Economics 101

[Liar]

In the 1970's, NYC Mayor Ed Koch said the same, BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME.....build MORE homeless shelters, the homeless will come.....they built, they came

Because there were homeless in need of shelter. The existance of shelters didn't conjure them out of thin air. So, there was a demand.

In the context of what Perry said it in.....ENERGY....he is 100% right, the more energy WE produce, the MORE we can sell

Because there is a demand for it.

So Perry was correct

If he hadn't himself framed it outside of that context, as a generalisering statement, you'd be right.

But he did.

Mr Oops did an oops. It's no big deal, but watching the white-knighting here is kind of hilarious.

 

[RobDownSouth]

How's that working out for you?

"So much winning"!!

 

[Rightguide]

Thats the third attempt to, once again, COMPLETELY get the principle wrong.

Supply does not CREATE demand. Supply does not PRODUCE demand. Supply also does not DRIVE demand.

No economist says it does. Says law does not say it does. Perry did not say it does.

YOU are characterizing it as such.

Next someone do, "Supply does not FORCE demand" folliwed by "Supply does not INSTILL demand..."

Rob went so far as to post tge warning that people often mischaracterize the dynamic as "Supply creates demand" then went on to say," You see?!?? Supply does not produce demand!!" No, duh.

In fact, depending on its size supply could indicate a lack of demand. Price is the signal.

 

[Libsam]

How's that working out for you?

He hasn't been in the position long enough to make a judgement.

But so far I'm okay with his decision to remove government meddling that stifles coal production.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Thats the third attempt to, once again,COMPLETELY get the principle wrong. Supply does not CREATE demand. Supply does not PRODUCE demand. Supply also does not DRIVE demand. No economist says it does. Says law does not say it does. Perry did not say it does. YOU are characterizing it as such. Next someone do, "Supply does not FORCE demand" folliwed by "Supply does not INSTILL demand..." Rob went so far as to post tge warning that people often mischaracterize the dynamic as "Supply creates demand" then went on to say," You see?!?? Supply does not produce demand!!" No, duh.

This is the actual quote Secretary Perry that little Queerbait above is tryin' to "mansplain":
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/Soonyigump/SUPPLY_zps5isie0kn.jpg
I'm posting it as a picture because of Queerbait's documented history of changing people's quotes and then criticizing them for "their" position.

To those of us who value facts more than bellyrubs from 4est_4est_Gump, it certainly appears that Secretary Perry has a lack of knowledge of supply and demand. Demand does not follow supply, no matter how many times Queerbait attempts to deflect.

#HeTriesSoooHard

 

[doowdniw]

In fact, depending on its size supply could indicate a lack of demand. Price is the signal.

Price would also be an indicator of demand (or supply) if you assume a product that people want or need. If there is no market (no demand) then price is irrelevant. Reducing the price to $1.00 will not create a demand for submarines with screen doors that does not otherwise already exist.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_02.jpg

 

[Wordsworth]

No demand, production of supply tends to cease.

 

[Hypoxia]

[oops]

 

[Libsam]

Price of Coal shot up when Trump was elected, it leveled out at 50%^ after steady stagnation for a few years. It had a small pop with Perry's tweet, too.

 

[Que]

Price of Coal shot up when Trump was elected, it leveled out at 50%^ after steady stagnation for a few years. It had a small pop with Perry's tweet, too.

I tend to think that's what Perry was trying to get at. If you double production price is going to drop but the question is will you still make enough profit if the price drops but your production doubles?

The OPEC model is to maintain price support by limiting supply. Ignoring tgat gains you market share but at a per-unit. Cost.

Not too long ago people were saying that the American Oil Business was dead because the cost of fracked oil was more than Saudi Arabian oil. Which is true, but the cost of fracked oil continues to drop as they continue to increase production.

If you can double supply, and not halve the price in the process, the lower-price oil will still make you more money, and demand for the lower priced oil will follow.

My old employer is ramping up production on the mining side of tbeir business. Current copper prices do not support increading supply. They are doing so, anticipating the demand will be tbere by the time they get supply out of the production process. It takes a while. You have to train operators, drill holes, blast mountainsides, line dumps, put in leach lines, move dirt, leach the ore, pump it to electrowinnowing plants and wait for copper atoms to deposit themselves on massive plates. It takes about 30 days just to finish an annode after you have all of the rest of it in place.

It's like the industrial side of the consumer confidence index. The consumer confidence index going up suggest the people will probably buy things. If you can con enough industrial manufacturing Mining and petroleum concerns that the economy is about to take an uptick you're going to see a flurry of activity and employment in those areas.

That's even better than some sort of lame government spending stimulus. you have people actually creating and producing things that you hope are going to be absorbed by a growing economy.

Its speculative, and bootstrappy, but we are long overdue for an actual recovery.

Labor participadion rate is a problem, though. Lots and lots of jobs have been automated completely out of existence.

Someone above sad that this whole idea sounds a little Keynesnian, and in fact it pretty much is without the government being the primer of the pump. In this case it's just the Energy Secretary, cheerleading the energy sector to increase supply. If he is successful conning them into doing that cost the government nothing, and saves the government money because the government is a large consumer of energy.

 

[Libsam]

It's a delicate balance.

Circling back to Says law, and not the keynes condensed version. You could argue that non-renewable production will help solar production. And if non-renewable gets too high, that could be good for renewable.

The silver lining: testing economic theories and gathering empirical evidence. Lots of unmeasurable stuff in the study of human incentive, but hey, every bit of data collection helps... i guess.

 

[Que]

It's a delicate balance.

Circling back to Says law, and not the keynes condensed version. You could argue that non-renewable production will help solar production. And if non-renewable gets too high, that could be good for renewable.

The silver lining: testing economic theories and gathering empirical evidence. Lots of unmeasurable stuff in the study of human incentive, but hey, every bit of data collection helps... i guess.

It does take a lot of energy to manufacture, transport, and install solar cells and windmills.

 

[Adre]

You just can't buy better entertainment than you get from Lit's economic Nobelists.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You just can't buy better entertainment than you get from Lit's economic Nobelists.

Demand follows Supply. Who knew? Besides Secretary Perry, of course.
Must be one of those Von Mises economic principles.

 

[Adre]

Demand follows Supply. Who knew? Besides Secretary Perry, of course.
Must be one of those Von Mises economic principles.

Von Kook, patron saint of the BroPatrol?

 

[Que]

Demand follows Supply. Who knew? Besides Secretary Perry, of course.
Must be one of those Von Mises economic principles.

Well, good morning totally-unaware-of-the-latest-board-nontroversy sleepyhead.

Since you -j u s t- (yawn, stretch) wandered in, you probably have no idea that your uber-macho second has spent the last 19 hours challenging me to a duel on your behalf.

What say you?

 

[Rightguide]

Price would also be an indicator of demand (or supply) if you assume a product that people want or need. If there is no market (no demand) then price is irrelevant. Reducing the price to $1.00 will not create a demand for submarines with screen doors that does not otherwise already exist.

Technically, there would be no supply but for demand. Demand for an innovation can preexist supply. As in Housing or a better mouse trap for instance.

 

[Peregrinator]

"You put the supply out there, and the demand will follow." Bless his pointy little head. Hint: Trump didn't say it...yet. But one of his secretaries, not surprisingly, did.

Saw this somewhere else. Made me think of Perry and your thread.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/Peregrinator/19959450_1182865335193421_4393553405822394509_n_zpslnbdribs.jpg