Topic: Global Financial Crisis scenarios - page 11. (Read 15914 times)
D) aliens invade and bring us $. THere is no solution without destruction, we are in point where wars started in history, now it's the time, sadly.
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
Overproduction and under supply can happen in free market.
Planning and mis-allocating capital can go horrible wrong even in the total decentralized system.
When supply strengthens, and demand softens, the profits of that specific market is eroded, and the capital is taken to a more profitable market space. There is no overproduction. Temporalily, prices can go lower than the producers are happy with, but that is also a temporary advantage for people just on the edge of purchasing that exact stuff. Conversely with the absurd notation of under-supply.
On the other hand in a nonfree market, that is someone disturbs the free market using the threat of physical force in violation of human rights, meaning government, prices and volume is always suboptimal. Compared to what consumers and producers want, which is the only important thing. Some random person, voter or not, is not entitled to push his values on to others.
Market are still the most efficient and when the State intervenes the prices go up, the service quality and innovation go down
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
Overproduction and under supply can happen in free market.
Planning and mis-allocating capital can go horrible wrong even in the total decentralized system.
When supply strengthens, and demand softens, the profits of that specific market is eroded, and the capital is taken to a more profitable market space. There is no overproduction. Temporalily, prices can go lower than the producers are happy with, but that is also a temporary advantage for people just on the edge of purchasing that exact stuff. Conversely with the absurd notation of under-supply.
On the other hand in a nonfree market, that is someone disturbs the free market using the threat of physical force in violation of human rights, meaning government, prices and volume is always suboptimal. Compared to what consumers and producers want, which is the only important thing. Some random person, voter or not, is not entitled to push his values on to others.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
Overproduction and under supply can happen in free market.
Planning and mis-allocating capital can go horrible wrong even in the total decentralized system.
When supply strengthens, and demand softens, the profits of that specific market is eroded, and the capital is taken to a more profitable market space. There is no overproduction. Temporalily, prices can go lower than the producers are happy with, but that is also a temporary advantage for people just on the edge of purchasing that exact stuff. Conversely with the absurd notation of under-supply.
On the other hand in a nonfree market, that is someone disturbs the free market using the threat of physical force in violation of human rights, meaning government, prices and volume is always suboptimal. Compared to what consumers and producers want, which is the only important thing. Some random person, voter or not, is not entitled to push his values on to others.
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
Overproduction and under supply can happen in free market.
Planning and mis-allocating capital can go horrible wrong even in the total decentralized system.
When supply strengthens, and demand softens, the profits of that specific market is eroded, and the capital is taken to a more profitable market space. There is no overproduction. Temporalily, prices can go lower than the producers are happy with, but that is also a temporary advantage for people just on the edge of purchasing that exact stuff. Conversely with the absurd notation of under-supply.
And now we return to the initial issue, that is the increased level of savings causes producers to lose some of their profits, right?
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
Overproduction and under supply can happen in free market.
Planning and mis-allocating capital can go horrible wrong even in the total decentralized system.
When supply strengthens, and demand softens, the profits of that specific market is eroded, and the capital is taken to a more profitable market space. There is no overproduction. Temporalily, prices can go lower than the producers are happy with, but that is also a temporary advantage for people just on the edge of purchasing that exact stuff. Conversely with the absurd notation of under-supply.
On the other hand in a nonfree market, that is someone disturbs the free market using the threat of physical force in violation of human rights, meaning government, prices and volume is always suboptimal. Compared to what consumers and producers want, which is the only important thing. Some random person, voter or not, is not entitled to push his values on to others.
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
Overproduction and under supply can happen in free market.
Planning and mis-allocating capital can go horrible wrong even in the total decentralized system.
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
Overproduction and under supply can happen in free market.
Planning and mis-allocating capital can go horrible wrong even in the total decentralized system.
... said he without even trying to argument for it.
I did. Read my post before yours at the end of the previous page.
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
Overproduction and under supply can happen in free market.
Planning and mis-allocating capital can go horrible wrong even in the total decentralized system.
... said he without even trying to argument for it.
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
Overproduction and under supply can happen in free market.
Overproduction here obviously means the quantity of goods that a producer can't sell at a given price (that he would otherwise sell had the consumer not changed his preferences). If you set the price next to nothing, there will never be overproduction indeed.
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
So will the profits of producers, right? And here we go where we started at, that is how saving can be better for the economy than consumption?
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
Overproduction and under supply can happen in free market.
Planning and mis-allocating capital can go horrible wrong even in the total decentralized system.
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue.
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments.
In order to see the price of bitcoin, gold and all commodities goes up, we need the dollar's price (or value) to go down. In other words : inflation. With QE infinity, the world is heading towards inflation !. So good news for US 
There is certainly a correlation (and sometimes a strong one) between the strength of the dollar and the price of commodities and other currencies, but it's not a perfect correlation. If the dollar weakens, that could help the price of bitcoin rise, but not necessarily. Ultimately, the price of bitcoin in USD is simply determined by how much USD people are willing to pay for it. The price of bitcoin in USD will only rise as a result of USD weakness if people believe that bitcoin will hold its value better than USD.
And btw, the US is still on course to continue tapering its bond purchases, so QE infinity is (theoretically) coming to an end. The Fed is also expected to start raising interest rates within another year or so (of course that prediction keeps getting moved back), which will remove the last of the stimulus.
Dollar has value because you can still buy oil with it.
In time of crisis, people and central banks usually flock to gold.
It doesn't mean they can create USD in any amount and it won't lose its value
Countries and companies can stop using USD
In the states it would be healthier and better for the economy in a long term perspective if consumers were saving more and consuming less
So you are essentially saying that producers should bear losses or withstand profits shrinking (since people would spend less and save more), and that would serve the economy better in the long run, right?
Am saying that going into debt to consume is extremely bad for the economy; nations that succeed like the USA before are nations of savers, producers, a stable country with a strong currency; you cannot consume with debt forever, it ends badly so the USA would fair better in long run if consumers were not going into debt to consume like it used to be; you use to save to buy something
You might have noticed that I didn't mean consumption financed by debt. Producers would have to take losses or see profits diminishing even if the decreasing consumption is directly financed by household earnings, right?
In order to be able to consume you have to produce wealth first and you have to produce
Producing come before consuming, no production no consumption; consuming is not hard, everyone can do it, being able to produce is what matters and being able to trade your time and skills for money is what able to you consume
Why do you shrink from answering my question? You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long run (as you previously claimed)?
The problem is not the demand, the problem is producing; everyone wants iphones, cars, tvs or to travel...
Answered your question, consumption made by going into debt is bad for the economy because of the debt; consumption made from savings is not better than savings; if any savings would be better because they are invested and produce a profit
You didn't answer my question. Actually, I see that you're trying to avoid answering it as much as possible. I am asking whether saving is better than consumption (I mean consumption financed from household earnings). Yes or no?
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
The advantages of inflation is promoted by those who want to deceive you into accepting the theft just abit longer. Speaking of word theft, I saw a definition of money as "something that looses value over time..." How is it possible for any mildly intelligent person to close their eyes to this?
You didn't answer my question. Actually, I see that you're trying to avoid answering it as much as possible. I am asking whether saving is better than consumption (I mean consumption financed from household earnings). Yes or no?
Yes it is better
Saving is contrary to spending which means that money saved doesn't return into circulation but is lost for the economy, at least temporarily. If you say that saving is better than spending, this with logical necessity means that there was surplus of money in the economy in the first place. Besides that, it is assumed that ultimately the saved money will be spent, so this also implicitly implies that there will be shortage of money in the economy at the moment of spending (since your assumption states that saving is better than consumption). Don't you think that these two assumptions (surplus of money and shortage of money) are in a downright contradiction with what I previously explained to you about human psychology and how it works in respect to saving and spending?
In the states it would be healthier and better for the economy in a long term perspective if consumers were saving more and consuming less
So you are essentially saying that producers should bear losses or withstand profits shrinking (since people would spend less and save more), and that would serve the economy better in the long run, right?
Am saying that going into debt to consume is extremely bad for the economy; nations that succeed like the USA before are nations of savers, producers, a stable country with a strong currency; you cannot consume with debt forever, it ends badly so the USA would fair better in long run if consumers were not going into debt to consume like it used to be; you use to save to buy something
Producing come before consuming, no production no consumption; consuming is not hard, everyone can do it, being able to produce is what matters and being able to trade your time and skills for money is what able to you consume
Why do you shrink from answering my question? You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long run (as you previously claimed)?
The problem is not the demand, the problem is producing; everyone wants iphones, cars, tvs or to travel...
Answered your question, consumption made by going into debt is bad for the economy because of the debt; consumption made from savings is not better than savings; if any savings would be better because they are invested and produce a profit
You didn't answer my question. Actually, I see that you're trying to avoid answering it as much as possible. I am asking whether saving is better than consumption (I mean consumption financed from household earnings). Yes or no?
Jump to: