if the demand for products never changes. if the ability to produce never changes. why do economies have these recessions? i mean, you'd figure that if the demand, and the supply don't change...the economy shouldn't hurt. you'd think there'd be some economic method that could be introduced that'd solve this problem. does what i said here make sense? and do you think it'll ever happen?
Yea, perfect sense. I'd say it's all being manipulated, almost like a great big game, with us as the playing pieces.
i don't know any specifics. i'm just talking about how if the number of people that want shit doesn't change, and the amount of shit available to want doesn't change...there's gotta be some sort of economic system in which the economy would never be fucked. maybe like an unheard-of system of capitalism. capitalism 'cause i gander john locke was right when he figured people were as selfish as they are: "people tend to do what is in their own self interest." i dunno, maybe it'd require new government sanctions. like some sort of somewhat unfair system of big business regulation that like outlawed corporations or something. i'm just throwing random shit out there. this is all utopian theory by the way.
i dunno. any economist will tell you communism doesn't work. i'm thinking there's gotta be something brand new. or a more regulated capitalistic system.
The Correct Balance between Capitalism and Socialism is the best way. Government needs to handle the basics, a more socialist approach. A Capitalist approach for everything else to guarantee efficiency. Public Transport should be free. The state of healthcare in the US is counterproductive, healthcare should be more procactive. The Scandanavian countries and Australia seem to have the right balance and there is no co incidence they seemed to have faired better in the current climate than everyone else, along with Japan. Just as their should be a proper balance between Liberal and Conservative
that's what i was thinking vanilla capitalism works. but the trust era proved it needed some regulations (i think that counts as socialism). i wonder if even heavier regulations on certain aspects, like i mentioned in my previous post, could greatly reduce the volatile nature of the economy. make it more steady rather than up and down then up and down. and yeah, i think a lot of things should be socialized for humanitarian reasons, but that doesn't have much to do with the economy. would be cool if someone came up with something completely different than any other economic system ever used that was completely utopian. everyone got what they needed and wanted. everyone did great work. etc
Your thought is severely flawed. Demands for products do change, and the supply does change. Every moment, of every day. Do you still demand floppy disks? Do you consistently demand McDonalds every day? Maybe I make more or less money than I did a year ago, hence my wants and needs change. Printing presses eradicated hand written books, and assembly lines got rid of individual all inclusive work stations. Just think about it in real terms and you should come up with an obvious answer. If you can't realize this simple idea within our own basic economic system it is a near impossible leap for you to discover the next-gen economic model to end world strife. Use your brain buddy, thats what its there for.
took 2 joints and an adavan, but i did it! i'm talking about overall in a country. not on individual products. essentially: there's the same shit being produced and the same people who want them. yes, job availability fluctuates, but that's caused by the demand of those products being reduced due to the demand of other products being reduced...which causes job cutbacks. i'm talking about macroeconomics not microeconomics here. and i think thinking about an economic principle in economic terms isn't such a bad thing. like during the great depression, there was still food being produced. were still people wanting food. but the people didn't have the funds to pay for the food. that's a problem with the economic system there. the supply is there. the demand is there. but the capital isn't.
Just look up what "reccesion" means. In economics, a recession is a general slowdown in economic activity over a sustained period of time, or a business cycle contraction. During recessions, many macroeconomic indicators vary in a similar way. Production as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment, investment spending, capacity utilization, household incomes and business profits all fall during recessions. Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply, increasing government spending and decreasing taxation.
gdp reduces. right on. didn't know that. hmm...still seems to me that there just has to be a way to predict and prepare for these recessions. i mean, there just has to be a way to stabilize the economy. maybe we wouldn't as many whatever the opposite of a recession is...but i'd still say it being stable would be better. i wonder though. with the indicators mentioned in that definition. does desire for certain products reduce too? because if not, there's a whole lot of people out there willing to work the same jobs, wanting to buy the same shit. it just seems like a problem with the economy's setup if that's the case.
IMO, there will always be recessions of some degree or another. When you consider an economy only has to go through 2-3 economic quarters (1 quarter: 3 months) with shrinking growth. The smaller, short lived recessions are easier to predict. They almost come around like clockwork (every 7-10 years). Most reccesions are localised... When you have global recessions...then there is too many variables to know what is going on...hence the almost endless amount of speculation that occurs in the media and political circles. One thing they all do...they all combat it the same way. Huge spending plans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124631050998070251.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5478754.ece http://www.hmg.gov.uk/buildingbritainsfuture/new-economy.aspx I doubt the desire goes...but people just don't wish to spend money. Which can cause deflation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation Because they are insecure about their jobs. Companies reduce their output or stop their output. http://www.huliq.com/1/80060/gm-shut-down15-plants-9-weeks
i dunno. maybe i'm just being overly utopian. but it really seems to me that there just has to be away to prevent economic spikes and drops and make things more constant. like there has to be some sort of change or way to predict and control these recessions before they hit to a greater degree than we do volcanos. or even better, a way to regulate the economy that prevents this altogether. or maybe even a brand new economic system never heard of before. and with a global recession...can't they just pinpoint the point at which it started and get a little bit of a clue there?
Causes of recessions Crisis theory Tendency of the rate of profit to fall Currency crisis Energy crisis War Underconsumption Overproduction Financial crisis You find a person that can predict the outcomes of the above, on a constant basis. I'll personally do anything you want for the rest of my natural life. Not really...because people were doing the same thing that ultimately got us here, for a long time (sub-prime morgages). There was nothing to highlight (so they thought). Then other factors (housing crash etc) came along and the decisions made earlier came back to bite everybody on the ass.
but don't they get insecure about their jobs and reduce their output because of the ailing economy in the first place. barring some drastic change, i would say you have a realist's perspective on this, by the way.
i see what you're saying. but at the same time, not counting business' bad practice, isn't it a mass psychological problem that causes people to spend less? i mean, what if the government started having public broadcasting messages, more so than the little excerpts from presidents or whatnot, saying "ok, what's best for the economy now. what's best for america now. is for you to spend/save your money" to effect the consumer's demand for product in the same way that china has been combating their population problem. maybe not to the same degree, but the same sort of idea. ...there's just gotta be some way to regulate this. and are there really that many variables or are people just making this more complicated than it is? i've always been a believer in the cliche that things tend to be simpler than you think.
Imo, not really. Even if the economy isn't technically in a recession and it merely looks like it is heading that way...that is when the rot sets in. You must have heard about our bank runs...where everybody wanted their money out of Northern Rock. There was nothing wrong with Northern Rock (nothing that couldn't have been dealt with)...but then confidence (an intangiable commodity) collapsed. Therefore Northern Rock collapsed. That led to most financial institutions panicking...leading to a reduced perpesity for banks to lend money or give credit...which put companies on a weak footing...which led to them reducing output. I think the only way you could prevent recessions is to make everybody a realist and not alarmist. Not going to happen though. WE are all doomed. :willy_nilly:
i dunno. what about a public broadcast system that's purpose is to tell consumers what the population needs to do to help the economy. have it give messages like once a week to people who can afford to control their spending/investing habits. with the same sort of influence as what the chinese government has for population control, like i said in my other post. or what about getting rid of the capitalist system altogether and going back to a native american tribal way. i mean, throughout history, there have to have been systems of people in which there were no recessions, 'cept when the weather was bad or whatnot. i'm talking about this same thing in another forum, and i think i've about fried my brain now. i'll come back to this tomorrow before i just start repeating myself and stop making sense.
