50 years of failed eco predictions

[Into the Night]

You are never, ever going to be able to bring down costs for consumers by flooding the market with supply.

Already happened.

It will never happen.

Already happened.

If you want to make things more affordable for consumers, then you need to pay consumers more money.

Nope. Apparently you have no idea how price discovery works.

The consumer market sets the rates, not the suppliers.

Nope. Apparently you have no idea how price discovery works.

Suppliers who try to do that never last.

Learn about price discovery. You don't like free markets and prefer communism, so I understand if you don't get how free markets work.

NO IT ISN'T.

Deflation caused by productivity is GOOD.

Not because they're cheap, but because they're a necessity.

Personal computers are not a necessity. They didn't even exist just a few decades ago.

Computers are not cheap at all...they are fucking expensive as shit.

You consider $40 expensive??? You're not even a successful welfare case!

Yeah, that can't do shit and breaks after a year.

Never had any of my computers break except one that got shot, and one that got hit by lightning, and one that fell out of the sky on a rocket.

Computers allow you to post on this board. Since you feel that isn't worth shit, why are you here??

 

[Monad Portal]

The Russia Tax Cut was not good, it cost at least $2.5T and a recession.

you're an idiot.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes it is.

Surveys don't mean anything. Argument from randU fallacy.

 

[LV426]

Personal computers DID NOT EXIST. The cloud services DID NOT EXIST. They were created out of nothing but innovation and drive.

But computers did, and what an inventive person did was condense those computers into ones that could go in a home.

So they didn't create a new product, they modified an already existing product for a new market.

Computers already existed before the advent of the personal computer, they didn't just appear out of thin air.

This is why half of businesses fail, because the people running them are as stupid and juvenile as you.

 

[Into the Night]

The Russia Tax Cut was not good, it cost at least $2.5T and a recession.

Russia's taxes don't affect the U.S.

 

[LV426]

Wrong. Businesses fail because they fail to keep up with their competitors.

NO.

Most businesses fail because of mismanagement.

Because the people who run them think they know how to run a business, but they actually don't.

Again, that's why half of all businesses fail.

It's not because of competitors, or the government, or the environment...it's because the business owner doesn't know what the fuck they're doing.

Just like how you don't know what you're doing on this thread.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah, so you cannot come up with even 1 lazy example of your economic theory bearing any positive results.

Already did. RQAA.

Over the last 40 years, every single Conservative President and Congress has left behind an economy in tatters for the Democrats to clean up.

Every. Single. Time.

Lie.

 

[Into the Night]

How do you think Henry Ford started Ford Motor Company?

But you said the car industry was never created. Which is it, dude?

 

[LV426]

Get some. Nothing is stopping you from making money except you and the government.

Juvenile.

Access to capital is not equal or even in this country.

Improving production does.

Not even then, Sally.

Not even then.

Nope. The cost per unit is the same or lower. That means lower prices. A good thing.

No, it means your product has been devalued...and because you chose to devalue your product by flooding the market with it, you ended up reducing the value of your product so much that you end up with negative margins.

That's precisely what happened to all those Natural Gas and Fracking companies last decade.

 

[LV426]

You just denied your own argument. You are now locked in paradox. Which is it, dude?

No, you're the one trapped in the paradox by supply-side economic theory.

If you produce more of your product than there is demand for in the market, your product will be devalued and you will lose money on every single sale if you choose to do that.

Again, that's why so many natural gas and fracking companies went bankrupt last decade...more than any other industry.

 

[Into the Night]

But computers did,

There was a time when there were NO computers at all.

and what an inventive person did was condense those computers into ones that could go in a home.

There was a time when there were NO computers at all. The personal computer has nothing to do with mainframe computers. Computers are not 'condensed'.

So they didn't create a new product,

The invention of the car. The invention of the microchip. The invention of the transistor. The invention of the personal computer. The invention of the cloud. The invention of the airplane. The invention of...

they modified an already existing product for a new market.

Computers already existed before the advent of the personal computer, they didn't just appear out of thin air.

Yup. They appeared out of thin air through innovation and hard work.

This is why half of businesses fail, because the people running them are as stupid and juvenile as you.

My business is successful. Has been for decades.

 

[LV426]

Paradox. Which is it, dude?

Again, you're the one trapped in the paradox here because you believe that increasing supply increases demand (it doesn't), when all increasing supply does is devalue the product whose supply you're increasing.

That's why so many natural gas companies went broke last decade, and why they will continue to go broke and bankrupt until there are none left.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, the computer industry came from the work the government did to develop computers mainly for defense purposes.

The government doesn't build computers.

in fact, almost all the contracts that companies like IBM had at the beginning were with the government.

IBM did not invent the computer.

You really don't know much history, do you? Because the personal computer wasn't invented out of thin air.

Yes it was. Thin air, innovation, and hard work. Something obviously unfamiliar to you.

 

[LV426]

You argue that producing more increases cost, then argue that producing more decreases cost. Which is it, dude?

I did not argue that AT ALL.

What I said was that producing more devalues your product, and the more you produce it, the more devalued it becomes so you have to keep selling more of it just to make your margins.

But that's never going to be a winning game; the more you increase production and supply, the more you have to sell to meet your margins, and if your product isn't that great to start with, you're always going to be perpetually digging yourself into a hole that you think digging more will get you out of.

Bro, digging more isn't going to get you out of the hole.

This Macroeconomics lesson is completely free.

 

[LV426]

Fallacy fallacy. RQAA.

Now you're falling back into your bad habits of avoidance and cowardice.

 

[LV426]

There is no such thing as 'supply side economics'. Buzzword fallacy. Every capitalist economy has buyers and sellers.

Sure there is...it's what you've been advocating this whole time.

Increasing supply will never increase demand...all increasing supply does is devalue your product.

So all you're doing is digging yourself into a deeper hole because the more you produce, the less valuable what you are producing becomes. Guess where that leads...

 

[Into the Night]

odd. The eco predictions are coming true

What 'eco' predictions?

and rightys still deny it. It was supposed to be even worse according to some, is not saying it is not happening. It is.

What 'eco' predictions?

I saw a program on PBS a few years ago on a Minnesota gardening club.

So you watched the government channel. Meh.

They were old people who had been together for years. they were talking about the longer seasons they have and the plants they could grow now, that they could not before.

Plants are not sensitive to temperature (other than damage by freezing).

It was not about global warming, except, in the end, it was.

Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacy.

Attempted proof by government propaganda. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

 

[LV426]

Wealth is not hoarded. Higher wages did occur. Hiring did occur.

Wealth was most definitely hoarded, this is not up for dispute.

Higher wages occurred...for people at the top.

The only other people who saw higher wages were those at the bottom whose minimum wage was raised by about 20 states in 2018 and 20 states in 2019, but that had nothing to do with the tax cut.

 

[LV426]

Contrivance. Special pleading fallacy.

No, this is just you realizing that your argument sucks and instead of admitting that, you deflect like this.

Chump.

 

[LV426]

Attempted proof by contrivance.

How so? Explain yourself.

I notice that you never bother to explain these things...which makes me think you just say them to trick people into thinking you're an intellectual, when you're really just a fucking dumbass.