Prosperity is a choice and a solution.

I am a liberal left progressive labor Democrat. I believe a good standard of living world wide would go far in promoting peace. Give people a reason to live for instead of dying for. Over the last 50 years the Republican party focused on improving conditions for their constituents. The Democratic Party spread their focus and got involved in supporting a myriad of issues. Each year the Republicans whittled away at every protection designed to keep the USA a healthy consumer economy. The biggest blows came in 2000 when Representative Grahm of Texas set the stage for derivatives. He was responsible for legislation that legitimized trading that had been illegal under New York State Gaming Laws. He essentially let rivers of money flow from jobs producing investing to outright speculative gambling. People had been losing jobs because of a speculative gambling market. That removed money from the hands of people that would spend it. A prosperous economy needs spending on consumable goods. That is what an economy is, trading in goods and services. As the general population list discretionary money they started shopping more for price than quality. Low labor cost in foreign countries filled the demand for cheap products. That cost more jobs here, further reducing spending and increasing the demand for cheap foreign goods. The answer to creating prosperity is to eliminate non jobs producing investing. Penalize and criminalize 3rd party trading and investing. Reward jobs producing investing. Every thing will still be owned by the same people, nothing will be given away. The result of a prosperous economy is money for all humane programs. The majority population is known for generosity and wanting a clean safe world for their kids.  Penalizing and criminalizing outright gambling and cheating in trading and the stock market can rebuild a safe thriving economy. Then jobs will not have to be taken back because new jobs will be created. Reciprocating laws and practices will be required from trading partners. Nobody gets hurt and millions of people will be lifted out of poverty. Prosperity as well as austerity are choices. Austerity is an abomination and it is a choice. Putting people to work making things to sell is a solution. Austerity is a solution. The only reason austerity is chosen is because it is faster in the short run. In the long run austerity creates hate, discontent and ripens populations for terrorism and destruction. Prosperity takes the same money and recycals it through the population costing nobody nothing. Prosperity is a choice.

Comments

Chet Ruminski Added May 15, 2018 - 2:48pm
This is my first post and it appears I have posted it multiple times . If that is the case I apologize and would appreciate instructions on how to remove the duplicates. Thanks, Chet Ruminski
Autumn Cote Added May 15, 2018 - 2:58pm
First and foremost, a warm welcome to Writer Beat!  Currently there is a bug affecting the site which makes it so that articles cannot be deleted.  However, they can be put on draft, which just did for your other articles.
 
Please note, to help increase your readership I recommend the following:
 
1) Add an author image/avatar to your account.
2) Add some paragraph breaks to your article.
3) Comment on the work of others. 
Even A Broken Clock Added May 15, 2018 - 5:31pm
Chet, welcome to Writerbeat. Hope to see more from you in the future. In essence, you are advocating increasing monetary velocity, the turnover rate for money. Generally speaking, the higher the turnover rate, the more economic activity occurs.
 
I'm not familiar with the Representative Graham you refer to . Do you have more information about him?
Tamara Wilhite Added May 15, 2018 - 11:16pm
Chet Ruminski Added May 16, 2018 - 4:04am
Sorry about Gramm.  I was writing at red lights and got a little careless . Did take some license with the double negative at the end also. No excuse for recycals. That may have been revenge of the spell checker. Big proponent of increasing the velocity of money. Would actually like to see money declared a resource .
Stone-Eater Added May 16, 2018 - 6:29am
Chet
 
Welcome here, and the multiple posts are not your fault. It gets posted the first time but for the moment you get no confirmation, or, otherwise said, you don't notice that it WAS posted until you renew the page.
 
BTW:
 
What is
 
liberal left progressive labor Democrat
 
Kind of what we call in Europe a socialist minus Hellary Clinton ?
Dino Manalis Added May 16, 2018 - 8:04am
We should all strive for peace; stability; and prosperity globally!
Dave Volek Added May 16, 2018 - 9:45am
Hi Chet
 
Welcome to WB. 
 
The conservative people here are staying away from your first article. I think it is because your article is a bit of rant, not worthy of their focus. You bring up several topics, each that would be worthy of its own article. Get some focus, and you will find some responses from the right--and some of them will actually be quite intelligently thought out. 
 
I have to agree with the tone of your article though. If people feel disenfranchised from the economy--even if it mostly their own fault--they tend to mass themselves into some civil unrest. History has many example of this social force. A pure capitalist society cannot sustain itself. Marx was right. 
 
 
 
 
George N Romey Added May 16, 2018 - 12:14pm
The historical issue is if those with the power, money and influence feel they are prospering that’s where the story ends. They buy the political process.  Right now a small percentage of our population is immensely prosperous while a bulk are not and more likely moving backwards. But the system serves the top. Think of the trillions spent on unwarranted war that could have provided opportunities for our country.
Flying Junior Added May 16, 2018 - 3:56pm
Welcome to Writer Beat, Chet.
 
I guess you were talking about Representative and Senator Phil Gramm.  I was interested to learn about him.  He indeed sponsored some mischievous legislation during his career.  Tell me, if you know, is the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act the source for the automatic spending cuts or sequestrations which will doubtless start happening in 2019 after the Great Tax Heist of 2017 really grinds into action?
 
No kidding, George.  Every dollar that is squandered on useless military adventure is another dollar stolen from the people.
James Travil Added May 16, 2018 - 7:13pm
Good introductory article Chet, and many ideas I agree with. Welcome to Writerbeat :) 
TexasLynn Added May 16, 2018 - 11:35pm
Phil Gramm was indeed a great Senator from Texas.  I supported him for President (back in the 90s); on par with Ted Cruz. :)
 
Your article is rife with the government control of people’s lives that all "liberal left progressive labor Democrats" (aka big government socialists) support.  You would have us become another utopia the likes of Cuba and Venezuela.
 
On your main "point", everything is a gamble.  The career you choose, who you choose to work for/with, getting up in the morning.  I kind-of like that liberty and freedom; but to each his own.  You and your cronies (currently swooning and singing your praises) would love to put a strangle hold on the economy in the name of “fairness” which equates to equal misery for all.
 
The stock market is simply a means by which companies can raise capital to expand… and… put more people to work.  Derivatives (when applied properly) can be used to hedge financial risk in the same way insurance hedges risks of automobile accidents or home fires/flooding.  There can be abuses in all endeavors, the government’s role should be to ensure an equal and corruption free playing field (by preventing the likes of Solyndra and Tesla and green energy companies that just exist to suck off the government tit until they go bankrupt and their owners abscond with the doe).  Other than that, get out of the way.
 
The WB lefties have been taking a beating lately. :)  I’m sure they’re glad to hear a friendly voice.  I do applaud you on embracing the “liberal left progressive” labels.  Many here would (and do) squeal like stuck pigs when such adjectives are used. :)
 
There you go Dave V... a conservative a climbing down into the mud to wrestle with you guys. :)
 
Welcome to the WB, Chet... for Autumns sake, I took it easy on you. :)
Jeffrey Kelly Added May 16, 2018 - 11:57pm
Welcome to Writer Beat.
 
We do need less Trumplings around here.  
 
We can also talk about how the Republican Party cares more about their wealthy donors than the American people.  What they do well is appeal to the patriotism and religious needs of their constituency to the point where said constituency is willing to vote against their own best interests.  We can now toss in Trump’s repulsive nationalism and thinly veiled racism.
 
Congratulations, Donald the Thud.  You are a symptom of what #WMAS (What Makes America Suck).
James Travil Added May 17, 2018 - 4:04am
Well said Jeffrey! While I as a moderate reject both the Democrats and the Republicans the Republicans are clearly the worst of the two. Whereas the Democratic Party is beholden to corporate and Wall Street greed and neoliberal corruption. The Republicans are warmongering neocon sadists who worship the suffering of the poor and working people, pure evil incarnate. 
Dave Volek Added May 17, 2018 - 11:34am
Lynn
 
There you go Dave V... a conservative a climbing down into the mud to wrestle with you guys. :)
 
I couldn't figure out why Chet was not challenged--other than his article lacked focus. 
 
But having all these differing WB viewpoints coming together, with most of them being on the civil side, is what makes WB interesting. I hope Chet sticks around.
 
Jeffrey
We need more Trumplings here.
 
The first loyalty of any politician is to the political party that provides the banner to become elected. The betterment of society is a secondary concern. When we come to realize that, they maybe we will really start working to solve the problems--rather than wait for a political messiah to save us.
 
The political left is as bereft as the political right.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mike Haluska Added May 17, 2018 - 12:50pm
Yes - the more we put the government in charge of the economy the more we will prosper!  
 
More taxation, government interference, huge bureaucracy, etc. .  . that's the way to prosperity!  Just ask Venezuela!
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 17, 2018 - 2:00pm
Welcome Chet
 
There are  lots of items on your first article and I agree with most posts above that comment on the spread, scope and number of points. It is way too broad.
 
I choose to comment on only one:
 
"In the long run austerity creates hate, discontent and ripens populations for terrorism and destruction. "
 
This sounds like an echo from the Greek Problem where the debt to GDP ratio now stands at 307% of GDP. Here, we must face the problem that  Greece has no ability to service this debt and has gone bankrupt some 3 times since 1860 or so. They, Ireland and others can never solve their debt problems and require a bail-out from somewhere outside their borders. This is very difficult. The austerity you talk about is to  minimize waste and slow down the debt process to avoid a financial collapse of that country.
 
The major problem here is what?: 'Should the IMF or World Bank or some other group buy their bonds when a default on their part is almost a certainty?
 
On this:
 
"Prosperity takes the same money and recycals[sic] it through the population costing nobody nothing. Prosperity is a choice."
 
Not true in any sense. Those who lack prosperity on your terms need to be able to participate in monetary and business norms to generate their own wealth and spread that around
 
The issue becomes whether or not to hold them down to a reduction in government spending and borrowing to eventually get their credit rating raised to levels that people will buy their bonds. 
 
Debt is a major problem in the demise of governments [Greece, Hungary 1948, Argentina, Venezuela etc.]
 
There is not enuf money on the planet to satisfy the condition that we should all be prosperous. Prosperity is not an open choice it is a result of efficient government and spending. Redistributing money equally around the planet would result in a condition where there is not enough money  concentrated in one place to make cars, grow food at any large scale or much else. Just divide the sum of world wealth and divide by the earth's population and there is not much left for growth. 
 
jmnsho
 
 
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 17, 2018 - 2:06pm
Mike:
 
"Yes - the more we put the government in charge of the economy the more we will prosper!  
 
More taxation, government interference, huge bureaucracy, etc. .  . that's the way to prosperity!  Just ask Venezuela!
 
Correct. 
 
There is an efficiency factor here where government people cannot run manufacturing, transportation and such with the same efficiency as the private sector so that such monies are wasted in some degree, which becomes larger with the size of government compare to the population.
 
I think that when governments spend more than about 15% of GDP that the inefficiency soars. The US is at about 26%  or so now and clearly inefficient. 
George N Romey Added May 17, 2018 - 5:52pm
Solving an unsolvable debt problem such as Greece by austerity won’t work. Austerity is put into place instead of the real solution the writing down of the debt. Since bond holders have a hell of lot more sway with the EBC than a bunch of aging Greeks we all know who takes it up the ass.
 
Government should be responsible for essential services not provided well under the profit model. When your house is burning you don’t have the time or luxury to shop for the best provider of fire fighting services.
David Montaigne Added May 18, 2018 - 8:11am
What will create prosperity is a focus on providing quality goods and services and that begins with encouraging teenagers to develop a strong work ethic and an understanding that developing marketable skills and experience is more important than playing video games.  If too many young people have little to offer employers, then supply of employees outweighs demand for unskilled labor and labor prices stay low and quality of life reflects the low skill sets of the employees.  I agree with Chet Ruminski's final sentence that "Prosperity is a choice."  But I suggest that choice has often been made by the end of high school.  Did the young person sacrifice play time to increase their skill sets and get a useful education?  If they drift aimlessly why should they expect a high degree of prosperity?  Because they are entitled to it?  Nope.  If society is expected to pay someone more than the market dictates they are worth, so they can "enjoy prosperity" without earning it, they better plan on some major sacrifices to curb their behavior/bad/short term choices.  I didn't study hard, work long hours, sacrifice and delay my happiness to share it with the undeserving because some left-wing communist wants to force "equality" of results when there was no interest in equality of effort.  I think the nation/world needs to change expectations of what is really necessary in life, what people "deserve," and what people need to be prepared to contribute to society to achieve their goals.  And to what degree society should intervene to stop self-destructive behaviors...
TexasLynn Added May 18, 2018 - 8:36am
David M,
I couldn't agree more... except for one point.  If you wait until a kid is a teenager to encourage him/her to develop a strong work ethic, you're too late.  That happens at a very young age.  The teenage years hopefully solidify the work ethic you've helped build.
 
A parent can give a child few better gifts than a good worth ethic and a touch of common sense... both severely lacking in today's society.
 
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 18, 2018 - 9:30am
George
 
"Austerity is put into place instead of the real solution the writing down of the debt."
 
How simple it must be to just write down the debt. Could we have an example of this wondrous method. 
 
Who eats  the debt? The nasty old bond holders?
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 18, 2018 - 9:37am
David Montaigne
 
" I didn't study hard, work long hours, sacrifice and delay my happiness to share it with the undeserving because some left-wing communist wants to force "equality" of results when there was no interest in equality of effort."
 
 Me too. First job was picking cotton at 11. 
 
Parroting for the far left here, your hard work and avoidance  of crime and drugs [assumed here] allowed you to generate wealth beyond the level of the average person and, as such, is proof that  you  got that loot unfairly.
 
Remember Obama: You didn't build that.....the government gave that to you so you owe much.
 
TexasLynn Added May 18, 2018 - 11:34am
JFK D >> First job was picking cotton at 11.
 
If you've never had a tow sack on your back, (or know what a tow sack is), it's hard to appreciate.  Such work gives one a great perspective on the value of labor that few have.  There are many such jobs that instill that appreciation that few (in relation to the population) have experienced.
 
At 5 my job was to walk beside my mom or dad and put peas in their tow sack.  Eventually I got old enough to drag my own.  I remember my goal was always 100 pounds which meant I could barely drag it at the end of the row.  At 3 or 4 cents a pound... do the math.
 
Then dad branched out into watermelons.  A tractor and trailer would drive down the middle of two rows and young men (usually teenagers) on either side would throw watermelons to a young man in the trailer who would stack them for transport to the truck.  You would take turns being the catcher in the trailer (the easier job).
 
At an early age I knew I was going to get an education... I wonder how I reached that conclusion?  The experience of hard work from an early age is invaluable in terms of knowing what I could do, and the value of a dollar behind that effort.
TexasLynn Added May 18, 2018 - 11:50am
>> Who eats the debt? The nasty old bond holders?
 
That is one solution the left eventually resorts to when they "run out of other people's money". 
 
The problem is, all leftist economic "solutions" share the same problem, by design they reduce the creation of capital and the ability to raise capital in the future.
 
Higher taxes... reduces incentive to work and produce, and increases the incentive to move elsewhere.
 
Shared misery (socialism)... reduces the incentive to work and produce
 
Anti-Austerity... the increasing debt (or the taxes to support the state) eventually crush the society under debt... there is nothing left to loot.
 
Write down the debt... (if that means just don't pay) ... it only works once.  After that you can't just say "Oh... and I have more bonds to sell".
Dave Volek Added May 18, 2018 - 12:48pm
All
I brought Chet to WB a few days ago. He made his first post, then the system crashed. I can still comment, but cannot publish new articles. Chet says he cannot log in, so he cannot comment.
 
There haven't been any new articles for a couple of days. In case Autumn is not aware, hopefully she gets this message.
 
David said:
But I suggest that choice has often been made by the end of high school.  Did the young person sacrifice play time to increase their skill sets and get a useful education?  If they drift aimlessly why should they expect a high degree of prosperity?
 
I think if we had all the sociological studies on our fingertips, there would verify this statement. I remember reading one study that compared two groups of African-Americans in New York City. One group was working in fast food; the other group was hanging around the street corner. Five years later, much of the first group moved on to something else: post-secondary, trades, truck drivers, warehouse workers, managers of fast food, etc. The second group was still hanging around the street corner.
 
If parents are not able to instill a "work ethic" into their children, what is the role of the state in trying to raise this work ethic?
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 18, 2018 - 2:05pm
TexasLynn
 
"The problem is, all leftist economic "solutions" share the same problem, by design they reduce the creation of capital and the ability to raise capital in the future."
 
It must be a truism that the lefties cannot do anything without tax monies. It is a full truism that the liberals cannot compete with capitalism in any way. 
 
Our taxes wasted..........
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 18, 2018 - 2:08pm
Dave Volek
 
"If parents are not able to instill a "work ethic" into their children, what is the role of the state in trying to raise this work ethic?"
 
In the 60s parents were crazed on dope and taught their children the role of being dependent upon the state for their existence. 
 
There is no work ethic on the left side of the isle--rather a tax and hate ethic.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 18, 2018 - 2:12pm
TexasLynn
 
"Then dad branched out into watermelons.  A tractor and trailer would drive down the middle of two rows and young men (usually teenagers) on either side would throw watermelons to a young man in the trailer who would stack them for transport to the truck.  You would take turns being the catcher in the trailer (the easier job)."
 
Training for football, I liked the booster job where the melons were lifted up high to the catcher who passed them to the stacker. 
Dave Volek Added May 18, 2018 - 2:29pm
Ryck
 
In the 60s parents were crazed on dope and taught their children the role of being dependent upon the state for their existence. 
 
There is no work ethic on the left side of the isle--rather a tax and hate ethic.
 
In the 1960s, many more parents were not on dope than were on dope. Even today with the liberalization of cannabis laws, less the 5% of the population use this narcotic. And many of them manage to hold on to jobs and manage their families.
 
As for the work ethic, I know quite a few people who would consider themselves on the political left. They are quite able to make to work every day and put in an honest day's labor. Some of them even start small businesses.
 
You are making blanket statements that have no basis in reality.
 
 
TexasLynn Added May 18, 2018 - 2:35pm
>> I brought Chet to WB a few days ago.
 
So, you're to blame... :)
 
>> I can still comment, but cannot publish new articles. Chet says he cannot log in, so he cannot comment.
 
I thought we were getting a bit of a free ride.  All the Lefties started out oohing and aahing, but then us conservatives took over the thread.
 
Conspiracy?  Have all the lefty logins been suspended.  I can post just fine.  I wasn't even aware there was a problem.  Autumn did mention in her latest post (haven't you seen it) that she had brought in an outside consultant (Peggy from not Russia) to help her do some cleansing... I mean clean up. :)
 
Peggy... if your monitoring this... you missed one. :)
 
>> There haven't been any new articles for a couple of days. In case Autumn is not aware, hopefully she gets this message.
 
I've posted three myself (haven't you seen them).  I don't know what's going on with your account, Dave.
 
Peggy?  Are getting this?  You missed one. :)
 
Note: Normally, I would leave it there... but with all the TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) out there you can't rely on normal rational thought processing kicking in and realizing that the above was completely tongue-in-cheek.
 
As proactive as Autumn is, I'm sure she's well on top of things.  Let's all be patient.
TexasLynn Added May 18, 2018 - 2:37pm
Dave >> If parents are not able to instill a "work ethic" into their children...
 
Under what circumstances would a parent not be "able" to instill a work ethic? 
 
In pretty well all cases, it's a choice not to; usually facilitated by the parent being completely unprepared to be parents or lacking any king of work ethic themselves.  Unless the state is prepared to take kids away from such parents (and we don't even do that with dope-head parents) I don't see what the state can do.  As with most issues of morality (work ethic being one of them); kids are either going to get it from home or they aren't going to get it.
 
Dave >> ... what is the role of the state in trying to raise this work ethic?
 
None. 
 
Bad parents might be the biggest sociological cause of bad/lazy kids (soon to be adults), but the state assuming it should have any role in raising our children is a close second.  The nature of the state causes it (overall) to do more harm than good as well as stomp on the parental rights of the parents who are at least trying to raise their kids right.
 
If the state wants to do anything to help in this regard, let it do this.  Foster an environment of ample and equal opportunity for all to work and contribute to society; and make sure IT isn't contributing to or enabling the bad behavior (which it currently is).
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 18, 2018 - 3:05pm
Dave Volek
 
"You are making blanket statements that have no basis in reality."
 
Reread your post and tell us there are no blanket statements  there. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 18, 2018 - 3:17pm
TexasLynn
 
"Bad parents might be the biggest sociological cause of bad/lazy kids (soon to be adults), but the state assuming it should have any role in raising our children is a close second."
 
It seems the 'state,' or more directly the teacher's  union, directs and implements the notion that students should be  taught to be good citizens according to far leftist dogma. 
 
Perhaps we should warn our kids that many contemporary teachers are mere marionettes for the far left and are not to be believed too far or to be trusted. Parents are  probably thus required to teach teach their kids about what teachers are doing and how to detect political bias and revisionist history.
 
Dave Volek Added May 18, 2018 - 3:26pm
Lynn
 
I don't think there is any WB conspiracy here. I seem to recall Autumn was making some software changes. Changing code on a live website is a bit risky.
 
I am promoting my book on a liberal/progressive forum, and that is where I found Chet. This site is moderated and the moderator seems quick to kick out people with different political philosophies: I have to be careful as my ideas are radical to the politically left as well as the right. But this forum is an echo chamber and no where near as active and vibrant as WB. Chet seems like someone willing to burrs under other people's saddles. It could be interesting.
 
No, I haven't seen any of your new articles. May 15 seems to be the newest article I have on my WB wall today (May 18).
 
I have to commend you that you did actually answer my question about what should the state do with kids whose families are teaching them a good work ethic. It's interesting to see how many of my questions are avoided.
 
I have to agree in one sense. The state should do as little as possible. But there are people who come from "poor" backgrounds and dysfunctional families who manage to attain some success in life---just as there are people who come from "privileged" backgrounds who eventually become dependent on their family's wealth rather than working. There's no social formula that guarantees either a 100% success rate or a 100% failure rate.
 
The goal of the state, in this regard, is to provide a forum that allows a higher success rate--with a reasonable investment of public funds.
 
Schools are one place where children can get some encouragement and accountability for life when the home life is failing. While that is not as good as a functional family, it is still better than nothing for these kids. Cut out the nurturing schools, we will have a lot more dysfunctional people in our society. 
 
Police presence, playgrounds, sports teams, field trips, camps, etc. all help young people grow up better--even those from a dysfunctional environment. We won't be able to save them all, but we can save a lot of them. And I would say that various progressive causes have moved more people towards a better life than what their parents alone could have provided.
 
I am currently employed in one of these progressive causes: providing high school education to adults who missed their high school education. About a third of our student fail out in one or two semesters, not really putting in much effort. Another third put some effort into their studies, pass a few courses, then leave. They usually go back to occupations similar to what they had before, but they have more literacy and numeracy skills behind them. And another third finish their high school credentials--and move beyond. We have quite a few nurses and engineers as our trophies. But without state involvement, most of this last third would never have come to further their education.
 
If we are looking only at the one-third who essentially get nothing from this progressive cause, then we should shut it down. I guess that would be OK by people like you.
 
 
 
 
TexasLynn Added May 18, 2018 - 4:34pm
Dave >> I don't think there is any WB conspiracy here.
 
As I stated, that whole comment was me being hilarious (if I might humbly say so myself). :)
 
Dave >> Chet seems like someone willing to burrs under other people's saddles. It could be interesting.
 
I hate people when they do that.  I think people should be more like me and more accommodating and gentle in their disposition. :)
 
Dave >> There's no social formula that guarantees either a 100% success rate or a 100% failure rate.
 
100% agree.  Some people who never had a chance (socially or morally) beat the odds and become outstanding people and citizens.  Then there are those with all the advantage (and I'm not just talking about money) who seem to be irredeemable.
 
Dave >> I have to agree in one sense. The state should do as little as possible.
 
Glad to find some common ground.  But... the rest of your comment doesn't seem to support that assertion.
 
Dave >> The goal of the state, in this regard, is to provide a forum...
 
You would have to be more specific before I offer my approval.  Church and community offer every opportunity to become a better person and give back.  Hopefully this is what you mean.
 
As for schools, I think by the nature of the people who become teachers, they will be an encouraging and nurturing aspect to that environment.  BUT I think the schools need to concentrate on teaching and preparing kids with basic skills (reading, writing, and arithmetic... which they are not doing very well now).
 
Dave >> Police presence, playgrounds, sports teams, field trips, camps...
 
I'm not saying there isn't a place for these things... but if a school is failing with the three Rs (reading writing and arithmetic), the extra-curriculars are wasted (in my opinion).
 
Dave >> I am currently employed in one of these progressive causes: providing high school education to adults who missed their high school education.
 
Admirable, if I might say so.
 
Dave >> If we are looking only at the one-third who essentially get nothing from this progressive cause, then we should shut it down. I guess that would be OK by people like you.
 
:) ... "To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil." -- Charles Krauthammer
 
As that "evil" conservative, I must admit that I don't think this is the responsibility of the state.  I don't think any "progressive (or conservative) cause" is the responsibility of the state.  I think such things ARE the responsibility of private charity (progressive or conservative) and/or the churches (whatever religion or denomination).
 
It's one of the few areas in which my libertarian side shows.
Dave Volek Added May 18, 2018 - 4:59pm
Lynn
 
Thanks for the quick response. I'm probably not going to be around WB this weekend.
 
Let's assume that programs like mine are cut and the expenses that kept it going are given back in lower taxes. I would say that with today's attitude of the wealthier class, they would not voluntarily give enough of their wealth back to the community to fund similar programs. Most would be content to snub those adults who want to gain a high education: "You should have done it while you were in high school--so live the consequences" or "Pay for it yourself, and I don't give a *#&# that you can't afford it".
 
And all those students that I helped turn into nurses and engineers are---just parasites.
 
Sorry Lynn, I just don't have that much faith in the generosity of wealthy people. Maybe in a future time (after the TDG alters our societal thinking), but not in this decade for sure.
 
Had we been living in a libertarian society, I would not have become educated to converse with you like this. I grew up in the "working poor" class.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TexasLynn Added May 18, 2018 - 6:18pm
Dave,
(Disclaimer: I'm speaking from an American perspective here... I don't know much about the Canadian Constitution or system).
 
To be honest, my argument has nothing to do with money.  Yes, taxes should be low for everybody for multiple reasons... not the least of which is a government starved of excessive taxes has less means to be abusive AND less means to wage war as many on site wail about.
 
So, let's say the money went somewhere else instead and those selfish, evil, bastard rich didn't get a dime back.  My stance is still that this is a local/private charity matter for two reasons 1) the rule of law 2) efficiency  and 3) the compassion quotient
 
1. Rule of Law - I think federal government should do what it is Constitutionally obligated to do and those powers/responsibilities "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
2. Efficiency - When it comes to charity (which this is) I think government entities (especially on the state and higher level) are too incompetent and wasteful and corrupt to successfully pull it off. The lower you go in government, the more accountability you are likely to achieve.  Get to the private sector (including charities) that becomes even more so.
 
3. The compassion quotient - The more detached the administrator is from the charity the less compassion and commitment that administrator has for the cause. The original purpose because secondary to the new purpose of providing the bureaucrat with a comfortable job. Put this in the hands of someone who has direct control and influence and a real emotional stake in the outcome and you get more compassion and better results.
TexasLynn Added May 18, 2018 - 6:18pm
Dave >> Sorry Lynn, I just don't have that much faith in the generosity of wealthy people.
 
Fair enough... I don't have much faith in all of humanity or government.  We're both probably a little bit right and a little bit wrong.
 
Dave >> Maybe in a future time (after the TDG alters our societal thinking), but not in this decade for sure.
 
I admire your optimism; but how can a political system "alter" societal thinking?  It's never been done before!  Isn't that also the goal of socialism/communism in their march to social utopia?  What does TDG have that grants it this magical power that has eluded EVERYBODY else (and their systems) in history?
 
Forgive my skepticism, but if history has taught me anything, it's not to put much faith in human nature which directly ties in to my lack of faith in government.  I particularly don't trust anything that claims it will get men to act against their nature.  So, when it comes to government, it's best to take that nature in mind; meaning, government is best that is continually limited, small, checked and balanced.
 
Thus... I am a conservative.
 
Dave >> Had we been living in a libertarian society, I would not have become educated to converse with you like this.
 
And thank God for that.  Who has grown up in a libertarian society?  Libertarianism is just another political philosophy.  One I have studied and conversed with believers on... and rejected after consideration.  I admire their understanding of fiscal issues and limited government, but abhor their isolationism and laissez faire morality.
 
Translation... they got it half right. :)
 
Dave >> I grew up in the "working poor" class.
 
As did I early on.  Do you think anybody other than the "working poor" know what a tow sack is?
 
By the time I was a young adult (18), my parents had probably attained the status of middle class.
 
Due to my decisions, to get an education (and in something useful), delay family, etc... I'm am probably considered on the lower end of "upper middle class" today.  I'm what we Texans call "land rich".  I own lots of land but not much cash to speak of.
 
So, I've experienced all levels from bottom (how are we going to pay the bills) to the top 15%... beyond that... I have no clue.  I have no shame for where I find myself today... I've worked my ass off for what I have.
Flying Junior Added May 19, 2018 - 11:50pm
The fuck!
 
You bitches with your TDS?
 
He is without any doubt the most destructive and divisive president in all history.  It makes me sick that anyone at all could support him
 
That does not make my deranged.  Y'all are fucking sick in the head.
 
I get that he gave voice to the deluded and misinformed hardcore right that felt up against the roped with a negro liberal as president.
 
But fuck man.  He is harming so many people in so many ways.  The steel tariff alone threatens to cripple the world economy, particularly the U.S. economy.  Thousands of businesses and industries threatened.  The pull-out from TPP and trade agreements with the EU.  The threat to NAFTA, the most productive trade agreement ever for the U.S. and our closest trading partners.
 
Not to mention the sabotage of the EPA, minimum mileage standards for passenger cars and trucks.  Offshore drilling on every coastal state?  The support of coal mining?  The patent negation of any threat whatsoever from fossil fuels contributing to global warming?
 
C-Ya
Flying Junior Added May 20, 2018 - 12:11am
One more thing...
 
The Great American Tax Heist of 2017.
 
The shit doesn't hit the fan until 2019 when revenues fall short and the deficit trebles.
 
Sequestrations, thanks to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act.  The only thin silver lining is that cuts to Medicare are limited.  The whole thing just explodes because of the lack of republican foresight.
 
I don't believe for two seconds that anyone is stupid enough to believe that the tax cuts will increase GDP.
 
The people get the pennies.  The 1% gets the whole pie.
 
Y'all are lying your asses off and lying to yourselves.
 
Everyone needs to double down because Trump just fucked up the entire world economy.  The Bush Depression/Recession will just look like a blip on the radar.
 
Save your money kids.  Invest wisely.  Shit is headed down.  Down, down, down.
 
You dumb Trumpies.  True believers.  WTF?  How could anybody be that stupid?
Stone-Eater Added May 20, 2018 - 7:56am
FJ
 
You have to drive a country to the wall in order to justify a war. That always works. Simple as that. It's not Trump. Trump is an actor to sell the economy story to the population - from internal US to creating new enemies in exterior in order to boost the MIC.
Stephen Hunter Added May 20, 2018 - 8:25am
Welcome to WB Chet. You will certainly get both ends of the political spectrum here! Which is great as it is important to understand how people think, even if we do not always agree. 
I believe that in a decade or two, enough of the old communist haters will pass on, and we can have a guaranteed income for all. There will be more creativity and focus on the arts and theoretical sciences. 
However there will be many on WB who will tell you that if we do not protect ourselves we will be all be working in forced labor camps, run by George Soros and the muslims. 
TexasLynn Added May 20, 2018 - 9:39am
FJ >> You dumb Trumpies.  True believers.  WTF?  How could anybody be that stupid?
 
FJ!  LMAO!  I greatly enjoyed your response.  I envision a vein visibly throbbing on your temple... wild Rasputin eyes glaring at the screen as you type... a bit of foam trickling from one side of your mouth. :)  I only hope you had the presence of mind to send the kids out of the room. :)
 
You forgot those Rascally Russians, AND North Korea playing Trump for a fool.  If only he had the "intelligence" to send Kim John-Un pallets of cash like our last great statesman to hold the Presidency? :)
 
Trump Derangement Syndrome! :P
 
Stephen H >> I believe that in a decade or two, enough of the old communist haters will pass on...
 
Communism is responsible for more death (in the 10s of millions) than any human invention in history.  Yeah... let's forget history; let's try THAT again.
TexasLynn Added May 20, 2018 - 9:41am
Autumn!?  Peggy (not from Russia)!?  Are getting this?  They seem to be returning! LMAO!
Stone-Eater Added May 20, 2018 - 10:59am
Texas
 
 
Communism is responsible for more death (in the 10s of millions) than any human invention in history. 
 
 
Please do stop to talk about stuff you don't have a clue about sitting 10'000 miles away of stuff and about things that probably happened before you were born.
 
Enjoy life, eat your Mac once a day and be happy. More is not needed. Greetings from Europe - where things HAPPEN(ED).
 
And keep on dreaming about capitalism that produces NO poverty in the US. 
TexasLynn Added May 20, 2018 - 12:31pm
>> Greetings from Europe - where things HAPPEN(ED).
 
Agreed, much of the misery and death of the last century emanated from (and in) Europe; thanks in large part to European communist and fascist/socialist dictators, and the political ideologies invented by mad philosophers.  And if/when it happens again, Europe does seem to be a likely source, having forgotten and re-written history.
 
I love the way you attack the messenger and never dispute the message.  "You're not from here.  It happened before you were born.  You don't know what your taking about.  Eat your Mac and shut up..."
 
How does one even hope to respond to such well thought-out and presented prose?  One almost expects the classic "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal.
 
To your "point"... capitalism has indeed relieved more misery in the U.S. and in the world than any other system.  When combined with faith, the fruits are exponential.  When looked at historically and comparatively (to the rest of the world), poverty in the U.S. is at an all-time low.
 
I can only guess at the mental gymnastics you are employing to deny that the 10’s of millions died or that Communism/Socialism wasn’t responsible.
Stone-Eater Added May 20, 2018 - 1:14pm
When looked at historically and comparatively (to the rest of the world), poverty in the U.S. is at an all-time low.
 
1. Give me proof of those 10's of millions and also count the number of deaths caused by the US capitalist wars since Iran 1953.
 
2. The US is a brutal and cruel society. I lived there and I know it. No hearsay. Drugs all over, street crime, gang fights. Is that a sign of wealth and progress ? Not quite.
 
You see, you guys over there don't understand the nature of real socialism. Why ? Because McCarthy did a good job in the Fifties. I don't say that we Europeans are better. Far from it. We are more realistic and less religious (we don't "pray" at any occasion there is, and often we think that pretending to be religious is more important than being).
 
Now you have a prez who is far from being anything like intellectual. Sad ! Bad ! is about what Donald Duck can bring across. I mean, really: PLEASE get your act together, stop playing empire when it has no chance of really becoming one and elect for fuck's sake people in offices who have brains LOL
Chet Ruminski Added May 20, 2018 - 1:20pm
I was just able to log in but have to go to work. Texas Lynn, there is nothing in my post asking for anything free. It is undeniable that derivatives traditionally used to stabilize the market for sensitive goods have been abused beyond comprehension since. The ultimate abuse was classifying mortgages as futures allowing them to be traded unregulated under Gramm's CFMA causing the almost collapse of our economy in 2008. Abolishing the CFMA would put money back into the real goods and services economy. There is nothing capitalistic about a derivative trading system. Derivatives are a paramutual betting system that has even resorted to socialising losses by debiting the winning party in the eventuality underlying interest was a negative. I believe in a true real capitalist economy that rewards effort by the trading in goods and services . I believe in working for rewards not finessing profits.  A true capitalist system regulated for opportunity and fairness will lead to prosperity through a consumer economy .  The only real economy is making products to sell therefore stabilizing a system because a stock is valuable for its earnings and not a sales pitch. The DOW over 20000 and negligible GDP is warning that the paramutual betting financial system is on the brink of disaster .
Stone-Eater Added May 20, 2018 - 1:21pm
BTW:
 
To your "point"... capitalism has indeed relieved more misery in the U.S. and in the world than any other system.
 
You never had another system in the US than capitalism. Today I call it economic dictatorship. So how can you know that another system would not have produced other results ?
 
Do you think that it's a progress when billions of people are having survival problems while a couple of thousand are billionaires ? And maybe you want to tell me that it's the fault of these billions that they are not billionaires because they're too lazy or have the wrong religion or "system" ?
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 20, 2018 - 2:07pm
Lynn and Stone
 
Death from Communism:
 
Mass killings under Communist regimes"Mass killings occurred under some twentieth century Communist regimes. Death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions of deaths included. The higher estimates of mass killings account for crimes against civilians by governments, including executions, destruction of population through man-made hunger, and deaths during forced deportations and through the forced labor. Terms used to define these killings include "mass killing", "democide", "politicide", "classicide", and a broad definition of "genocide." The estimates from the The Black Book of Communism and by Martin Maliasuggested a total death toll of between 85 and 100 million people.[1]"
 
Maybe we ought to give communism one more good try!
 
I was impressed with Beria but he didn't last long.
George N Romey Added May 20, 2018 - 3:28pm
Yep SEF Trump is no more than a dog being led by its master on a leash. But so was Obama, Bush and to one degree or another everyone since JFK. Trump is no more running the show than the man in the moon. It’s all about the .01%. And if they feel the threatened by the unwashed masses to war we go.
 
People like Jr get their underwear in a bind over the buffoonery of Trump never understanding the real threat to civilization. Trump is meaningless unless he is “conditioned” to go commando.
A. Jones Added May 20, 2018 - 8:50pm
Prosperity is a choice.
 
True enough.
 
However, you've reversed cause and effect. Spending and consuming are effects; the causes are saving and investing.
 
I don't take the Keynesian view that investing is itself a form of "spending." When I use the word "spending", I mean spending on an end-user consumable good.
 
An economy cannot spend and consume its way to prosperity. If that were the case, a practical policy would be to issue everyone a government-approved printing press and let each person print as much paper currency as he or she desires and have them spend it.
 
The actual result of such a policy, however, would be a steep rise in prices of consumer goods . . . and possibly hyperinflation, if people tried to outpace the rise in consumer prices by printing even more money at an ever faster pace.
Chet Ruminski Added May 20, 2018 - 10:58pm
A. Jones said:  "the causesare saving and investing".
Saving is the anathema of a prosperous consumer economy buy investing wins first prize. That is why I said penalise derivatives and non interested investments. Then reward jobs producing investments. Then the 100 billions of dollars stagnated in derivatives will migrate into producing jobs. There has to be regulations to rule out the outliers. 2008 proved the need for regulations. Nobody has to give anybody anything. Regulations to ensure equal opportunity and fairness. To bypass the excesses of greed in a prosperous economy money will have to be maintained like the resource it is. Money sustains life so it is a resource and should be afforded all the protections of a resource. Perpetual and dynasty trusts should be targeted for extinction . Perpetual trusts are analogous to damming up a river and preventing the growth and enrichment it provides. Rush Limbaugh said he just couldn't see people getting paid for not working . He was talking about the beneficial retirement packages of the auto workers. He was wrong in fact becsuse the auto workers worked and paid for these bebefits. But I do agree with his concept when applied to money. Dynasty and perpetual trusts remove money from the economy and that is wrong. Money was created to facilitate the trading in goods and services. Stagnating money in a trust is contrary to the purpose of money and removes that resource from the system for which it was created. It creates inflation. 
   Prosperity is the function of money velocity. It is safe and attainable. There is no moral reason to deny prosperity for a nation .
Chet Ruminski Added May 20, 2018 - 11:05pm
A. Jones said : 
"An economy cannot spend and consume its way to prosperity. If that were the case, a practical policy would be to issue everyone a government-approved printing press and let each person print as much paper currency as he or she desires and have them spend it"
 
Creating lots of good paying jobs is the natural way to prosperity. People spend money creating demand and more jobs. Thus increasing the velocity of money. Nothing has to be printed or given . The faster a dollar circulates through an economy the better the economy will become. 
TexasLynn Added May 20, 2018 - 11:35pm
Chet >> I was just able to log in but have to go to work. Texas Lynn, there is nothing in my post asking for anything free.
 
I'm missing where I mentioned anything free, other than conservative commenters getting a "free ride" because you couldn't reply.
 
Chet >> It is undeniable that derivatives traditionally used to stabilize the market for sensitive goods have been abused beyond comprehension since.
 
All that could be solved by simply not bailing anybody out.  No bank, no auto maker, nobody.  Gamble to your heart's content with your money... but understand that it's your risk and your loss.
 
When companies and individuals know this (it's their capital at risk)... it affects their behavior.  When they know the opposite to be true, they throw caution to the wind and who can blame them when there is absolutely no risk to them.
 
Chet >> The ultimate abuse was classifying mortgages as futures allowing them to be traded unregulated...
 
That fiasco was morons in Washington so wanting everybody to achieve the American dream that they started lending money (guaranteeing loans) to people who couldn't afford houses.  The banks did it because Washington guaranteed the loans so there was no risk to them.  So when it all collapsed (which was going to happen at some point), the taxpayer got stuck with the bill.
 
The solution?  Don't lend money to people who can't afford it.  Don't get the government involved in making those decisions.
 
If you’re seeing a pattern to the solutions here... it's called the free market.
 
What screwed everything up every time?  Government.  Government circumventing the free market.  THAT's the problem that needs addressing here.
A. Jones Added May 20, 2018 - 11:51pm
Creating lots of good paying jobs is the natural way to prosperity.
 
Is that a fact? Consider this hypothetical: food, clothing, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, houses, smartphones, etc., fall from the sky like manna from heaven, all free of charge like air: each person can consume as much as he or she wants at no personal cost in his or time or labor. Guess what? No more "good paying" jobs are needed. So lots and lots of lots of goods and services at low cost for consumers is the "natural" way to prosperity; not "good paying jobs." What counts, anyway, with a worker's paycheck is how much he can buy with that paycheck (the purchasing power of the paycheck) not the dollar amount printed on the check. If "$100" is printed on his paycheck but it only costs a dollar for each thing he wants and needs, he's much better off than a worker whose check has "$10,000" printed on it but each good he wants and needs to buy costs $5,000. In that case, he can only buy two things he needs, whereas the first worker could buy 100 things he wants and needs . . . so who is more prosperous: the first worker or the second? And who really has the better paying job: the first worker or the second?
 
People spend money creating demand and more jobs.
 
No. You have it backward. When a worker spends a dollar on a bag of potatoes, he already represents "demand" for potatoes; he doesn't create demand. What created that worker's demand for potatoes was the fact that he previously produced something else (or provided a service) for someone.
 
"Money" is not demand (except in a superficial sense). Other goods and services represent demand.
 
Study Say's Law and you'll grasp the point: there is no demand without a previously existing supply of produced goods or services.
 
And don't confuse "demand" with "need". They're completely different.
A. Jones Added May 21, 2018 - 12:21am
All that could be solved by simply not bailing anybody out
 
Um, may I diplomatically say, "BINGO!"
Chet Ruminski Added May 21, 2018 - 12:39am
A. Jones said: "Money" is not demand (except in a superficial sense). Other goods and services represent demand."
Without money their cannot be demand. Their can be acres of potatoes but without money the potatoes will rot in the field. Without money their is barter. Barter cannot solve complicated diverse needs. That is what created money. Money creates demand. 
Flying Junior Added May 21, 2018 - 3:29am
Nice to see that the site is up and running.  Looking forward to more contributions by Chet.
 
Sorry, Lynn.  I have never actually drooled in my fervent hatred of Trump.
 
I think people that don't hate Trump are out of their ever-loving minds.  I attribute it to Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
A. Jones Added May 21, 2018 - 5:21am
Without money their cannot be demand.
 
Not so. The chickens in my backyard produce eggs; the hogs in my neighbor's backyard produce bacon. I trade some of my chickens' eggs for some of my neighbors' hogs' bacon. In turn, my neighbor trades some of his hogs' bacon for some of my chickens' eggs.
 
It's called barter, and people all over the world do it all the time: many people exchange their services or their goods for someone else's services or goods.
 
The eggs that my chickens produce represent my demand for bacon. They are the source of my demand. Without those eggs, I don't get bacon. Once again: My supply of eggs represents my demand for my neighbor's bacon.
 
The bacon that my neighbor's hogs produce, represent his demand for eggs. Without those hogs and the bacon they produce, he doesn't get eggs. Once again: My neighbor's supply of bacon represents his demand for my eggs.
 
If I had no eggs and my neighbor had no bacon, neither of us would have any demand even if we had billions of dollars in paper money. Neither of us has anything of use or value that the other wants, and you can't eat paper money. Therefore, there's no demand. Paper money can facilitate demand by facilitating exchange in general, but by itself, money isn't demand.
 
The ultimate source of all demand is supply: something produced that someone else wants or needs. That's actually the gist of Say's Law.
 
If you really want to increase demand, you have to increase supply; and to increase supply, you have to increase productivity (i.e., MAKE MORE STUFF using fewer resources and in less time) and the only way to do that is to increase investment in the tools that contribute to increases in productivity — namely, technology.
TexasLynn Added May 21, 2018 - 8:23am
FJ >> I attribute it to Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
 
Who?  :)
Chet Ruminski Added May 21, 2018 - 8:32am
If you had more self sufficient neighbors you would have a surplus of eggs you couldn't barter . Your interpretation is of a dynamic balanced consumption system. There are multiple instances of products not in demand. Before starting a chicken farm it would be prudent to first see if a demand existed for eggs. Increasing supply lowers aggregate demand and prices.
Chet Ruminski Added May 21, 2018 - 8:35am
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-americamovil-us&ei=j7wCW-b5Fs-MsQWQlK6ACA&q=increasing+supply+economics&oq=increasing+supply+econmics&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.1.0.0i13i30j0i8i13i30.14858.28802..30454...5....147.1574.0j12......0....1.........0j0i71j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i22i29i30j33i160j30i10.B2xtuv9vePQ%3D#imgrc=f2lJpK-biJcQwM:
A. Jones Added May 21, 2018 - 6:09pm
If you had more self sufficient neighbors you would have a surplus of eggs you couldn't barter .
 
1) You were the one who posted previously that demand was impossible without money. That claim has been disproven.
 
Demand and supply are two sides of one coin; ultimately, the latter drives the former. In fact, demand and supply are actually the same thing, but looked at from two different sides of an exchange process. That's the essence of Say's Law.
 
2) My hypothetical neighbors were obviously not "self-sufficient" or they wouldn't be trading eggs for bacon and vice-versa. The fact that they agreed to trade what each had produced by himself proves unequivocally that neither one was self-sufficient. If they were self-sufficient, the egg-guy would also be raising his own hogs in order to produce his own bacon (and wouldn't need to trade with his neighbor), and the hog-guy would raise his own chickens in order to produce his own eggs (and wouldn't need to trade with the first guy).
 
The logic is simple and crystal clear.
 
There are multiple instances of products not in demand.
 
There are multiple instances of consumers changing their minds and preferences, and thus altering their pattern of spending: 150 years ago, there was a high demand for horse-drawn carriages; today, not so much because most people prefer automobiles. There are also multiple instances of producers manufacturing a supply of something they mistakenly thought, or expected, there would be a demand for (VHS won out over Beta, even though the latter was technologically superior. Sony miscalculated.). When producers of "Widget X" discover they had made a mistake regarding their expectation of consumer demand, they stop producing that product: the resources that went into producing "Widget X" get channeled into the production of something else.
 
Before starting a chicken farm it would be prudent to first see if a demand existed for eggs.
 
Our hypothetical chicken farmer desired eggs for himself and his family first, and then, LATER discovered that he also would like some bacon to go with his eggs. He could, of course, spread thin his own labor, time, and expertise, by attempting to be "self-sufficient" and becoming a hog farmer as well as a chicken farmer; but then he thinks to himself, "Maybe if I become really productive at just producing eggs, I could trade the surplus eggs that I don't personally consume for bacon from my neighbor's hogs". Money facilitates this because the chicken farmer won't have to look specifically for a hog-producer who wants eggs: he can find a hog-producer who will take money and exchange it for something else he wants (e.g., shoes, feed, etc.). But the source of the demand for the chicken farmer was something he actually produced . . . not the paper money.
 
MONEY FACILITATES DEMAND BUT IS NOT, IN ITSELF "DEMAND."
 
Increasing supply lowers aggregate demand and prices.
 
You have it backward. Increasing supply increases aggregate demand: when the price of filet mignon drops, more people buy it (because they couldn't afford it previously at the higher price), and more people can also buy more of it (they might have been able to afford 1/2 lb at the high price but decide to buy 2 lbs at the lower price).
 
Yes, increasing the supply of something will generally act to decrease the price of any one single unit of that good. That's a good thing for consumers, who now have surplus purchasing power to buy other things they wouldn't have been able to previously.
 
The goal of a healthy economic is to produce more things that people want and need by means of using the least amount of resources (land, labor, capital) as possible, so that those resources will be available to produce other things. The ideal situation would be this: all goods that people want and need drop from the sky, like manna from heaven, at no cost to producers or consumers and without any use of land, labor, and capital: the price of those heaven-sent goods would obviously be zero. That ideal situation is impossible, of course, but as long as an economy moves toward that goal and in that direction – more goods at lower cost to the end-user consumer – there will be increased prosperity, and we can call it progress
 
"Prosperity" = more goods at lower cost to consumers, not more money.
 
Proof? You can't eat money but you can eat filet mignon.
Chet Ruminski Added May 21, 2018 - 6:16pm
A. Jones said:"There are also multiple instances of producers manufacturing a supply of something they mistakenly thought, or expected, there would be a demand for"
 I understood you earlier to say that supply was demand. I am not following what you are saying .
A. Jones Added May 21, 2018 - 6:45pm
Simple.
 
When a manufacturer mistakenly produces something that he thought people would demand, it means he mistakenly assumed his productive efforts constituted SUPPLY. He was wrong on both counts: a million units of "Widget X" for which there is no demand constitute a supply of nothing. It's a million units of Widget X that were simply mistakenly invested (i.e., wasted) resources. If the manufacturers can use the Widgets themselves, then they constitute their own demand. Additionally, if the Widgets can be sold for scrap, or disassembled and their individual parts prove useful to someone else in some other sector, then they represent a supply of "disassembled parts" (steel, plastic, glass, etc.) since other people demand them.
 
Just because someone decides to manufacture something -- even in good faith, having done some market research -- it doesn't mean that the produced STOCK of goods he ends up with will be demanded by anyone -- his market research might have been faulty, or consumer tastes might have simply changed between the time he did his research and the time he finished the production process. If that is the case, then the STOCK of goods he has produced is not, technically, a SUPPLY of anything . . . except, as mentioned above, a possible supply of scrap or spare parts for someone else.
Chet Ruminski Added May 22, 2018 - 9:54am
A. Jones , We need to establish parameters to the conversation. e.g. What pressure increases supply? What price represents demand. If increased supply lowers price then increased purchases don't represent demand because the original price wasn't paid. Discount demand???
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 22, 2018 - 1:05pm
A. Jones
 
"Demand and supply are two sides of one coin; ultimately, the latter drives the former. In fact, demand and supply are actually the same thing, but looked at from two different sides of an exchange process. That's the essence of Say's Law."
 
100% correct from Econ 101
Chet Ruminski Added May 22, 2018 - 3:38pm
ryck, So that makes the transaction the objective . Supply and demand compliment each other to complete the transaction? 
Chet Ruminski Added May 22, 2018 - 3:42pm
A matter of semantics:
"goods being supplied is exactly the same as the amount of goods being demanded."
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 22, 2018 - 4:15pm
Chet Ruminski
 
"ryck, So that makes the transaction the objective . Supply and demand compliment each other to complete the transaction? "
 
According to Say the supply must be known to buyers before the demand builds so the supply comes first. Risk capital creates the entry portal of the specific market with goods or services or both and generates more capital if the venture is successful. If not, the venture folds and the guess was wrong. 
A. Jones Added May 22, 2018 - 7:47pm
What pressure increases supply?
 
The problem with posing the question in that way is that "supply" and "demand" are two sides of the same coin, so any answer is likely at first to appear circular: supply is driven by pre-existing demand, which itself is driven by an earlier pre-existing supply, which itself was driven by an even earlier pre-existing demand, etc., ad infinitum.
 
The more relevant question is this: what pressure increases the total supply of goods, i.e., aggregate supply? How did it happen that in 2018, we have a lot more stuff available to us than people 200 years ago?
 
Without giving too lengthy a response, I'd say that the single most important pressure that increases aggregate supply and aggregate demand is an increase in productivity due to technological innovation; i.e., an improvement in the capital goods, or "tools", needed to make things, as well as, an improvement in the quality of goods and services.
 
Increases in productivity resulting from innovation in capital tools are the result of people abstaining from spending their money on immediate necessitites (food, clothing, shelter) and saving their wealth for purposes of investment, usually in the form of loans to entrepreneurs who have ideas on how to improve things but who lack present funds to realize them.
 
A still more relevant question might be, "What pressure incentivizes individuals to abstain from spending on immediate necessities for the sake of some future want or need?" Or, perhaps, "What pressure causes an increase in the demand for money?" Not the demand for present consumer goods in exchange for money; but rather, the demand for money instead of present consumer goods.
Chet Ruminski Added May 22, 2018 - 8:12pm
"saving their wealth for purposes of investment, usually in the form of loans to entrepreneurs who have ideas on how to improve things but who lack present funds to realize them"
A classical definition of what our stock market was and now pretends to be. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added May 23, 2018 - 11:28am
A. Jones
 
"What pressure increases supply?"
 
Here is a summary of the supply and demand schedules that drive markets:
 
"
The five determinants of demand are:


The price of the good or service.
Prices of related goods or services. These are either complementary (purchased along with) or substitutes (purchased instead of).
Income of buyers.
Tastes or preferences of consumers.
Expectations."--https://www.google.com/search?q=supply+and+demand+shifters&oq=supply+and+demand+s&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.9879j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

DETERMINANTS OF SUPPLY
"When price changes, quantity supplied will change. That is a movement along the same supply curve. When factors other than price changes, supply curve will shift. Here are some determinants of the supply curve.
 

Production cost:

Since most private companies’ goal is profit maximization. Higher production cost will lower profit, thus hinder supply. Factors affecting production cost are: input prices, wage rate, government regulation and taxes, etc.
 

Technology:

Technological improvements help reduce production cost and increase profit, thus stimulate higher supply.
 

Number of sellers:

More sellers in the market increase the market supply.
 

Expectation for future prices:

If producers expect future price to be higher, they will try to hold on to their inventories and offer the products to the buyers in the future, thus they can capture the higher price."
 
Supply and Demand schedules intersection point:
 
https://thismatter.com/economics/supply.htm
 
It is complex, but does not bow to the leftist nostrums on how markets work. They do not have a clue or even want one. They want government control and high taxes. 
 
jmnsho
A. Jones Added May 23, 2018 - 11:03pm
They want government control and high taxes. 
 
Thanks for that post, rycK.
Chet Ruminski Added May 23, 2018 - 11:20pm
"If producers expect future price to be higher, they will try to hold on to their inventories and offer the products to the buyers in the future, thus they can capture the higher price."
Futures and derivative contracts obviate a producer risking holding inventories off market.