a loss-making enterprise "production" because wealth is being consumed rather than created.

Only the production of goods and services can actually create wealth, as opposed to the transfer of wealth, which is generally accomplished via government taxation. (And wealth-creation is by no means guaranteed or inevitable.) Money exists as a way to keep tabs on how much wealth exists, and to facilitate the movement of goods and services in the marketplace, but it does not in and of itself confer wealth.

fatcat

Posted by: Monty at 06:15 AM | Comments (333)
Post contains 1213 words, total size 7 kb.

1 ?

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl 17 days (2wks 3days) until spring training at February 10, 2014 06:16 AM (u8GsB)

2 Excellent article, and what the hell happened to that cat?!

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at February 10, 2014 06:18 AM (dSlfO)

3 Alright, what asshole inflated the cat, and is it starting to float yet?

Posted by: tcn at February 10, 2014 06:20 AM (fwcEs)

4 Oh, and Obamanomics Law says, all yer moneys are belong to us.

Posted by: tcn at February 10, 2014 06:21 AM (fwcEs)

5 Wow,that cat is a beachball.

Posted by: steevy at February 10, 2014 06:21 AM (zqvg6)

6 So-o-o-o-o, when I give trillions in taxpayer money to my cronies, everyone does better... I knew it!!!

Posted by: Barack Obama, Super-Genius at February 10, 2014 06:22 AM (0cMkb)

7 That is the Ashley Judd of cats.

Posted by: Waterhouse at February 10, 2014 06:22 AM (t8ySh)

8 I'm filled with a wealth of Little Friskies. *burp*

Posted by: Fat Cat at February 10, 2014 06:23 AM (0cMkb)

9 That is the Ashley Judd of cats. i beg to differ.

Posted by: Kirstie Alley at February 10, 2014 06:23 AM (0cMkb)

10 Two other major economic principles that the Statists don't want you to know: 

1. Prices fall to market-clearing levels.  (This is also from Say, incidentally.  This simple idea completely destroys the idea of the "just price," or the idea that prices have a moral component at all.) 

2. Inflation is not uniform.  People who are closest to the source of the creation of new money enjoy a disproportionate benefit.  This is because it takes TIME for new money to propagate throughout an economy, and the first users of the money get the benefit of it at the old prices, before prices have been bid up. This is why there is so much artificial wealth in New York and Washington, D.C. -- it's closest to where new money is created and injected into the economy. 

Posted by: Phinn at February 10, 2014 06:25 AM (KOGmz)

11 Fuck you,it's my winter coat! Sensitive Overweight Cat

Posted by: steevy at February 10, 2014 06:25 AM (zqvg6)

12 Sure is nice to see a doom cat on Monday morning, thanks Monty.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at February 10, 2014 06:25 AM (kxSZr)

13 If I am stranded on a desert island with a thousand gold coins, I am just as poor as if I were a homeless vagrant living in an alleyway somewhere
=======
Not if you're on Gilligan's Island!

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 06:26 AM (VjL9S)

14 Brilliant. I would offer the fact that Keynesians miss this point creates the inability to have any efficacy in policy above and beyond the fact that the transmission mechanism for Keynesian economics is though self serving politicians. Keynesians distribute with an overarching theme; the bottom quintile spends every penny they receive, the upper quintile very little. Push money to the bottom and what do you get? A whole bunch more Happy Meals consumed. Your tax dollars turn to what five hours into the digestive process? The only thing created is more debt.

Posted by: Mac at February 10, 2014 06:27 AM (0J18b)

15 Okay, who let that cat have a 20-oz soda?

Posted by: Michael Bloomberg, Soda Warrior at February 10, 2014 06:27 AM (BOFCM)

16 So, shutting down as much of our resource gathering (lumber, mining) as the greenies can manage, paying farmers not to grow crops through subsidies, and moving all our manufacturing capacity to Mexico and China in favor of 'service' jobs here wasn't the best idea in the history of mankind?

Posted by: Methos at February 10, 2014 06:30 AM (hO9ad)

17
   This properly inflated cat will see an immediate, noticeable increase in gas mileage.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 10, 2014 06:34 AM (SAMxH)

18 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 06:34 AM (PYAXX)

19 This is where the "risk vs reward" aspect of a market economy comes into play.

Which is why leftists hate a market economy.  They want all reward without the risk.  Or more all of the reward with someone else's risk.

It always mind boggled me to see Bill Gates and Buffett move from the market economy to one of govt backed cronyism to restrict the market.  Sure it was to their benefit which is why they do it, but to go the latter route sure is hypocritical and ultimately the death of their companies.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 10, 2014 06:35 AM (n0DEs)

20 But according to Nancy Pelosi unemployment benefits are the source of wealth.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 06:35 AM (g4TxM)

21 Our Diversity is our Strength

Posted by: Bigby's Mittens at February 10, 2014 06:36 AM (3ZtZW)

22 New post title: "The Trouble with Tribbles"

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 06:37 AM (g4TxM)

23 Is that a cat or a giant guinea pig (who might have eaten the cat)?

Posted by: Lizzy at February 10, 2014 06:37 AM (POpqt)

24 In such cases, my initiative will fail and I will need to try something else.
=========
IN all cases, generally true: The one exception is leftist politic--every failure demands additional application of previously failed policies.

You can tell the actual dearth of economic intelligence within the Republican Party leadership on that same point: If--IF--they knew anything at all about economics (and what you've written here) it would be a simple thing indeed to defeat the leftists at every turn.: Mock, mock and mock their intentions while hammering their results.

"Why" should be the refrain, "Why should we reward their failures? Time after time they have told us of their intentions. Even the least-informed among us has heard them. Intentions are irrelevant without responsibility for results--because not one of their programs have any measure of results approaching their promises."

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 06:38 AM (VjL9S)

25 1. Prices fall to market-clearing levels. (This is also from Say, incidentally. This simple idea completely destroys the idea of the "just price," or the idea that prices have a moral component at all.)

Assuming that prices aren't artificially elevated (If I can buy scorpion antivenum produced in Mexico here for $60,000 a dose and $50 a dose in Mexico, only the conspiracy of the health industry and government prevents me from buying it direct and driving it over the border myself for resale), this is true.

Posted by: Methos at February 10, 2014 06:38 AM (hO9ad)

26 Production is necessary but not sufficient for consumption. <-- shorter

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 56% more DOOM! at February 10, 2014 06:38 AM (09o/X)

27 Only the production of goods and services can actually create wealth, as opposed to the transfer of wealth, which is generally accomplished via government taxation. Yep. Government, at its best, is a symbiotic parasite on the economy.

Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at February 10, 2014 06:38 AM (HtsKA)

28 That cat has a surfeit of adipose tissue.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 10, 2014 06:40 AM (32Scy)

29 Just went through a failure of a venture backed startup (funded by a Batman villain, of all people) and I would say that it produced some knowledge, I guess. Pissed away a few million bucks that belonged to people who could afford it. But yeah, it doesn't mean if you make it people will buy it.

Posted by: blaster at February 10, 2014 06:41 AM (4+AaH)

30 Don't H8.  I'm just big boned.

Posted by: Curvy Cat at February 10, 2014 06:41 AM (BAS5M)

31 Yep. Government, at its best, is a symbiotic parasite on the economy.

And that, only when it is vanishingly small.

Posted by: Methos at February 10, 2014 06:42 AM (hO9ad)

32 Build it and they will come. Mandatory quote : You didn't build that!

Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 10, 2014 06:42 AM (aDwsi)

33 One aspect of wealth that the left loves to ignore is the temporal aspect of it. They see "money" or wealth as instantaneous, so wealth that is "sitting around not doing anything" is, to them, a commodity to be used. Hence their infatuation with 'stimulus' concepts. The notion of storing up "wealth" to be used later in one's life for sustenance, shelter, etc during one's non-productive years is evil. Putting something away for a rainy day is a concept that is lost on them.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 06:42 AM (g4TxM)

34 but to go the latter route sure is hypocritical and ultimately the death of their companies. Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 10, 2014 10:35 AM (n0DEs) "In the long run, we are all dead."

Posted by: John Maynard Keynes at February 10, 2014 06:43 AM (bb5+k)

35 So much economic truth in this post, so few politicians with the brains to understand it...

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 10, 2014 06:44 AM (0HooB)

36 "Ergo, more money equals more wealth because you can buy more stuff with more money."

Well, wheelbarrow manufacturers did well back in the day ...

Posted by: Weimar Germany at February 10, 2014 06:45 AM (JBggj)

37 Nice to see you and Doom Kitteh here again Monty

I hope you're planning to visit more often, like weekly. So many of us need Doom Kitteh

Posted by: kbdabear at February 10, 2014 06:45 AM (aTXUx)

38

Man, this past week's posts on work, wealth and value should be bundled into an Economics course for Hillsdale college. Syrias, you guys, there have been some real treasures by Ace and the cobs. Thank you, Monty, for this post. I am not sure I completely agree that production = wealth creation per se, but I will agree that wealth creation cannot occur without production. That is, production is a necessary cause of wealth, but I am trying to determine if it is a sufficient cause.

 

You touched on this regarding wealth destruction, but I'll give it more thought.

Posted by: Virginia SoCon at February 10, 2014 06:46 AM (+/C3g)

39 Jean Baptiste was a pirate! Isn't there a bar named after him in New Orleans? Come on...let's all go down there and drink some absinthe.

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 10, 2014 06:46 AM (NRYdU)

40 I'm a BBF (Big Beautiful Feline).  Accept me.

Posted by: Curvy Cat at February 10, 2014 06:46 AM (BAS5M)

41 The notion of storing up "wealth" to be used later in one's life for sustenance, shelter, etc during one's non-productive years is evil. Putting something away for a rainy day is a concept that is lost on them. Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 10:42 AM (g4TxM) Yep, and too many on the left think of the total amount of money circulating in the economy as fixed, ergo "rich, evil, republicans are 'hoarding' money from the rest of us."

Posted by: Mainah at February 10, 2014 06:47 AM (659DL)

42 33 *adds to file of AoSHQ quotable observations *

Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 10, 2014 06:47 AM (aDwsi)

43 Putting something away for a rainy day is a concept that is lost on them.

They seem to understand it for themselves; they've all got family trusts. 

They just don't want the rest of us to be able to do it.

Posted by: HR at February 10, 2014 06:47 AM (ZKzrr)

44 35 So much economic truth in this post, so few politicians with the brains to understand it... Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 10, 2014 10:44 AM (0HooB) Or the voting public which elect them.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 06:47 AM (bb5+k)

45 Posted by: Weimar Germany>>

You got nothing on me bitch.

Trillion dollar bill!!11!!!

Posted by: Zimbabwe at February 10, 2014 06:47 AM (TI3xG)

46 >>>>
Posted by: John Maynard Keynes at February 10, 2014 10:43 AM (bb5+k)
<<<<<

Keynsian!

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 10, 2014 06:48 AM (n0DEs)

47

There are a lot of big-sounding words in this post.

 

Can we go back to talking about pie?

 

I can still buy pie with money, right?

Posted by: Joe Biden at February 10, 2014 06:48 AM (XxAYS)

48 Yep. Government, at its best, is a symbiotic parasite on the economy. That point was passed a long time ago. These days, government has become so large, expensive and intrusive that it indeed can control the economy. Just not in a positive way.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 10, 2014 06:48 AM (0HooB)

49

So there's no demand for pie until someone makes the pie?

 

I find that hard to believe.

 

I'm always hungry for pie even if it isn't made yet.

 

Pie is good.

Posted by: Joe Biden at February 10, 2014 06:50 AM (XxAYS)

50

So there's no demand for pie until someone makes the pie?

 

I find that hard to believe.

 

I'm always hungry for pie even if it isn't made yet.

 

Pie is good.

Posted by: Joe Biden at February 10, 2014 06:50 AM (XxAYS)

51

So there's no demand for pie until someone makes the pie?

 

I find that hard to believe.

 

I'm always hungry for pie even if it isn't made yet.

 

Pie is good.

Posted by: Joe Biden at February 10, 2014 06:50 AM (XxAYS)

52

So there's no demand for pie until someone makes the pie?

 

I find that hard to believe.

 

I'm always hungry for pie even if it isn't made yet.

 

Pie is good.

Posted by: Joe Biden at February 10, 2014 06:50 AM (XxAYS)

53

I am not sure I completely agree that production = wealth creation per se, but I will agree that wealth creation cannot occur without production.

------------

Wealth-creation is more nuanced than I explained in my post, but a fuller explanation would have required way more words. And ultimately, I stand by my forumulation: production is the source of wealth. My wealth may be augmented by *other* production than my own (via investment), but it's still production.

 

Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 06:50 AM (4Pleu)

54

I am not sure I completely agree that production = wealth creation per se, but I will agree that wealth creation cannot occur without production.

------------

Wealth-creation is more nuanced than I explained in my post, but a fuller explanation would have required way more words. And ultimately, I stand by my forumulation: production is the source of wealth. My wealth may be augmented by *other* production than my own (via investment), but it's still production.

 

Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 06:50 AM (4Pleu)

55

I am not sure I completely agree that production = wealth creation per se, but I will agree that wealth creation cannot occur without production.

------------

Wealth-creation is more nuanced than I explained in my post, but a fuller explanation would have required way more words. And ultimately, I stand by my forumulation: production is the source of wealth. My wealth may be augmented by *other* production than my own (via investment), but it's still production.

 

Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 06:50 AM (4Pleu)

56

I am not sure I completely agree that production = wealth creation per se, but I will agree that wealth creation cannot occur without production.

------------

Wealth-creation is more nuanced than I explained in my post, but a fuller explanation would have required way more words. And ultimately, I stand by my forumulation: production is the source of wealth. My wealth may be augmented by *other* production than my own (via investment), but it's still production.

 

Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 06:50 AM (4Pleu)

57 Fuck you,it's my winter coat!
Sensitive Overweight Cat Posted by: steevy

And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary.

Posted by: Bruce at February 10, 2014 06:51 AM (ldUl0)

58 Fuck you,it's my winter coat!
Sensitive Overweight Cat Posted by: steevy

And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary.

Posted by: Bruce at February 10, 2014 06:51 AM (ldUl0)

59 Fuck you,it's my winter coat!
Sensitive Overweight Cat Posted by: steevy

And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary.

Posted by: Bruce at February 10, 2014 06:51 AM (ldUl0)

60 Fuck you,it's my winter coat!
Sensitive Overweight Cat Posted by: steevy

And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary.

Posted by: Bruce at February 10, 2014 06:51 AM (ldUl0)

61 Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 10:42 AM (g4TxM) Worse, it shows complete ignorance of what "putting money away for a rainy day" actually means. They hear that term and they think of money under mattresses, or in coffee tins buried in the back yard. What they don't see is that it's really "investment." Oh, sure, some of it is liquid capital, but most "wealth" of "the wealthy" is invested in various interest-bearing instruments- which is to say other people are using that wealth *now* to create more wealth. Smith, Say, and Bastiat. Three big minds that I'm pretty sure no Liberal really understands.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 06:51 AM (PYAXX)

62 Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 10:42 AM (g4TxM) Worse, it shows complete ignorance of what "putting money away for a rainy day" actually means. They hear that term and they think of money under mattresses, or in coffee tins buried in the back yard. What they don't see is that it's really "investment." Oh, sure, some of it is liquid capital, but most "wealth" of "the wealthy" is invested in various interest-bearing instruments- which is to say other people are using that wealth *now* to create more wealth. Smith, Say, and Bastiat. Three big minds that I'm pretty sure no Liberal really understands.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 06:51 AM (PYAXX)

63 Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 10:42 AM (g4TxM) Worse, it shows complete ignorance of what "putting money away for a rainy day" actually means. They hear that term and they think of money under mattresses, or in coffee tins buried in the back yard. What they don't see is that it's really "investment." Oh, sure, some of it is liquid capital, but most "wealth" of "the wealthy" is invested in various interest-bearing instruments- which is to say other people are using that wealth *now* to create more wealth. Smith, Say, and Bastiat. Three big minds that I'm pretty sure no Liberal really understands.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 06:51 AM (PYAXX)

64 Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 10:42 AM (g4TxM) Worse, it shows complete ignorance of what "putting money away for a rainy day" actually means. They hear that term and they think of money under mattresses, or in coffee tins buried in the back yard. What they don't see is that it's really "investment." Oh, sure, some of it is liquid capital, but most "wealth" of "the wealthy" is invested in various interest-bearing instruments- which is to say other people are using that wealth *now* to create more wealth. Smith, Say, and Bastiat. Three big minds that I'm pretty sure no Liberal really understands.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 06:51 AM (PYAXX)

65

34: ""In the long run, we are all dead.""

 

Not if we intend to live on through our children. 

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (v6cwT)

66

34: ""In the long run, we are all dead.""

 

Not if we intend to live on through our children. 

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (v6cwT)

67

34: ""In the long run, we are all dead.""

 

Not if we intend to live on through our children. 

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (v6cwT)

68

34: ""In the long run, we are all dead.""

 

Not if we intend to live on through our children. 

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (v6cwT)

69 Of all the posters at the HQ, I think Monty os the best. I always learn something.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (xNEka)

70 Of all the posters at the HQ, I think Monty os the best. I always learn something.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (xNEka)

71 Of all the posters at the HQ, I think Monty os the best. I always learn something.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (xNEka)

72 Of all the posters at the HQ, I think Monty os the best. I always learn something.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (xNEka)

73 Good post. Actually, the way I learned Say's was more or less along the same lines, but I would say it as follows: "Supply CONSTITUTES its own demand" And the central insight coming from asking the question "Why would anyone produce unless there is a desire to consume?" Human nature being what it is, why would any of us go to the effort of producing something unless there is an actual benefit to be had greater than the effort taken to produce? Whether it be a loaf of bread, a pair of shoes, or a Cadillac, the intent of producing those things is either to consume it oneself, or trade it for other goods and services that returns the producer something that is more highly values. In other words, stop burdening the producers, and actually remove burdens (taxes, regulation, etc.) and you will unleash a torrent of wealth creation seldom seen in human history. In short: STOP FUCKING WITH THE PRODUCERS (stop fucking with everyone, really)!!! The French can claim a number of great economists - too bad they can't learn their own lessons, and neither can we, apparently.

Posted by: RomneyBot since 2007 at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (ubkrT)

74 Good post. Actually, the way I learned Say's was more or less along the same lines, but I would say it as follows: "Supply CONSTITUTES its own demand" And the central insight coming from asking the question "Why would anyone produce unless there is a desire to consume?" Human nature being what it is, why would any of us go to the effort of producing something unless there is an actual benefit to be had greater than the effort taken to produce? Whether it be a loaf of bread, a pair of shoes, or a Cadillac, the intent of producing those things is either to consume it oneself, or trade it for other goods and services that returns the producer something that is more highly values. In other words, stop burdening the producers, and actually remove burdens (taxes, regulation, etc.) and you will unleash a torrent of wealth creation seldom seen in human history. In short: STOP FUCKING WITH THE PRODUCERS (stop fucking with everyone, really)!!! The French can claim a number of great economists - too bad they can't learn their own lessons, and neither can we, apparently.

Posted by: RomneyBot since 2007 at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (ubkrT)

75 Good post. Actually, the way I learned Say's was more or less along the same lines, but I would say it as follows: "Supply CONSTITUTES its own demand" And the central insight coming from asking the question "Why would anyone produce unless there is a desire to consume?" Human nature being what it is, why would any of us go to the effort of producing something unless there is an actual benefit to be had greater than the effort taken to produce? Whether it be a loaf of bread, a pair of shoes, or a Cadillac, the intent of producing those things is either to consume it oneself, or trade it for other goods and services that returns the producer something that is more highly values. In other words, stop burdening the producers, and actually remove burdens (taxes, regulation, etc.) and you will unleash a torrent of wealth creation seldom seen in human history. In short: STOP FUCKING WITH THE PRODUCERS (stop fucking with everyone, really)!!! The French can claim a number of great economists - too bad they can't learn their own lessons, and neither can we, apparently.

Posted by: RomneyBot since 2007 at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (ubkrT)

76 Good post. Actually, the way I learned Say's was more or less along the same lines, but I would say it as follows: "Supply CONSTITUTES its own demand" And the central insight coming from asking the question "Why would anyone produce unless there is a desire to consume?" Human nature being what it is, why would any of us go to the effort of producing something unless there is an actual benefit to be had greater than the effort taken to produce? Whether it be a loaf of bread, a pair of shoes, or a Cadillac, the intent of producing those things is either to consume it oneself, or trade it for other goods and services that returns the producer something that is more highly values. In other words, stop burdening the producers, and actually remove burdens (taxes, regulation, etc.) and you will unleash a torrent of wealth creation seldom seen in human history. In short: STOP FUCKING WITH THE PRODUCERS (stop fucking with everyone, really)!!! The French can claim a number of great economists - too bad they can't learn their own lessons, and neither can we, apparently.

Posted by: RomneyBot since 2007 at February 10, 2014 06:52 AM (ubkrT)

77 Putting something away for a rainy day is a concept that is lost on them. This is also the thinking that created "just-in-time" supply chain management. News flash: "efficiency" will cut your throat in a crisis.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 10, 2014 06:54 AM (naUcP)

78 Putting something away for a rainy day is a concept that is lost on them. This is also the thinking that created "just-in-time" supply chain management. News flash: "efficiency" will cut your throat in a crisis.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 10, 2014 06:54 AM (naUcP)

79 Putting something away for a rainy day is a concept that is lost on them. This is also the thinking that created "just-in-time" supply chain management. News flash: "efficiency" will cut your throat in a crisis.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 10, 2014 06:54 AM (naUcP)

80 Putting something away for a rainy day is a concept that is lost on them. This is also the thinking that created "just-in-time" supply chain management. News flash: "efficiency" will cut your throat in a crisis.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 10, 2014 06:54 AM (naUcP)

81 13 If I am stranded on a desert island with a thousand gold coins, -------- If you'd voted for me you could have used those coins to buy weed at the grocery store!

Posted by: Luap Nor at February 10, 2014 06:54 AM (Aif/5)

82 13 If I am stranded on a desert island with a thousand gold coins, -------- If you'd voted for me you could have used those coins to buy weed at the grocery store!

Posted by: Luap Nor at February 10, 2014 06:54 AM (Aif/5)

83 13 If I am stranded on a desert island with a thousand gold coins, -------- If you'd voted for me you could have used those coins to buy weed at the grocery store!

Posted by: Luap Nor at February 10, 2014 06:54 AM (Aif/5)

84 13 If I am stranded on a desert island with a thousand gold coins, -------- If you'd voted for me you could have used those coins to buy weed at the grocery store!

Posted by: Luap Nor at February 10, 2014 06:54 AM (Aif/5)

85 Market competition is a good thing, too.  Having choices also includes information transmitted via the most efficient media channel - advertising.

Central planning was a joke when, in order to expend their entire allocation of steel, Soviet  refrigerator factories built consumer models weighing up to 800lbs.

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 06:55 AM (JBggj)

86 Market competition is a good thing, too.  Having choices also includes information transmitted via the most efficient media channel - advertising.

Central planning was a joke when, in order to expend their entire allocation of steel, Soviet  refrigerator factories built consumer models weighing up to 800lbs.

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 06:55 AM (JBggj)

87 Market competition is a good thing, too.  Having choices also includes information transmitted via the most efficient media channel - advertising.

Central planning was a joke when, in order to expend their entire allocation of steel, Soviet  refrigerator factories built consumer models weighing up to 800lbs.

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 06:55 AM (JBggj)

88 Market competition is a good thing, too.  Having choices also includes information transmitted via the most efficient media channel - advertising.

Central planning was a joke when, in order to expend their entire allocation of steel, Soviet  refrigerator factories built consumer models weighing up to 800lbs.

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 06:55 AM (JBggj)

89 And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary. Which is a problem when it triples your mass...

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 10, 2014 06:56 AM (naUcP)

90 And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary. Which is a problem when it triples your mass...

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 10, 2014 06:56 AM (naUcP)

91 And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary. Which is a problem when it triples your mass...

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 10, 2014 06:56 AM (naUcP)

92 And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary. Which is a problem when it triples your mass...

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 10, 2014 06:56 AM (naUcP)

93 That kitteh is positively rotund.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 10, 2014 06:57 AM (zDsvJ)

94 That kitteh is positively rotund.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 10, 2014 06:57 AM (zDsvJ)

95 That kitteh is positively rotund.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 10, 2014 06:57 AM (zDsvJ)

96 That kitteh is positively rotund.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 10, 2014 06:57 AM (zDsvJ)

97
I would like to add that without the Federal Reserve, none of this big govt crap would be possible, but that would totally be another conversation so I won't add it.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 10, 2014 06:57 AM (n0DEs)

98
I would like to add that without the Federal Reserve, none of this big govt crap would be possible, but that would totally be another conversation so I won't add it.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 10, 2014 06:57 AM (n0DEs)

99
I would like to add that without the Federal Reserve, none of this big govt crap would be possible, but that would totally be another conversation so I won't add it.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 10, 2014 06:57 AM (n0DEs)

100
I would like to add that without the Federal Reserve, none of this big govt crap would be possible, but that would totally be another conversation so I won't add it.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 10, 2014 06:57 AM (n0DEs)

101


And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary.

 

------------

 

Which makes me wonder just how many cameras are on Hillary at any given point....

Posted by: @JohnTant at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (eytER)

102


And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary.

 

------------

 

Which makes me wonder just how many cameras are on Hillary at any given point....

Posted by: @JohnTant at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (eytER)

103


And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary.

 

------------

 

Which makes me wonder just how many cameras are on Hillary at any given point....

Posted by: @JohnTant at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (eytER)

104


And the camera adds ten pounds, just ask Hillary.

 

------------

 

Which makes me wonder just how many cameras are on Hillary at any given point....

Posted by: @JohnTant at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (eytER)

105 Fat cat is fat.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (GjYxB)

106 Fat cat is fat.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (GjYxB)

107 Fat cat is fat.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (GjYxB)

108 Fat cat is fat.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (GjYxB)

109 This is also the thinking that created "just-in-time" supply chain management. Not exactly. In fact, not at all. The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically. Now, it is true that any disruption in your supply chain will cause major problems with JIT logistics, but that doesn't mean it's the same idea as "saving for a rainy day" being a foreign concept.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (PYAXX)

110 This is also the thinking that created "just-in-time" supply chain management. Not exactly. In fact, not at all. The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically. Now, it is true that any disruption in your supply chain will cause major problems with JIT logistics, but that doesn't mean it's the same idea as "saving for a rainy day" being a foreign concept.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (PYAXX)

111 This is also the thinking that created "just-in-time" supply chain management. Not exactly. In fact, not at all. The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically. Now, it is true that any disruption in your supply chain will cause major problems with JIT logistics, but that doesn't mean it's the same idea as "saving for a rainy day" being a foreign concept.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (PYAXX)

112 This is also the thinking that created "just-in-time" supply chain management. Not exactly. In fact, not at all. The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically. Now, it is true that any disruption in your supply chain will cause major problems with JIT logistics, but that doesn't mean it's the same idea as "saving for a rainy day" being a foreign concept.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (PYAXX)

113 I'm still going long on the Zimbabwe dollar in the face of your voodoo economics, Monty.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (659DL)

114 I'm still going long on the Zimbabwe dollar in the face of your voodoo economics, Monty.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (659DL)

115 I'm still going long on the Zimbabwe dollar in the face of your voodoo economics, Monty.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (659DL)

116 I'm still going long on the Zimbabwe dollar in the face of your voodoo economics, Monty.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (659DL)

117 Debt.

The poor have it now. Lots of it.

50 years ago, the poor had very little debt as no one would give them more than a few dollars credit.

Not now.

Average household credit card debt last year was $15k.

I fear, and I'm certain there is data to support this, that the reason welfare transfer payments (stimulus) are not creating and did not create additional consumer spending was because that money was already spent years ago.

So, they (poor and middle class) are using the welfare to obtain the necessities they were previously purchasing with their disposable income and now using their (shrinking, thanks 30 hour work-week) disposable income to merely make the minimum payments on their credit card debt, e.g. interest, not principle.

The consumer borrowed against future production (income)--that never materialized--to fund present consumption. And now the government is furiously borrowing against future production (taxes) . . . .

I'm sure this will end well.


Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (VjL9S)

118 Debt.

The poor have it now. Lots of it.

50 years ago, the poor had very little debt as no one would give them more than a few dollars credit.

Not now.

Average household credit card debt last year was $15k.

I fear, and I'm certain there is data to support this, that the reason welfare transfer payments (stimulus) are not creating and did not create additional consumer spending was because that money was already spent years ago.

So, they (poor and middle class) are using the welfare to obtain the necessities they were previously purchasing with their disposable income and now using their (shrinking, thanks 30 hour work-week) disposable income to merely make the minimum payments on their credit card debt, e.g. interest, not principle.

The consumer borrowed against future production (income)--that never materialized--to fund present consumption. And now the government is furiously borrowing against future production (taxes) . . . .

I'm sure this will end well.


Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (VjL9S)

119 Debt.

The poor have it now. Lots of it.

50 years ago, the poor had very little debt as no one would give them more than a few dollars credit.

Not now.

Average household credit card debt last year was $15k.

I fear, and I'm certain there is data to support this, that the reason welfare transfer payments (stimulus) are not creating and did not create additional consumer spending was because that money was already spent years ago.

So, they (poor and middle class) are using the welfare to obtain the necessities they were previously purchasing with their disposable income and now using their (shrinking, thanks 30 hour work-week) disposable income to merely make the minimum payments on their credit card debt, e.g. interest, not principle.

The consumer borrowed against future production (income)--that never materialized--to fund present consumption. And now the government is furiously borrowing against future production (taxes) . . . .

I'm sure this will end well.


Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (VjL9S)

120 Debt.

The poor have it now. Lots of it.

50 years ago, the poor had very little debt as no one would give them more than a few dollars credit.

Not now.

Average household credit card debt last year was $15k.

I fear, and I'm certain there is data to support this, that the reason welfare transfer payments (stimulus) are not creating and did not create additional consumer spending was because that money was already spent years ago.

So, they (poor and middle class) are using the welfare to obtain the necessities they were previously purchasing with their disposable income and now using their (shrinking, thanks 30 hour work-week) disposable income to merely make the minimum payments on their credit card debt, e.g. interest, not principle.

The consumer borrowed against future production (income)--that never materialized--to fund present consumption. And now the government is furiously borrowing against future production (taxes) . . . .

I'm sure this will end well.


Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 06:58 AM (VjL9S)

121 (pokes head in to see if this thread is free from teh pot argumentz) Nope. BBL.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 10, 2014 06:59 AM (7ObY1)

122 (pokes head in to see if this thread is free from teh pot argumentz) Nope. BBL.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 10, 2014 06:59 AM (7ObY1)

123 (pokes head in to see if this thread is free from teh pot argumentz) Nope. BBL.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 10, 2014 06:59 AM (7ObY1)

124 (pokes head in to see if this thread is free from teh pot argumentz) Nope. BBL.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 10, 2014 06:59 AM (7ObY1)

125

I'm cute and curvy.

 

 

Well, okay, more like spherical but that's belaboring the point.

 

 

Feed me!

Posted by: Curvy Cat at February 10, 2014 06:59 AM (BAS5M)

126

I'm cute and curvy.

 

 

Well, okay, more like spherical but that's belaboring the point.

 

 

Feed me!

Posted by: Curvy Cat at February 10, 2014 06:59 AM (BAS5M)

127

I'm cute and curvy.

 

 

Well, okay, more like spherical but that's belaboring the point.

 

 

Feed me!

Posted by: Curvy Cat at February 10, 2014 06:59 AM (BAS5M)

128

I'm cute and curvy.

 

 

Well, okay, more like spherical but that's belaboring the point.

 

 

Feed me!

Posted by: Curvy Cat at February 10, 2014 06:59 AM (BAS5M)

129

64: "The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically."

 

To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (f6ZLT)

130

64: "The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically."

 

To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (f6ZLT)

131

64: "The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically."

 

To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (f6ZLT)

132

64: "The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically."

 

To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (f6ZLT)

133 Yep. Government, at its best, is a symbiotic parasite on the economy. That point was passed a long time ago. These days, government has become so large, expensive and intrusive that it indeed can control the economy. Jabba the Hut vs. a dietary tape worm.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (GjYxB)

134 Yep. Government, at its best, is a symbiotic parasite on the economy. That point was passed a long time ago. These days, government has become so large, expensive and intrusive that it indeed can control the economy. Jabba the Hut vs. a dietary tape worm.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (GjYxB)

135 Yep. Government, at its best, is a symbiotic parasite on the economy. That point was passed a long time ago. These days, government has become so large, expensive and intrusive that it indeed can control the economy. Jabba the Hut vs. a dietary tape worm.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (GjYxB)

136 Yep. Government, at its best, is a symbiotic parasite on the economy. That point was passed a long time ago. These days, government has become so large, expensive and intrusive that it indeed can control the economy. Jabba the Hut vs. a dietary tape worm.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (GjYxB)

137 Yep, and too many on the left think of the total amount of money circulating in the economy as fixed, ergo "rich, evil, republicans are 'hoarding' money from the rest of us." The concept of creating wealth is totally lost on them. They believe (erroneously) that economics is a zero sum game, and legislate accordingly, which never fails to produce bad or at least, un-optimum results, if any results are to be got at all. Here is probably the worst result of the long march of socialism through the institutions: there is so little accurate and truthful information about economics, and what little there is today is colored by people who don't understand capitalism nor can they dare to believe that anything positive can come from it. It's almost like the 20th Century and its increase in the worldwide standard of living never happened.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (0HooB)

138 Yep, and too many on the left think of the total amount of money circulating in the economy as fixed, ergo "rich, evil, republicans are 'hoarding' money from the rest of us." The concept of creating wealth is totally lost on them. They believe (erroneously) that economics is a zero sum game, and legislate accordingly, which never fails to produce bad or at least, un-optimum results, if any results are to be got at all. Here is probably the worst result of the long march of socialism through the institutions: there is so little accurate and truthful information about economics, and what little there is today is colored by people who don't understand capitalism nor can they dare to believe that anything positive can come from it. It's almost like the 20th Century and its increase in the worldwide standard of living never happened.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (0HooB)

139 Yep, and too many on the left think of the total amount of money circulating in the economy as fixed, ergo "rich, evil, republicans are 'hoarding' money from the rest of us." The concept of creating wealth is totally lost on them. They believe (erroneously) that economics is a zero sum game, and legislate accordingly, which never fails to produce bad or at least, un-optimum results, if any results are to be got at all. Here is probably the worst result of the long march of socialism through the institutions: there is so little accurate and truthful information about economics, and what little there is today is colored by people who don't understand capitalism nor can they dare to believe that anything positive can come from it. It's almost like the 20th Century and its increase in the worldwide standard of living never happened.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (0HooB)

140 Yep, and too many on the left think of the total amount of money circulating in the economy as fixed, ergo "rich, evil, republicans are 'hoarding' money from the rest of us." The concept of creating wealth is totally lost on them. They believe (erroneously) that economics is a zero sum game, and legislate accordingly, which never fails to produce bad or at least, un-optimum results, if any results are to be got at all. Here is probably the worst result of the long march of socialism through the institutions: there is so little accurate and truthful information about economics, and what little there is today is colored by people who don't understand capitalism nor can they dare to believe that anything positive can come from it. It's almost like the 20th Century and its increase in the worldwide standard of living never happened.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (0HooB)

141 Squirrel hides nuts in a Bernese Mountain dog


Isn't this really the story of Obama.


Also the sock



Posted by: Late, Off Topic and without looking for duplicates[/i][/b][/s] at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (DL2i+)

142 Squirrel hides nuts in a Bernese Mountain dog


Isn't this really the story of Obama.


Also the sock



Posted by: Late, Off Topic and without looking for duplicates[/i][/b][/s] at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (DL2i+)

143 Squirrel hides nuts in a Bernese Mountain dog


Isn't this really the story of Obama.


Also the sock



Posted by: Late, Off Topic and without looking for duplicates[/i][/b][/s] at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (DL2i+)

144 Squirrel hides nuts in a Bernese Mountain dog


Isn't this really the story of Obama.


Also the sock



Posted by: Late, Off Topic and without looking for duplicates[/i][/b][/s] at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (DL2i+)

145 By the way, that's not a cat. It's a woodchuck!

Posted by: Virginia SoCon at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (+/C3g)

146 By the way, that's not a cat. It's a woodchuck!

Posted by: Virginia SoCon at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (+/C3g)

147 By the way, that's not a cat. It's a woodchuck!

Posted by: Virginia SoCon at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (+/C3g)

148 By the way, that's not a cat. It's a woodchuck!

Posted by: Virginia SoCon at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (+/C3g)

149 Central planning was a joke when, in order to expend their entire allocation of steel, Soviet refrigerator factories built consumer models weighing up to 800lbs. Thank God they never developed the rail gun. P.J. O'Rourke once noted that a major selling point for attending the Moscow electronics fair one year was the display of the world's largest transistor.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (659DL)

150 Central planning was a joke when, in order to expend their entire allocation of steel, Soviet refrigerator factories built consumer models weighing up to 800lbs. Thank God they never developed the rail gun. P.J. O'Rourke once noted that a major selling point for attending the Moscow electronics fair one year was the display of the world's largest transistor.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (659DL)

151 Central planning was a joke when, in order to expend their entire allocation of steel, Soviet refrigerator factories built consumer models weighing up to 800lbs. Thank God they never developed the rail gun. P.J. O'Rourke once noted that a major selling point for attending the Moscow electronics fair one year was the display of the world's largest transistor.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (659DL)

152 Central planning was a joke when, in order to expend their entire allocation of steel, Soviet refrigerator factories built consumer models weighing up to 800lbs. Thank God they never developed the rail gun. P.J. O'Rourke once noted that a major selling point for attending the Moscow electronics fair one year was the display of the world's largest transistor.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:00 AM (659DL)

153 Not if we intend to live on through our children. Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 10:52 AM (v6cwT) John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual. He had a homosexual's perspective on the issue of continuity.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (bb5+k)

154 Not if we intend to live on through our children. Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 10:52 AM (v6cwT) John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual. He had a homosexual's perspective on the issue of continuity.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (bb5+k)

155 Not if we intend to live on through our children. Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 10:52 AM (v6cwT) John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual. He had a homosexual's perspective on the issue of continuity.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (bb5+k)

156 Not if we intend to live on through our children. Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 10:52 AM (v6cwT) John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual. He had a homosexual's perspective on the issue of continuity.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (bb5+k)

157 Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 10:58 AM (VjL9S) It was never a good idea to have an economy *based* on debt. Sure, taking out a loan to start a business (or for urgent capital necessities) might mean you create more wealth in the long-run, but once having created that business, it is much more wise to build more slowly (without the debt) than to continue adding debt upon debt.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (PYAXX)

158 Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 10:58 AM (VjL9S) It was never a good idea to have an economy *based* on debt. Sure, taking out a loan to start a business (or for urgent capital necessities) might mean you create more wealth in the long-run, but once having created that business, it is much more wise to build more slowly (without the debt) than to continue adding debt upon debt.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (PYAXX)

159 Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 10:58 AM (VjL9S) It was never a good idea to have an economy *based* on debt. Sure, taking out a loan to start a business (or for urgent capital necessities) might mean you create more wealth in the long-run, but once having created that business, it is much more wise to build more slowly (without the debt) than to continue adding debt upon debt.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (PYAXX)

160 Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 10:58 AM (VjL9S) It was never a good idea to have an economy *based* on debt. Sure, taking out a loan to start a business (or for urgent capital necessities) might mean you create more wealth in the long-run, but once having created that business, it is much more wise to build more slowly (without the debt) than to continue adding debt upon debt.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (PYAXX)

161

The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it."

-------

Well, that, and the costs associated with carrying inventory. The cost-to-carry for, e.g., a car-maker or steel producer is very high. JIT production dramatically lowers the inventory costs (as long as the transportation and procurement costs on the inputs don't outstrip that savings). JIT is an art as much as a science.

 

Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (4Pleu)

162

The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it."

-------

Well, that, and the costs associated with carrying inventory. The cost-to-carry for, e.g., a car-maker or steel producer is very high. JIT production dramatically lowers the inventory costs (as long as the transportation and procurement costs on the inputs don't outstrip that savings). JIT is an art as much as a science.

 

Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (4Pleu)

163

The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it."

-------

Well, that, and the costs associated with carrying inventory. The cost-to-carry for, e.g., a car-maker or steel producer is very high. JIT production dramatically lowers the inventory costs (as long as the transportation and procurement costs on the inputs don't outstrip that savings). JIT is an art as much as a science.

 

Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (4Pleu)

164

The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it."

-------

Well, that, and the costs associated with carrying inventory. The cost-to-carry for, e.g., a car-maker or steel producer is very high. JIT production dramatically lowers the inventory costs (as long as the transportation and procurement costs on the inputs don't outstrip that savings). JIT is an art as much as a science.

 

Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 07:01 AM (4Pleu)

165 To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money. Also, the geographically longer the supply line, the higher the cost.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (659DL)

166 To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money. Also, the geographically longer the supply line, the higher the cost.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (659DL)

167 To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money. Also, the geographically longer the supply line, the higher the cost.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (659DL)

168 To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money. Also, the geographically longer the supply line, the higher the cost.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (659DL)

169 The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically.
=====
Money tied up in excess inventory is dead weight, financially.  Money saved by reducing inventory costs can be used for other budgetary items, like employee benefits, R+D, marketing, etc.,

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (JBggj)

170 The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically.
=====
Money tied up in excess inventory is dead weight, financially.  Money saved by reducing inventory costs can be used for other budgetary items, like employee benefits, R+D, marketing, etc.,

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (JBggj)

171 The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically.
=====
Money tied up in excess inventory is dead weight, financially.  Money saved by reducing inventory costs can be used for other budgetary items, like employee benefits, R+D, marketing, etc.,

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (JBggj)

172 The thinking that created JIT logistics is "the longer money stays in my pocket, the more interest I can earn on it." THAT's the same thinking that now has banks all exchanging your money electronically.
=====
Money tied up in excess inventory is dead weight, financially.  Money saved by reducing inventory costs can be used for other budgetary items, like employee benefits, R+D, marketing, etc.,

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (JBggj)

173 To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money. Yep. Why pay to store something that I might not even be able to sell?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (PYAXX)

174 To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money. Yep. Why pay to store something that I might not even be able to sell?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (PYAXX)

175 To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money. Yep. Why pay to store something that I might not even be able to sell?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (PYAXX)

176 To piggy back on this, a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money. Yep. Why pay to store something that I might not even be able to sell?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (PYAXX)

177

75: "John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual. He had a homosexual's perspective on the issue of continuity."

 

Didn't know this. Can't argue with it either. 

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (OJn3e)

178

75: "John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual. He had a homosexual's perspective on the issue of continuity."

 

Didn't know this. Can't argue with it either. 

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (OJn3e)

179

75: "John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual. He had a homosexual's perspective on the issue of continuity."

 

Didn't know this. Can't argue with it either. 

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (OJn3e)

180

75: "John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual. He had a homosexual's perspective on the issue of continuity."

 

Didn't know this. Can't argue with it either. 

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (OJn3e)

181 Monday Morning? Nobody said there would be a test or I'd have to think?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (t3UFN)

182 Monday Morning? Nobody said there would be a test or I'd have to think?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (t3UFN)

183 Monday Morning? Nobody said there would be a test or I'd have to think?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (t3UFN)

184 Monday Morning? Nobody said there would be a test or I'd have to think?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 10, 2014 07:02 AM (t3UFN)

185

Jean Baptiste walks into a bar and orders a  claim  juice.

 

The bartender says, "  Sorry,  we did not anticipate anyone would  ever order that"

Posted by: polynikes at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (m2CN7)

186

Jean Baptiste walks into a bar and orders a  claim  juice.

 

The bartender says, "  Sorry,  we did not anticipate anyone would  ever order that"

Posted by: polynikes at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (m2CN7)

187

Jean Baptiste walks into a bar and orders a  claim  juice.

 

The bartender says, "  Sorry,  we did not anticipate anyone would  ever order that"

Posted by: polynikes at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (m2CN7)

188

Jean Baptiste walks into a bar and orders a  claim  juice.

 

The bartender says, "  Sorry,  we did not anticipate anyone would  ever order that"

Posted by: polynikes at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (m2CN7)

189 Assume a spherical cat ...

Posted by: Physics Problem Set 64A-1 at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (t8ySh)

190 Assume a spherical cat ...

Posted by: Physics Problem Set 64A-1 at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (t8ySh)

191 Assume a spherical cat ...

Posted by: Physics Problem Set 64A-1 at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (t8ySh)

192 Assume a spherical cat ...

Posted by: Physics Problem Set 64A-1 at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (t8ySh)

193 I would like to add that without the Federal Reserve, none of this big govt crap would be possible, but that would totally be another conversation so I won't add it. Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 10, 2014 10:57 AM (n0DEs) I have long suspected that those who advocated the creation of the Federal Reserve regarded it as a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (bb5+k)

194 I would like to add that without the Federal Reserve, none of this big govt crap would be possible, but that would totally be another conversation so I won't add it. Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 10, 2014 10:57 AM (n0DEs) I have long suspected that those who advocated the creation of the Federal Reserve regarded it as a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (bb5+k)

195 I would like to add that without the Federal Reserve, none of this big govt crap would be possible, but that would totally be another conversation so I won't add it. Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 10, 2014 10:57 AM (n0DEs) I have long suspected that those who advocated the creation of the Federal Reserve regarded it as a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (bb5+k)

196 I would like to add that without the Federal Reserve, none of this big govt crap would be possible, but that would totally be another conversation so I won't add it. Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 10, 2014 10:57 AM (n0DEs) I have long suspected that those who advocated the creation of the Federal Reserve regarded it as a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:03 AM (bb5+k)

197 [wanto to make a point before the avalanche]
"And how is wealth created? Through production, because production must necessarily precede consumption."

actually wealth is created through 'trade' for profit trade.

still reading, wait for me, I'll try to catch up. so far am loving this post.

Posted by: It's Magic, he said. at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (IgC46)

198 [wanto to make a point before the avalanche]
"And how is wealth created? Through production, because production must necessarily precede consumption."

actually wealth is created through 'trade' for profit trade.

still reading, wait for me, I'll try to catch up. so far am loving this post.

Posted by: It's Magic, he said. at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (IgC46)

199 [wanto to make a point before the avalanche]
"And how is wealth created? Through production, because production must necessarily precede consumption."

actually wealth is created through 'trade' for profit trade.

still reading, wait for me, I'll try to catch up. so far am loving this post.

Posted by: It's Magic, he said. at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (IgC46)

200 [wanto to make a point before the avalanche]
"And how is wealth created? Through production, because production must necessarily precede consumption."

actually wealth is created through 'trade' for profit trade.

still reading, wait for me, I'll try to catch up. so far am loving this post.

Posted by: It's Magic, he said. at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (IgC46)

201 I'm sure this will end well. Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 10:58 AM (VjL9S) What we desperately need is a disconnect from the dollar as a storage mechanism for value. Unfortunately, a prohibition against such a thing is built right into the constitution.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (bb5+k)

202 I'm sure this will end well. Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 10:58 AM (VjL9S) What we desperately need is a disconnect from the dollar as a storage mechanism for value. Unfortunately, a prohibition against such a thing is built right into the constitution.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (bb5+k)

203 I'm sure this will end well. Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 10:58 AM (VjL9S) What we desperately need is a disconnect from the dollar as a storage mechanism for value. Unfortunately, a prohibition against such a thing is built right into the constitution.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (bb5+k)

204 I'm sure this will end well. Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 10:58 AM (VjL9S) What we desperately need is a disconnect from the dollar as a storage mechanism for value. Unfortunately, a prohibition against such a thing is built right into the constitution.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (bb5+k)

205 Assume a spherical cat ... Calculate how many times the cat will bounce upon impact with the floor in Jack Lew's office.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (659DL)

206 Assume a spherical cat ... Calculate how many times the cat will bounce upon impact with the floor in Jack Lew's office.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (659DL)

207 Assume a spherical cat ... Calculate how many times the cat will bounce upon impact with the floor in Jack Lew's office.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (659DL)

208 Assume a spherical cat ... Calculate how many times the cat will bounce upon impact with the floor in Jack Lew's office.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:05 AM (659DL)

209 84 Assume a spherical cat ... --- Thread winner.

Posted by: votermom at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (GSIDW)

210 84 Assume a spherical cat ... --- Thread winner.

Posted by: votermom at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (GSIDW)

211 84 Assume a spherical cat ... --- Thread winner.

Posted by: votermom at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (GSIDW)

212 84 Assume a spherical cat ... --- Thread winner.

Posted by: votermom at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (GSIDW)

213 JIT production dramatically lowers the inventory costs (as long as the transportation and procurement costs on the inputs don't outstrip that savings). JIT is an art as much as a science.
Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 11:01 AM
====
And the IT technology, and the revolutions in the transportation industry that makes JIT possible - all market driven.

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (JBggj)

214 JIT production dramatically lowers the inventory costs (as long as the transportation and procurement costs on the inputs don't outstrip that savings). JIT is an art as much as a science.
Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 11:01 AM
====
And the IT technology, and the revolutions in the transportation industry that makes JIT possible - all market driven.

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (JBggj)

215 JIT production dramatically lowers the inventory costs (as long as the transportation and procurement costs on the inputs don't outstrip that savings). JIT is an art as much as a science.
Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 11:01 AM
====
And the IT technology, and the revolutions in the transportation industry that makes JIT possible - all market driven.

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (JBggj)

216 JIT production dramatically lowers the inventory costs (as long as the transportation and procurement costs on the inputs don't outstrip that savings). JIT is an art as much as a science.
Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 11:01 AM
====
And the IT technology, and the revolutions in the transportation industry that makes JIT possible - all market driven.

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (JBggj)

217 I've been saying this for years without knowing that such a thing as Say's Law even existed.  Selling each other cheap garbage made in China doesn't create any wealth, it only transfers it from the buyer to the seller, and from the seller to China.

Posted by: Cato at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (i+Vw2)

218 I've been saying this for years without knowing that such a thing as Say's Law even existed.  Selling each other cheap garbage made in China doesn't create any wealth, it only transfers it from the buyer to the seller, and from the seller to China.

Posted by: Cato at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (i+Vw2)

219 I've been saying this for years without knowing that such a thing as Say's Law even existed.  Selling each other cheap garbage made in China doesn't create any wealth, it only transfers it from the buyer to the seller, and from the seller to China.

Posted by: Cato at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (i+Vw2)

220 I've been saying this for years without knowing that such a thing as Say's Law even existed.  Selling each other cheap garbage made in China doesn't create any wealth, it only transfers it from the buyer to the seller, and from the seller to China.

Posted by: Cato at February 10, 2014 07:06 AM (i+Vw2)

221 Thanks Monty.  Really, thank you.  I read your stuff to my teenagers and I am delighted when you show up here.

Posted by: a in sf at February 10, 2014 07:07 AM (juBWn)

222

damn it to hell.

 

claim = clam 

 

$#$^)**%($

Posted by: polynikes at February 10, 2014 07:07 AM (m2CN7)

223 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 11:01 AM (PYAXX) I try to stay with the old school advice of my (depression era) father: "Never borrow money for anything other than a primary residence, a college education, or a medical emergency." Of course the part about the college education might be less valid these days (thanks, leftist), but that advice has been very good to me, thus far.

Posted by: RomneyBot since 2007 at February 10, 2014 07:07 AM (ubkrT)

224 And the IT technology, and the revolutions in the transportation industry that makes JIT possible - all market driven. Not according to the genuises in Havana, Caracas, and Buenos Aires. It is the result of sorcery and toilet paper hoarding.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:07 AM (659DL)

225 Thread winner. Seconded.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 10, 2014 07:08 AM (0HooB)

226 If you surveyed the average leftist and asked them, "where do the rich keep their money?"

The most popular answer by far would be, "in the bank."

Leftist--being stupid (how else could you be a leftist?)--think that the "rich" have all their money just sitting there in a big pile doing nothing.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 07:08 AM (VjL9S)

227 actually wealth is created through 'trade' for profit trade. Not true. If I have the ability to build my own house- not trading anyone for it- is it not "wealth" simply because I didn't sell it? Perhaps closer would be "wealth is created through use of produced goods." Taking Monty's match-stick-Eiffel-Tower or anchovy-ice-cream ideas- is that "wealth" if there is no demand for it? No. In fact, it has destroyed wealth insofar as I have consumed materials others created (probably) to produce something that no one wants or needs. The house I build, however, is wealth because it is used- by me if I keep it myself, by someone else if I sell it.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:08 AM (PYAXX)

228 Money tied up in excess inventory is dead weight, financially. The other edge of that two edged sword is loss of business when you are out of product due to unforseen problems, i.e., production, transportation, etc. If you are out, I go someplace else, WITH, the earned or unearned assumption that you, as a business, are worthless to me. Odds of me coming back? Slim to none.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 10, 2014 07:08 AM (GjYxB)

229 Selling each other cheap garbage made in China doesn't create any wealth, it only transfers it from the buyer to the seller, and from the seller to China.

Posted by: Cato at February 10, 2014 11:06 AM (i+Vw2)


Hm, I would say the Chinese factories have already made their money before the first garbage is sold, no? So it's really more, seller to China, then buyer to seller, yea?

Posted by: KG at February 10, 2014 07:08 AM (p7BzH)

230 Law of Markets short-circuited by Oly judges:

http://tinyurl.com/kaa7cnq


"Thanks to the USFS, CoverGirl, Nike, P&G, Hilton, Pandora, and BP are set for the Olympics and have an athlete competing in one of the fortnight's premier sports. NBC won't have to re-shoot its Olympic commercials, which already heavily feature Wagner. And if Sochi follows the way the last four Olympics have, we'll probably see a lot more of Wagner in the next few weeks even if her results don't warrant it."

Karma?

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at February 10, 2014 07:09 AM (KQp38)

231 93 damn it to hell. claim = clam $#$^)**%($ I think there is a lot of wealth to be "created" in forming a company to produce Claim Juice (tm) BTW- already purchased claimjuice.com!

Posted by: RomneyBot since 2007 at February 10, 2014 07:09 AM (ubkrT)

232 Calculate how many times the cat will bounce upon impact with the floor in Jack Lew's office.

Speaking of, my corporate overlords just sent around a picture of him with some suits...he looks to be about  4'10".

Rahm, Reich, Lew--how is it our ruling class has so many tiny men?

Posted by: HR at February 10, 2014 07:09 AM (ZKzrr)

233

87: "What we desperately need is a disconnect from the dollar as a storage mechanism for value.

Unfortunately, a prohibition against such a thing is built right into the constitution. "

 

I wonder if the exchange of gold or other precious metals, perhaps in the shape of a coin, for goods or services can be legally challenged by the govt., or if it will stand up as barter on its own?


Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 07:09 AM (/qzu7)

234 84 Assume a spherical cat ... *** at STP.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 07:10 AM (g4TxM)

235 92 Thanks Monty. Really, thank you. I read your stuff to my teenagers and I am delighted when you show up here. Posted by: a in sf at February 10, 2014 11:07 AM (juBWn) I concur. Monty is my favorite poster. Ace is pretty good too.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:10 AM (bb5+k)

236 JIT is a myth.

It is an accountants tool to fool people that money is being saved by shifting storage to another location.

Only in a perfect world where there are no manufacturing defects or delays is JIT truly possible.

Posted by: Zimbabwe at February 10, 2014 07:11 AM (TI3xG)

237 Rahm, Reich, Lew walk into a bar. The bartender says "I'll be with you shortly."

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 07:11 AM (g4TxM)

238

Great post, Monty!

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 10, 2014 07:11 AM (YYJjz)

239 So what you are saying is - free Legal Weed?

Posted by: Legions of Libertine LIVs at February 10, 2014 07:11 AM (5ikDv)

240 The guys can't get shirts unless someone produces them

Posted by: McCool at February 10, 2014 07:12 AM (nCSwS)

241

66

 

This, in spades.

One thing though; however the economy is made to maintain or expand, there is always waste. Poop, pee, garbage, etc...

 

Invest in waste management until the energy infrastructure crumbles.

Posted by: Russian Superbeing at February 10, 2014 07:12 AM (RTs7Y)

242 I see it this way. Money is NOT wealth... its a way of keeping score and attaining wealth... Wealth are the goods and services you want. Its Things, and ACTS... not pieces of paper. Banks create no wealth. They move it around (although moving money conveniently is a minor service in and of itself, its not a LARGE service.. and when it takes up percentage points of the economy, something is out of whack). The Stock Market creates no wealth... its a way of gathering Money together to invest to make wealth (in the beginning).... but has turned into a Virtual Vegas which just moves money around. So when you use the movement of Money, as the indicator of a good economy... its a mistake.... as the GDP measures the movement of money, not the creation of wealth (which is goods and services)

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 10, 2014 07:12 AM (84gbM)

243 107sock fail

Posted by: The Hickster at February 10, 2014 07:12 AM (TI3xG)

244 "Production must come first"

What of the future's contract then? A contract and payment now for future delivery?

Posted by: It's Magic, he said. at February 10, 2014 07:12 AM (IgC46)

245 Calculate how many times the cat will bounce upon impact with the floor in Jack Lew's office. Dead Cat bounce or Live Cat bounce?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 10, 2014 07:12 AM (GjYxB)

246 I put it in physics terms, for those who took a physics class: Wealth is position. The economy (or money) is velocity. Government is friction.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 10, 2014 07:13 AM (T0NGe)

247 Rahm, Reich, Lew--how is it our ruling class has so many tiny men?

Posted by: HR at February 10, 2014 11:09 AM (ZKzrr)


Because ... they need to compensate for something?

Posted by: KG at February 10, 2014 07:13 AM (p7BzH)

248 I wonder if the exchange of gold or other precious metals, perhaps in the shape of a coin, for goods or services can be legally challenged by the govt., or if it will stand up as barter on its own? Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 11:09 AM (/qzu7) For what we need it to do, the government will make the argument that it is currency, and put a stop to it. They want to defend the practice of playing games with money, and they will not tolerate interlopers seeking to free themselves from the corrupt cartel. Of course this development gives me a bit of hope. http://www.berkshares.org/ If you aren't familiar with it, you need to be. It is exactly what needs to be done elsewhere, and so far the Feds appear to have left them alone.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:13 AM (bb5+k)

249 I'm trying to watch some of the Olympics but NBC is making near impossible they suck so much

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 10, 2014 07:14 AM (t3UFN)

250 Dead Cat bounce or Live Cat bounce? You really can't tell until you find out what's in the box that's on Biden's desk. And I'm not going in there.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:14 AM (659DL)

251 Sock begone.

Posted by: eman at February 10, 2014 07:14 AM (AO9UG)

252 Tremendous thoughts. Well played.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carter (@pointsnfigures) at February 10, 2014 07:14 AM (MOSsR)

253 I saw Dead Cat Bounce open for Three Dog Night back in '72. If I recall it rained a lot that night.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 07:14 AM (g4TxM)

254 Futures? Pah!! Child's play...

Posted by: Hillary Stupid Bitch at February 10, 2014 07:14 AM (RTs7Y)

255 While i'm at it, EVERYONE needs to know about this. What does the Horde think of BerkShares? http://www.berkshares.org/ I'm serious, this is potentially important.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:15 AM (bb5+k)

256 Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 11:09 AM (/qzu7) I don't think the dollar being a storage mechanism is a bad thing itself... But it becomes bad when you have an outside unelected PRIVATE Corporation being able to manipulate the worth of the dollar.... and they have a Monopoly on said manipulation (hello Mr. Fed Reserve...). The dollar has devalued ever since we created the Fed Res Bank....

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 10, 2014 07:15 AM (84gbM)

257 I'm trying to watch some of the Olympics but NBC is making near impossible they suck so much The Soviet Union, New Coke, and Obamacare...three of history's pivotal experiments.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:15 AM (659DL)

258 So, by that reasoning, as the left moves us into a government based economy, wealth becomes who-you-know and how-big-a-donation one has. Interesting.

Posted by: Pegazus at February 10, 2014 07:15 AM (SEt6x)

259 Production must come first
in the Say's article, rural (small markets) don't have the 'stuff' that wealthy large markets have.

What of walmart then, Sam Walton recognized a rural america that was not being served and opened retail outlets in those 'poor' rural areas.

(racing through, trying to keep up)

Posted by: It's Magic, he said. at February 10, 2014 07:15 AM (IgC46)

260 It is an accountants tool to fool people that money is being saved by shifting storage to another location entity. FIFY. The way JIT seems to work (and I only have a passing knowledge here, so I could be wrong) is that the stuff gets delivered by (say) the truck-load, but you only "buy" it one pallet at a time. That splits the cost of storage- the purchaser's premise, but the supplier's IMT box. And it doesn't save money per item necessarily (though it does that to some extent, too), but rather in the fact that when you suddenly don't need a whole bunch of extra inventory, you're not forced to find some other way to get rid of it- you just send the unopened pallets back to the supplier.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:15 AM (PYAXX)

261 If you are out, I go someplace else, WITH, the earned or unearned assumption that you, as a business, are worthless to me.
Odds of me coming back? Slim to none. Posted by: rickb223
===
That's what "Special Offers!" and "promotion codes" are for. 

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 07:15 AM (JBggj)

262 The other edge of that two edged sword is loss of business when you are out of product due to unforseen problems, i.e., production, transportation, etc. The New World Order's wet dream of a global economy got a hard lesson in reality when American production lines were idled by supply interruptions half a world away as a result of the tsunami a few years back. This exposed a big flaw in that plan that was easy to see to most people. Hopefully, with the help of folks like Mike Rowe, we'll get back to the realization that we'll be better off if we make our own products. BJ Cliton and his NWO buds destroyed the manufacturing sector for no good reason and it'll take a while to get it back.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 10, 2014 07:16 AM (0HooB)

263 What does the Horde think of BerkShares? Appears to consist of Massachusetts hippies. Avoid.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:16 AM (659DL)

264 Dead Cat bounce or Live Cat bounce? You really can't tell until you find out what's in the box that's on Biden's desk. Why didn't Schrodinger just smell the box?

Posted by: AmishDude at February 10, 2014 07:16 AM (T0NGe)

265 Nice post.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 10, 2014 07:17 AM (IXrOn)

266 The dollar has devalued ever since we created the Fed Res Bank.... Posted by: Romeo13 at February 10, 2014 11:15 AM (84gbM) A $20.00 gold piece is worth something like ~ $1,500.00 today.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:18 AM (bb5+k)

267

119: "If you aren't familiar with it, you need to be. It is exactly what needs to be done elsewhere, and so far the Feds appear to have left them alone."

 

Is this any different in practical terms than the old company script? 

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 07:18 AM (Kh+vp)

268 Good lord, my phone company is useless too!

They told me they do not capture local dialed calls, only calls made from an outside area!


Posted by: EC at February 10, 2014 07:18 AM (GQ8sn)

269 [wait a minute, wait a minute pacing the hall gesticulating wildly, hair on fire.]

Posted by: It's Magic, he said. at February 10, 2014 07:19 AM (IgC46)

270 Banks create no wealth. They move it around (although moving money conveniently is a minor service in and of itself, its not a LARGE service.. and when it takes up percentage points of the economy, something is out of whack). Bastiat and Walter Williams would both disagree with you. Same on the stock market. One person may not have the capital you need to borrow. However, banks (and the stock market) pool together resources of tens, hundreds, even thousands of people. One person may not have $100,000.00 for you to borrow. But 2000 people probably have $50.00 you can borrow. By pooling those resources, they're not simply "moving money around conveniently" they are making available capital which otherwise simply would not be available.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:20 AM (PYAXX)

271 The cat looks a lot like Planet Hillary.

Posted by: Jinx the Cat at February 10, 2014 07:20 AM (l3vZN)

272 Kitteh over consumed, therefore put production controls on Friskies.

Posted by: Lefties at February 10, 2014 07:20 AM (obTkq)

273 It's a terrible thing that I can read such an excellent article, and all I can think of is "What happened to that cat?!"

Posted by: Null at February 10, 2014 07:20 AM (xjpRj)

274 Hopefully, with the help of folks like Mike Rowe, we'll get back to the realization that we'll be better off if we make our own products. BJ Cliton and his NWO buds destroyed the manufacturing sector for no good reason and it'll take a while to get it back. I'm a great believer in the Law of Comparative Advantage. I also know that most people don't calculate risk correctly. Even totally vertically integrated corporations like the old Standard Oil could experience disruptions, regardless of location. The secret is to not be surprised by them.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:20 AM (659DL)

275 Appears to consist of Massachusetts hippies. Avoid. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 11:16 AM (659DL) I think that's why they are able to get away with it. If such an idea were being implemented by conservatives, I should not be surprised to discover the feds filing lawsuits or criminal charges against it. These people may be paving the way for something which we can also use, and they are very likely being tolerated now precisely because they are Massachusetts hippies. I urge you to consider what they are doing, not who they are.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:21 AM (bb5+k)

276

Barnhardt has a good essay on the wealth of a nation . . As you may imagine, she has a decidely dim view of our nation's wealth.

 

full piece in the nic

 

"At the end of the day, any currency is backed not by physical commodities or a collective abstraction called “a government”. No. A currency is backed by the character and integrity of men that constitute the issuing nation or body. In short, WE ARE THE GOLD. We are the bearers of the “full faith and credit” which backs our Federal Reserve notes today. And that, dear readers, is why this country is not going to turn itself around anytime soon, and is almost certainly doomed in the short-run."

Posted by: McCool at February 10, 2014 07:21 AM (nCSwS)

277 They told me they do not capture local dialed calls, only calls made from an outside area! Hmmm, it's too bad you couldn't get the NSA to give you their info.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 10, 2014 07:21 AM (0HooB)

278 Is this any different in practical terms than the old company script? Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 11:18 AM (Kh+vp) I think so. The BerkShare is accepted by a whole host of businesses in that area. It is a defacto local currency for Berkshire county. It is the camel's nose for a legal currency independent of Federal Reserve tampering.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 10, 2014 07:23 AM (bb5+k)

279 By the mis-statement of the law; Zeros production of pure horseshit should create an insatiable demand for more horse shit. Nope.

Posted by: maddogg at February 10, 2014 07:23 AM (xWW96)

280 Hmmm, it's too bad you couldn't get the NSA to give you their info.


It's a crock.  Somewhere, there is an electronic record

Posted by: EC at February 10, 2014 07:23 AM (GQ8sn)

281

What of the future's contract then? A contract and payment now for future delivery?

---

Contracts are a second-order (or even third-order) effect of production. A futures contract has two kinds of value: use value, and sale value. Both types of value will go to zero if the good or service in the contract itself is not produced. If a futures contract is sold prior to the execution date, that exchange must be seen as a loss of value because the first-order good or service was never produced (or was produced at a lesser value than specified in the contract).

Don't get me started on derivatives. I'm not a fan. I recognize that they are useful in some cases, but in general, I'm not fond of that whole asset class. (I don't even like calling it an "asset".)

 

Posted by: Monty at February 10, 2014 07:23 AM (4Pleu)

282 I urge you to consider what they are doing, not who they are. I like the idea of scaleable currencies, not local, glorified barter instruments. Such currencies have to backed by sound fiscal policies, however.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:24 AM (659DL)

283 Nood Gabe, if anyone is interested.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:24 AM (PYAXX)

284 Has it ever been questioned that the "productivity" increases we'd see year after year in the 90s and 00s were merely the result of JIT?

Which would suggest that we haven't seen real productivity increases, merely a temporary exploitation of cost-shifting the storage expenses. That has caught up with those firms as the suppliers have adjusted the shipping costs to reflect the proper premium for delivering JIT.

Or am I wrong about how they measure productivity?

Is it "widgets per worker?" Or "cost of production per widget?"

The reason why I think it the latter is, with all the reports of productivity increases, we never saw a corresponding increase in . . . goods produced.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 07:25 AM (VjL9S)

285 Value (maddogg definition) I just bought a nearly new Taurus Tracker .44 magnum with a half box of cartridges for 200 clams. Now thats value.

Posted by: maddogg at February 10, 2014 07:25 AM (xWW96)

286 Has it ever been questioned that the "productivity" increases we'd see year after year in the 90s and 00s were merely the result of JIT? Apparently, we were working too much.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 10, 2014 07:25 AM (659DL)

287 It's a crock. Somewhere, there is an electronic record Surely a judge would understand that the thief is now stalking you and placing your life in greater danger.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 10, 2014 07:26 AM (0HooB)

288

149: "It is the camel's nose for a legal currency independent of Federal Reserve tampering."

 

I'm dubious about anything that is not backed by a tangible asset.

 

The nature of national and international commerce also makes the Berkshare problematic.

 

But more power to them. Let's see if their experiment works.


Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 10, 2014 07:26 AM (OJn3e)

289 William Edwards Deming taught the Japanese after WWII a quality system that included JIT as a component. But JIT in Japan meant controlling the quality of the company you are ordering parts from. Insuring what was delivered met specs. Dumbass Americans took it literally and felt the pain of doing so in the 80s. By still going to the lowest cost producer and expecting total quality.Learning later that control of supplier quality was important to making JIT work and that setting up a machine to produce a part costs money.  Meaning if I only need ten a week that may not work into another companies production efficiency. Sometimes machine setup costs more than the parts being made.

Home sick to day so forgive my rambling incoherent style of mind thoughts.

Posted by: The Hickster at February 10, 2014 07:27 AM (TI3xG)

290 The reason why I think it the latter is, with all the reports of productivity increases, we never saw a corresponding increase in . . . goods produced. The two aren't mutually exclusive. But when you get down to it, the market for most things we buy is saturated. TVs, radios, cars, toothpaste, and on and on. Producing *more* toothpaste isn't going to really help the economy. Producing *cheaper* toothpaste does.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:27 AM (PYAXX)

291 But 2000 people probably have $50.00 you can borrow.
===
And back in the day, the local townsfolk took a dim view on bank robbing.

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 07:27 AM (JBggj)

292 I do stand corrected re: JIT...I guess I just have a dislike of making logistical systems more susceptible to disruption, having seen it backfire a couple of times myself. But that's probably why I'm not making megabucks in that industry, no?

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 10, 2014 07:28 AM (naUcP)

293 Should I go get Congress and bring them in here? They should probably sit through this.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Heterosexual Congressional Page at February 10, 2014 07:29 AM (x65HD)

294 I guess I just have a dislike of making logistical systems more susceptible to disruption, having seen it backfire a couple of times myself. It's the whole risk/reward thing. But moving back to "traditional" logistics has its own risks and rewards. Look at Southwest Airlines. Many moons ago, they got very-long-term contracts for jet fuel. It let them keep prices way down when other airlines were feeling the fuel-cost pinch. Most of those are set to expire next year (I think). That's a big risk for them- if the prices have increased significantly, that will be a big shock to their (and their customers') system.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:30 AM (PYAXX)

295 Money is NOT wealth... its a way of keeping score and attaining wealth... Money is a debt instrument. It's an obligation to reciprocate, when someone gives you something, and you don't have anything of comparable worth to give back at the moment. People mistakenly think that money was preceded by barter. It wasn't. It was preceded by villagers all producing different things and trading them. If Joe made some cheese and gave his extra to Moe, but Moe didn't have a horseshoe on hand to give in return, they'd just remember that Moe OWED Joe the equivalent of a block of cheese. In other words, they'd extend credit to each other. No token necessary. It was just an abstract debt, maybe recorded as a ledger entry. Then, Moe might be owed something by Flo, for that time he repaired her fence. And Joe might owe Flo for that time she baked him a turkey pot pie. So, when they all get together for the seasonal Reckoning at festival time, they'd all realize that their mutual debts cancel each other out. No money. No barter. Just debts circulating around. When you deal with strangers, then debts need to be memorialized with a token. Thus coinage was invented. But among a small group, money was just remembered debt. Money literally IS debt. It works best in a multi-party trading system, where money tokens can function as the universal proxy for all goods and services. That's why money looks like a "store of value." But the core essence of money is as a token of debt. But ultimately, it's the reciprocal goods and services that repay all debts.

Posted by: Phinn at February 10, 2014 07:33 AM (3zlTf)

296 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 11:20 AM (PYAXX) Banks no longer lend you other peoples money... they lend you their own money, created through the mechanism of 'Fractional Lending'. The Stock market aggregates Capital... but it is only accessible once a company has already reached a Stage of development where it is in an Expansion, phase... not in the company creation phase. Today it is more used to 'store' value... and allow company creators to cash out some of a companies value (without loosing control) than a mechanism of wealth creation. Note... I do NOT say that either the Stock market, nor banks, are not needed.... but we have put so much importance on how they do... given them so much power over the rest of the economy... that they have become a very poor indicator of how the Economy is doing...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 10, 2014 07:34 AM (84gbM)

297 The house I build, however, is wealth because it is used- by me if I keep it myself, by someone else if I sell it.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 11:08 AM (PYAXX)

Real estate is considered an asset on your balance sheet.

Unless you're a member in good standing of the Free Shit Army, then it is (or was) an ATM to pay for electronic toys, vacations, restaurant meals, new cars, or various other disposable or high depreciation goods and services


Posted by: kbdabear at February 10, 2014 07:34 AM (aTXUx)

298 Take a lesson from "The Pope of Greenwich Villiage"... Paulie: Nicky don't go for spit. 'Nose' still shines his own shoes, pop. I don't call that success. Paulie's Father: Oh yeah? And what do you call it? Paulie: Knowin' how to spend it. I never ordered a Brandy in my life that wasn't Cordon Bleu... I took two-hundred from shylocks, pop, to see Sinatra at the Garden? Sat two seats away from Tony Bennett. That's success! Lesson: Don't be Nicky the Nose.

Posted by: jwest at February 10, 2014 07:36 AM (u2a4R)

299 Posted by: Phinn at February 10, 2014 11:33 AM (3zlTf) Originally? Absolutely... Now??? Money has morphed into a game unto itself. How much 'debt' is sitting in banks... if you have a credit card... you have a debt... of debt... How can Debt be devalued through Inflation or the devaluing of the Dollar?

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 10, 2014 07:37 AM (84gbM)

300 http://cdn.niketalk.com/e/e0/500x1000px-LL-e0262979_xl_etlandfill.jpeg et knows production does not create its own demand

Posted by: burke at February 10, 2014 07:39 AM (nvexF)

301 "At the end of the day, any currency is backed not by physical commodities or a collective abstraction called “a government”. No. A currency is backed by the character and integrity of men that constitute the issuing nation or body. In short, WE ARE THE GOLD. We are the bearers of the “full faith and credit” which backs our Federal Reserve notes today. And that, dear readers, is why this country is not going to turn itself around anytime soon, and is almost certainly doomed in the short-run." Heh. We are the pyrite.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 10, 2014 07:40 AM (T0NGe)

302 The consumer borrowed against future production (income)--that never materialized--to fund present consumption. And now the government is furiously borrowing against future production (taxes) . . . .

I'm sure this will end well.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 10, 2014 10:58 AM (VjL9S)

The optimal idea of debt was that with intentional inflation (Keynsians and the Fed still fear deflation), rather than purchase by cash say $100 now, borrow that $100 at low interest and pay back $100 later that will only in real terms purchase $80 worth of production available at today's dollars.

The fly in the ointment is that you will still borrow later, spending $120 dollars to buy $100 worth of production in today's dollars

I think the Keynsians like Krugtron always assume that everyone will be so rich later on that they won't have to borrow heavily


Posted by: kbdabear at February 10, 2014 07:40 AM (aTXUx)

303 Posted by: kbdabear at February 10, 2014 11:34 AM (aTXUx) There's "the way we record things" and then there's "the way things are." Owning land which I cannot use and which no one wants is no more an asset than owning 1000 gallons of anchovy flavored ice cream. It has no "value" until it has "worth" (that is: utility) to someone. That's why I used the example of a house I built myself. That has value in that it has utility to me. Should I need to liquidate the capital the house represents, I have a variety of options for so doing. On the other hand, owning land that I can't use and no one else wants- that removes (or at least greatly reduces) the options I have if I suddenly need liquid capital.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 10, 2014 07:43 AM (PYAXX)

304 Posted by: AmishDude at February 10, 2014 11:40 AM (T0NGe) Yes... true.... but WE decide how much of that "Gold" you are... that each piece of paper is going to be worth... Because we can just print more pieces of paper.... making each piece worth less of said human capital...

Posted by: Fed Res at February 10, 2014 07:44 AM (84gbM)

305 think the Keynsians like Krugtron always assume that everyone will be so rich later on that they won't have to borrow heavily Posted by: kbdabear at February 10, 2014 11:40 AM (aTXUx) No... the Krugtons don't CARE about the future. They are getting a comfortable living now... know they won't be here... DON'T have Children... just like Keynes...

Posted by: Fed Res at February 10, 2014 07:48 AM (84gbM)

306 EC, they capture those calls. However, they want you and your problem to go away, so they "misspoke". Additionally, they have liability if they tell you who tge caller is and you then visit said caller. If someone say, the police, needed locally dialed calls to solve a murder by a stalker and had a subpena, then the records would be produced.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, Think Mink! at February 10, 2014 07:49 AM (ZbSTK)

307 If I was a cat, I would look like that.

Posted by: moochelle o. at February 10, 2014 07:49 AM (/QAZd)

308 147 Barnhardt has a good essay on the wealth of a nation . . As you may imagine, she has a decidely dim view of our nation's wealth. Posted by: McCool at February 10, 2014 11:21 AM (nCSwS) That Barnhardt piece is brilliant. And terrifying.

Posted by: rickl at February 10, 2014 07:51 AM (zoehZ)

309 If I married a cat, she would look like that.

Posted by: president o'bumbles at February 10, 2014 07:53 AM (/QAZd)

310 Greetings: And as to "monetary stimulus", didn't Mr. Say mention something about "Bad money drives out good." ???

Posted by: 11B40 at February 10, 2014 07:53 AM (1xDqr)

311 They told me they do not capture local dialed calls, only calls made from an outside area That's not true. It went across their switch they have it.

Posted by: blaster at February 10, 2014 07:54 AM (4+AaH)

312 Then, Moe might be owed something by Flo, for that time he repaired her fence. And Joe might owe Flo *** Suitor #1- "Hi, I'm Joe. I'm here to pick up Flo. We're going to a show. Is she ready to go?" Girls' father- "Flo, your date's here." Suitor #2- "Hi, I'm Freddy. I'm here to pick up Betty. We're going out for spaghetti. Is she ready?" Girls' father- "Betty, your date's here." Suitor #3- "Hi, I'm Chuck." Girls' father- *slams door*

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 07:57 AM (g4TxM)

313 Monty great post as usual, but you forgot the function of Rent Seekers in production demand. Â…Â…..the Demandiest part of production demand, in DC at least

Posted by: ontherocks at February 10, 2014 07:58 AM (QpSOD)

314

Chris Rock had a whole bit about the difference between money and wealth in his televised stand-up routine (might have been called "Bigger and Blacker").

 

If Chris Rock gets it, why can't overeducated libs?

Posted by: the other coyote at February 10, 2014 07:58 AM (yK44T)

315 Is that a "capitalist fat cat" they're always talking about?

Posted by: Where're my ping pong balls at February 10, 2014 08:13 AM (YxaXw)

316 Sock off

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 10, 2014 08:16 AM (g4TxM)

317 Does Chris Rock really get it if it doesn't interact with any decisions he makes?

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 10, 2014 08:24 AM (P03XK)

318

"But here's the key point: even a failed venture creates at least some value.

Something new is brought into the world, something that did not exist before.

The failed venture added some value to the market, even if that value was not enough to satisfy the need for profit (and may not even have offset the costs of the inputs)."

Regarding Monty's key point, what value did Solyndra's failure create?

@peeteysdee

Posted by: Peter S. Dee at February 10, 2014 08:31 AM (9TK8E)

319 But what about economic and redistributive justice in order to compensate those from who that wealth was stolen? Letting rich white people keep their white privilege money when poor brown people suffered for him to get it is WRONG!!!

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at February 10, 2014 08:33 AM (q5k6l)

320

I'm just a simple caveman, and regarding my comment in 189, I'm not trying to be flip, but want an honest answer to what I see as potential justification for bankrupt tax-funded supply-side, (possibily stimulus -related) ventures.  I see Solyndra as the same as "creative destruction," similiar to Bastiat's broken window.  What true productivity/value could have been made with that [borrowed] money instead?

@peeteysdee

Posted by: Peter S. Dee at February 10, 2014 08:52 AM (9TK8E)

321 "Only the production of goods and services can actually create wealth, as opposed to the transfer of wealth, which is generally accomplished via government taxation. " Franz Oppenheimer: only two ways to create wealth: the "economic means" (free, voluntary and peaceful contract and mutual exchange), or the "political means" (coercion, guild, embezzlement, cronyism, subsidy, regulation, carve-out, monopoly, etc.). People put their energies where there is profit. When most of the profit comes from the economic means, energies are concentrated at innovation, refinement and creation of value. When too much profit can be made from the political means, then energies are concentrated in gaining political advantage and gaming government. But money made by the political means must come from somewhere, and it comes by reducing efficiency, increasing costs, or from government itself where it really comes from the taxpayer.

Posted by: theBuckwheat at February 10, 2014 09:06 AM (nmcha)

322 a lot of the impetus for JIT is that storage costs money Yep. JIT is an attempt to create a virtual vertically integrated concern without the expense of actually owning the subsidiaries.

Posted by: toby928© at February 10, 2014 09:11 AM (QupBk)

323 Regarding Monty's key point, what value did Solyndra's failure create? Some panels were made, some salaries paid.

Posted by: toby928© at February 10, 2014 09:13 AM (QupBk)

324 "On the other hand, owning land that I can't use and no one else wants- that removes (or at least greatly reduces) the options I have if I suddenly need liquid capital."

A one-block parcel in some parts of Detroit vs. a one-block parcel in some parts of Cary, NC.

Posted by: mrp at February 10, 2014 09:17 AM (JBggj)

325

Assuming that prices aren't artificially elevated (If I can buy scorpion antivenum produced in Mexico here for $60,000 a dose and $50 a dose in Mexico, only the conspiracy of the health industry and government prevents me from buying it direct and driving it over the border myself for resale), this is true.

 

Posted by: Methos at February 10, 2014 10:38 AM (hO9ad)

 

Jane you ignorant sl*t.  The reason it's so much cheaper over the border is the Mexican (and Canadian, and Scandi, and...) governments refuse to let their citizens help pay for the research and development necessary for the next generation of wonderdrugs.

Posted by: steveegg at February 10, 2014 09:22 AM (o44nj)

326 I sleep in late - because I kept dreaming about the origins of the panzerwaffe in 1930's Germany (seriously, been reading about it) - so I miss this thread.  Yes.  Wealth is not money.  Money is scrip.  I try to explain all of this to people but few get it.  They think paper = the good life.

Posted by: SFGoth at February 10, 2014 09:26 AM (Guupx)

327

Regarding Monty's key point, what value did Solyndra's failure create?

 

Some panels were made, some salaries paid.

 

Posted by: toby928© at February 10, 2014 01:13 PM (QupBk)

 

But not enough generated panels to cover the inputs of $400 million of our tax dollars, the raw materials, and those salaries.

Posted by: steveegg at February 10, 2014 09:39 AM (o44nj)

328

 

2 Excellent article, and what the hell happened to that cat?!

Posted by: Kinley

 

 

It's a demoKrat cat.

Posted by: ATTILA727 at February 10, 2014 09:56 AM (J+cfY)

329 But not enough generated panels to cover the inputs of $400 million of our tax dollars, the raw materials, and those salaries. Indeed, as Monty noted, creation of value is independent of whether it is a wise or efficient use of capital. In other words, you can make stuff, and still go broke.

Posted by: toby928© at February 10, 2014 11:35 AM (QupBk)

330 But not enough generated panels to cover the inputs of $400 million of our tax dollars, the raw materials, and those salaries.

Indeed, as Monty noted, creation of value is independent of whether it is a wise or efficient use of capital. In other words, you can make stuff, and still go broke.

Yes, the increase of wealth is essentially a coordination problem -- the coordination of production (which is time-consuming, difficult, spread out over long-distances, involving multiple parties and factors of production, which all have to be coordinated amongst themselves), with consumption preferences. 

Coordination is difficult under the best of circumstances.  But the government fucking with prices always increases extent and severity of discoordination. 

Government can't coordinate jack shit.  It can only make things worse.

Posted by: Phinn at February 10, 2014 01:13 PM (KOGmz)

331 I just am not able to see the value created in Solyndra's failure.  Over 900 people lost their jobs.  As a scientist I ask how many economic theories preceding socialism remain valid?

Posted by: Peter S. Dee at February 10, 2014 04:04 PM (M1pME)

332 thanks Monty, I've understood this for a while but never been able to lay it clearly, now I can.

Posted by: Shoey at February 10, 2014 05:27 PM (vA94g)

333 good thread, now dead, I guess. Upward financial mobility will occur when self reliance is taught from birth. That is simply self production at first, growing into an ability to coordinate with others to produce more efficiently. Transferring the child from Mom's tit, directly to the government tit at kindergarten (or pre-school if Obama can confiscate them sooner), is a bad start. The fed reserve (1913?), and total fiat currency (Nixon), is designed to control the producer. The "you didn't build that" crowd makes the producer a subservient tool, and claims ownership of his "wealth", of his very ability to produce, of the productive man himself. (The "money=wealth" argument is for the LIV, though boomers like their mutual funds to "produce" for them, though that is mostly paper illusion.) The Chicago "Machine" does indeed produce "wealth", because it asserts itself as an unwanted board member via coercion. Rodney Dangerfield blurts out these "expenses" in an econ lecture in "Back to School". Who really "owns" the factory? Coercion and corruption must be part of any economic description of leftist economics. (it is not pure economics, but is indeed how America is now run, and much of the world has always run). Most leftist economies fail, yet Putin and his oligarchs managed to steal $25B or so from the Olympics, as they act as the owners of all production. Pure capitalism would yield localized well managed generous charities, instead of our wasteful welfare state. The trick of the left is to keep the producers producing while constantly screwing them. Producers tend to want to "go Galt", but there is no place to run, except away to retirement. Keynesian arguments are not economic but political, and destine man to control by corrupt statists, offering utopia if we just bite the apple. The invisible hand versus Savior Obama's fair redistribution. It is summed up with that tea party lady that had all the government agencies investigate her after she applied for her C-4 tea party status. Obviously a productive woman with satisfied employees must be beaten up by the like of Lois Lerner or Eric Holder, for daring to challenge the collective. anyway ... I'm just rambling in the wind, cuz I enjoyed the thread

Posted by: Illini Bill at February 11, 2014 07:55 AM (9q3r5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
270kb generated in CPU 0.1031, elapsed 0.3147 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2437 seconds, 461 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 172732
  • Files: 794
  • Bytes: 5.9G
  • CPU Time: 334:40
  • Queries: 7075678

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0