Supply Side Economics OVERLOAD in USA

[Strategic]

teerireturns is that you VOLTAGE?

[TeeriReturns]

^^^^ Lol the irony. Accusing someone of using buzzwords when you use nonsensical pseudo economic terms like deregulations and "trickle-down". It's exactly as Xplaya said it, economics has been hijacked by corporatists to make it as inaccessible and esoteric as possible to the average Joe. The truth is economics is common sense, the more money working and middle class people have the more purchasing power they have and the more they can spend on goods and services. This can only be done by taxing wealthy people at a higher rate and subsidising lower income people with free education, healthcare and better paying jobs. Reducing tax for the rich only serves to widen the already huge gap between rich and poor. Do you think if we reduce business tax, rich corporations will suddenly invest in infrastructure, R&D, and better pay and benefits for their employees or divide the profit between their already immensely wealthy shareholders?

ah, another krugman spawn, i dont know why you seem to think you understand economics or capitalism, still your boucing around Keynesian and at best neo classical thoughts, they aint capitalism, only two schools of though have capitalism the Austrian school and Muslims who adhire to the exact hadith and Quran ( Austrian were sired by the school of salamanca of the 1400-1600s centuries and they were in turn sired by the likes of muslim Spanish economist ibn khaldun et al)

i am not here to teach you economics, and for your trickle down crap insult, firstly i dont believe it at all for i am not a Keynesian or neo classical or fresh water school for that matter,

secondly i dont believe individuals should be taxed let alone business, road, hospitals, schools etc we want the private sector has handle it/can handle it and thus a very small government that only protects private property righst(court system, nd crinimals banged up and nation protected, other than that the state has no function in choosing who to subsidies, heavy taxes- they only need very low taxes (consumption tax rather than capital/income tax) if the state is small and sticks to its key duty of defence of proterty rights and defence of domestic and foreign enemies. of courtse by now i can here the statist and interventinist shouting how dare i turn the state into a small insignificant organ with limited powers, please go ahead and study how the state is not allowed to tax income and profots in islam but only take 20% from war booty and 2.5% for sakaah.

ah and for demand side to be satisfied, surely someone has to supply that demand ? i will let you get some economic common sense, you need it.

and lastly, typically ignorant layman of economics, spending money doesn't grow and economy, its ok, it s fallacy trap most laymen fall into, i will give you two things that grow an economy: savings and investment ( Say's law- one cannot demand something/buy something with out saving, and one cannot invest with out saving or someone else savings, proof me wrong and i will send you $1000 through dahabshill xawalad.)

regulation: ha, we dont want or desire a single regulation that hampers the market in any way. yet you think you can spew a few words and label us,

prove Say's law wrong and i will give you that money, to any one of that including basra who seems to spew economic predictions and most illogical economic dialectics i get tired just reading her crap, but she tries,

i will throw you and basra a lifeline though so you dont embarrass yourselves, humans have written between 100-200 million books since Adam and eve or monkeys stood on their own too feets for our somali aethists who dig that crap, please read Hazlitt (Henry Hazlitt) economics in one lessons, top 100 books of all books ever written and published, it will wash away all your ignorance, or here is the link for those Americans malis on EBT like basra

https://fee.org/media/14946/economicsinonelesson.pdf



or alternative if your in London, come and see me in the institute of economic affairs, i usually debate with Marxist and MPs of Westminster look for a 6'2 tall Ogaden with very soft ear length hair who is build like an SS soldier dipped in light chocolate, I might have a DDSI or jubbaland small flag pin on my suit depending how I feel , i am happy to give you a free lesson in econ 101.

I am the greatest living somali/muslim economist: i have disproved a 160 year old economic theorem by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk who has argued no economy can grow with out riba/interest, i have proven him wrong in 2013

i am the first to prove interest is the nucleaus reason of why inflation exist, Teeri's Law of the Marginal Utility of Money and Inflation, i have solved the marginal utility of money/gold supply (i.e. we dont need an ever increasing supply of gold/silver/paper notes to satisfy an economy, we can improve standard if living with out increasing money supply - hint- reason for the existence of riba atleast the economic framework for it has been crushed by me, i have also proven why capital order/high order goods first go into recession and fall masively before retail/lower order goods.

i am the first muslim to have solved the Islamic development parading by showing nations can prosper with out riba in their banking system whilst keeping their money strong with out the need for riba intervention/support ( we were derided by many western economists that we cannot develop because of this reason in our deen) i proofed them wrong- it took me 2 years to do that, 2 years to kill a 160 year old theorem.

i have been begged to take scholarships for PhD at the age of 26 and have been offered a reading position with a masters degree, not even a PhD because i am the Einstein of economics, girls get wet when i explain to them economic theories, i dont know if its my good looks alhamdulilah or my passion for understanding c complicated theorems and physiological frameworks,


I have two white boards at home that i work on wearing a macawiis whilst solving my economic theorems that will one day impact your life as politicians nd economist pick up on it,

i will not boast further as i have boasted enough, if you have questions feel free to ask,

am also happy to send you a copy of my latest book, just ask on PM, i will sign it,

Teeri Out,


regards,

I have just wasted few minutes of my time reading this none sense

and yet you read it,

please lets put darood vs issaq tribalism aside for a moment and give credit where credit is due for my accomplishments, i am happy to debate any one you know in economics to test my theorems.

[TeeriReturns]

teerireturns is that you VOLTAGE?

no, i believe voltage is MX, i am OG, why does everyone think i am another alias?

[Basra-]

TeeriReturns = FAH123


Am I totally wrong?

[samatar133]

Liquid aka Xplaya

The idea is---at least --in republican perspective--is---cut rich taxes and it leaves them incentive to do more business and invest more. This creates a trickle effect of small business opening quickly with little regulations to deter them. This In turn creates jobs--and the consumers starts spending. It makes total sense. Now, during depression, it would not make sense as no one will invest in business and investments during worry times as Obama went through this 8 years! Now that Obama has gotten us confident and comfortable--the risk of cutting tax for the rich makes sense. Remember--- the average joe is needed here. They run the world.

Cutting taxes without cutting government spending only exacerbate debt problems; and in the case of America, its 20 trillion debt which might not be a good idea. But a decision by the government to cut spending deep enough to compensate tax cuts so that it achieves a balanced budget might also lead to the undesired outcome of reducing demand and hence investment, keeping in mind that government spending was stimulating demand and creating jobs in the first place.
So, there is always the question of which one outweighs another to which there is no precise answer. Economics is not a real science where you can control variables and predict results, its a social science and you can't always predict how people are going to behave.

[Hyperactive]

All good and dandy but in the end comes to the individuals life style.
be content and do not fall for consuming hype and livee with in your meanings.

if I make 150 000 why borrow a million dollar house and finance 600$ car a month!!!

99% of population are stupid!!

its the system these people have created dude, the average chinese, indian, japanese etc saves, but in the west, they have to compete with the jones adn their government has to go into debt for the welfare/corporatism state to subsides firms with lobbying power and spend on welfare and entitlements like medicare/medicaid etc otherwise they will not win elections, they are stupid and digging their own grave, but let them, maybe they will have less money to kill us.

also another negative side affect of the riba system, all debts are spawn children of riba but they do not understand.

I agree the effect for riba in long term is really clear. I don't feel bad for government or big banks but feel bad for working class who fall for it and feed that riba system to just benefit rich people.

I was arguing somali person, who was saying if I don't take mortgage close to half million $$ I am helping some one else's mortgage by renting!! people take mortgages for investment not to just have place to call home. they lying to themselves. they are part of the problem.

[TeeriReturns]

Liquid aka Xplaya

The idea is---at least --in republican perspective--is---cut rich taxes and it leaves them incentive to do more business and invest more. This creates a trickle effect of small business opening quickly with little regulations to deter them. This In turn creates jobs--and the consumers starts spending. It makes total sense. Now, during depression, it would not make sense as no one will invest in business and investments during worry times as Obama went through this 8 years! Now that Obama has gotten us confident and comfortable--the risk of cutting tax for the rich makes sense. Remember--- the average joe is needed here. They run the world.

Cutting taxes without cutting government spending only exacerbate debt problems; and in the case of America, its 20 trillion debt which might not be a good idea. But a decision by the government to cut spending deep enough to compensate tax cuts so that it achieves a balanced budget might also lead to the undesired outcome of reducing demand and hence investment, keeping in mind that government spending was stimulating demand and creating jobs in the first place.
So, there is always the question of which one outweighs another to which there is no precise answer. Economics is not a real science where you can control variables and predict results, its a social science and you can't always predict how people are going to behave.

interesting, please explain how lower tax intake by government reduces demand which in turn reduces investment? you saying investment is driven by demand?



also please explain how government creates jobs through stimulus spending either through debt/borrowing or taxes? please do samatar?

it would be nice if idoors and Ogadens stop shooting each for once and debate/learn from each other, i am interested in your assumptions, would like to test your dialectics if you dont mind,

[TeeriReturns]

All good and dandy but in the end comes to the individuals life style.
be content and do not fall for consuming hype and livee with in your meanings.

if I make 150 000 why borrow a million dollar house and finance 600$ car a month!!!

99% of population are stupid!!

its the system these people have created dude, the average chinese, indian, japanese etc saves, but in the west, they have to compete with the jones adn their government has to go into debt for the welfare/corporatism state to subsides firms with lobbying power and spend on welfare and entitlements like medicare/medicaid etc otherwise they will not win elections, they are stupid and digging their own grave, but let them, maybe they will have less money to kill us.

also another negative side affect of the riba system, all debts are spawn children of riba but they do not understand.

I agree the effect for riba in long term is really clear. I don't feel bad for government or big banks but feel bad for working class who fall for it and feed that riba system to just benefit rich people.

I was arguing somali person, who was saying if I don't take mortgage close to half million $$ I am helping some one else's mortgage by renting!! people take mortgages for investment not to just have place to call home. they lying to themselves. they are part of the problem.

the Ogaden school i have mentioned in another thread is also working on how we can implement halal mortgages and halal investment vehicles, we are not only about theorems but also showing people practical islamic finance vehicles. there is a solution for islamic mortgages but too long to get into in this topic.

[samatar133]

Teri,

I did not say lower tax intake by government reduce demand and investment, contrary to that it increases people's disposable income which in theory leads to higher consumer spending which in turn leads to more investment as the result of increased demand. Also firms might increase investment as the result of tax cuts because there is more money available to them. What i argued was that if tax cuts are coupled with cuts in government spending to balance the budget, that might lead to a total reduction in demand and investment.

what i am trying to say is that in the scenario where both taxation and government spending are simultaneously lowered there are two forces pulling the economy in different directions. lower taxation leads to more investment but lower government spending leads to lower investment through Keynesian mechanisms.


And yes investment is driven by demand, 100%. Its one of the basic concepts of economics.

also please explain how government creates jobs through stimulus spending either through debt/borrowing or taxes? please do samatar?

Classical example is government spending in infrastructure. Government employs directly or through constructors, it employs laborers for construction, engineers, etc. private firms supplying construction materials I.e cement, tractors etc, increase production and hence employ more people. All those newly employed people create more consumer spending leading firms to invest more and employ more people until the process leads to full employment.

But if the government spending comes from borrowed money and not from a budget surplus, it leads to an increase in the debt which is not desirable. why it is not desirable? I will explain if you want explanation.

How the government will repay the debt?
In theory, the extra taxation from the newly employed people plus extra taxation from firms which are now expanding and more profitable create a budget surplus and hence allow government to repay the debt. But in reality that does not happen in the western countries now days.

[TeeriReturns]

Teri,

I did not say lower tax intake by government reduce demand and investment, contrary to that it increases people's disposable income which in theory leads to higher consumer spending which in turn leads to more investment as the result of increased demand. Also firms might increase investment as the result of tax cuts because there is more money available to them. What i argued was that if tax cuts are coupled with cuts in government spending to balance the budget, that might lead to a total reduction in demand and investment.

what i am trying to say is that in the scenario where both taxation and government spending are simultaneously lowered there are two forces pulling the economy in different directions. lower taxation leads to more investment but lower government spending leads to lower investment through Keynesian mechanisms.


And yes investment is driven by demand, 100%. Its one of the basic concepts of economics.

also please explain how government creates jobs through stimulus spending either through debt/borrowing or taxes? please do samatar?

Classical example is government spending in infrastructure. Government employs directly or through constructors, it employs laborers for construction, engineers, etc. private firms supplying construction materials I.e cement, tractors etc, increase production and hence employ more people. All those newly employed people create more consumer spending leading firms to invest more and employ more people until the process leads to full employment.

But if the government spending comes from borrowed money and not from a budget surplus, it leads to an increase in the debt which is not desirable. why it is not desirable? I will explain if you want explanation.

How the government will repay the debt?
In theory, the extra taxation from the newly employed people plus extra taxation from firms which are now expanding and more profitable create a budget surplus and hence allow government to repay the debt. But in reality that does not happen in the western countries now days.

Ok sam, interesting assumptions,

i will rectify a couple of things, please don not be offended or thinking i am acting like smarty pants:

demand does not drive economic growth/or investment.

just because someone demands cars/houses/planes/ 5 star hotels etc doesn't mean it grows investment, what drives economic investment is SAVINGS. stay with me.

if i want to demand something, first i must have the money right? you agree? excellent, then i must now figure out a way of paying for that demand with money, so i either use my savings if i want to buy that demanded item or earn an income, now are we good? cool

if i don't have savings to pay for that demand, i must work for it, meaning i must be employed by someone, cool? now, i have to look for a job, the businessman/woman must pay me for my labour so i can spend and demand soemthing, money wilol not fall out of the sky just because i want it?

where does the entrepreneur get the money to pay me for my labour so i can save/ear and thus demand something to buy ( hint either they have saved to open the business or must borrow) saved or borrowed from bank or borowed, thus the entrepreneur to pay for the factors of production (land i.e. rent, labour, machinery/capital etc must be paid for through his own savings or savings of another person/bank (remember if we can just print money and give it to people it would have wiped out world poverty so that is discounted) so far so good?,

you with me still?

so we agree the entrepreneur cannot invest with out savings (his own or borrowed) thus the basis of economic growth/investment is only through savings and not demand, why? because the person demanding something must first have the money (either again through savings of his own or earned income in exchange for labour ---------still with me?)

hence you can not demand something until the cows come home, with out savings no one is able to purchase their demanded items in their wishlist? all clear? let me know if any confusion. thus basis of economic growth is through investment and no one can invest with out savings, hence no econ growth with out savings if you follow the chain through.

now, do you so how the person demanding something has done so by being productive (they worked for the businessman and then got paid then they used that money to buy their demanded wishes) this is called Say's law, imagine me and you are small countries, hold that thought, we must exchange goods and services, i want something, you want something (money comes later, lets say we are battering) no people are no different, the person sells their labor than uses that money to either save or spend, thus Say's law

says law: As each of us can only purchase the productions of others with his own productions – as the value we can buy is equal to the value we can produce, the more men can produce, the more they will purchase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say's_law

its very complex at first, please stay with me, say basically argues in order for you to buy something, you must produce something then use that money to pay for it.



secondly, you argue government expenditure is investment, you say if they invest in roads etcs it creates jobs, this is wrong and fallacious. why?

government has no money, so they must tax me and you to spend that money, thus the basis of that tax was produced once ( i worked for it and then government taxed me, or you the businessman worked for it once, made profits then were taxed) thus this money was earned once (me or you) money is distributed from john(laborer employed by you the businessman) and given to Paul (government worker) Paul is using money already earned and produced by john, thus its a saving john could have spent but taken from him and simply given to Paul the government parasite that is what they are) to have income for consumption one must first produce something useful that can be exchanged in the market.


but most importantly the state (government) cannot invest money already earned by another person earned bacuse of the simply univeral law of imperfect knowledge ( no one has perfect information on what consumers want, economist say only God has perfect foresight of all demands and wants thus government so called investment is in reality crowding out private sector investment by lowering real investment (through taxes that lower savings of its private citizens) and no state can ever know the marginal utility of goods and service for everyone (wont even get into the argument that the private sector can produce these infrastructure if marginal utility is not intervened with by the state) want to keep it light. still with me?

good. so to recap the last point: state cannot invest money already earned once and cannot by any means know marginal utility nor have perfect information even of they wanted to invest (this is why governess miss allocate resources on white elephants no one wants: india has many airports unused, Spain has airports rotting, Britannia, Russia, USA etc have wasted money on these infrastructures)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-ghost-cities/5421229

https://mises.org/library/myth-magical-multiplier


http://www.firstpost.com/india/no-passe ... 98466.html


all these projects failed for one simple reason: the state has no way of ascertaining knowledge about marginal utility or time preference subjective demand. in a non geeky way, only Allah knows best what people want to spend their money on hence all those white elephant projects were a waste of money, e.g. chinas has nearly 70 million empty homes (hint: if you learn time preference theorems and marginal utility you will understand why recessions happen and will also profit massively from bubbles )


any questions welcomed, i hope i was not too geeky in my explanations?

[samatar133]

Teri,

I did not say lower tax intake by government reduce demand and investment, contrary to that it increases people's disposable income which in theory leads to higher consumer spending which in turn leads to more investment as the result of increased demand. Also firms might increase investment as the result of tax cuts because there is more money available to them. What i argued was that if tax cuts are coupled with cuts in government spending to balance the budget, that might lead to a total reduction in demand and investment.

what i am trying to say is that in the scenario where both taxation and government spending are simultaneously lowered there are two forces pulling the economy in different directions. lower taxation leads to more investment but lower government spending leads to lower investment through Keynesian mechanisms.


And yes investment is driven by demand, 100%. Its one of the basic concepts of economics.

also please explain how government creates jobs through stimulus spending either through debt/borrowing or taxes? please do samatar?

Classical example is government spending in infrastructure. Government employs directly or through constructors, it employs laborers for construction, engineers, etc. private firms supplying construction materials I.e cement, tractors etc, increase production and hence employ more people. All those newly employed people create more consumer spending leading firms to invest more and employ more people until the process leads to full employment.

But if the government spending comes from borrowed money and not from a budget surplus, it leads to an increase in the debt which is not desirable. why it is not desirable? I will explain if you want explanation.

How the government will repay the debt?
In theory, the extra taxation from the newly employed people plus extra taxation from firms which are now expanding and more profitable create a budget surplus and hence allow government to repay the debt. But in reality that does not happen in the western countries now days.

Ok sam, interesting assumptions,

i will rectify a couple of things, please don not be offended or thinking i am acting like smarty pants:

demand does not drive economic growth/or investment.

just because someone demands cars/houses/planes/ 5 star hotels etc doesn't mean it grows investment, what drives economic investment is SAVINGS. stay with me.

if i want to demand something, first i must have the money right? you agree? excellent, then i must now figure out a way of paying for that demand with money, so i either use my savings if i want to buy that demanded item or earn an income, now are we good? cool

if i don't have savings to pay for that demand, i must work for it, meaning i must be employed by someone, cool? now, i have to look for a job, the businessman/woman must pay me for my labour so i can spend and demand soemthing, money wilol not fall out of the sky just because i want it?

where does the entrepreneur get the money to pay me for my labour so i can save/ear and thus demand something to buy ( hint either they have saved to open the business or must borrow) saved or borrowed from bank or borowed, thus the entrepreneur to pay for the factors of production (land i.e. rent, labour, machinery/capital etc must be paid for through his own savings or savings of another person/bank (remember if we can just print money and give it to people it would have wiped out world poverty so that is discounted) so far so good?,

you with me still?

so we agree the entrepreneur cannot invest with out savings (his own or borrowed) thus the basis of economic growth/investment is only through savings and not demand, why? because the person demanding something must first have the money (either again through savings of his own or earned income in exchange for labour ---------still with me?)

hence you can not demand something until the cows come home, with out savings no one is able to purchase their demanded items in their wishlist? all clear? let me know if any confusion. thus basis of economic growth is through investment and no one can invest with out savings, hence no econ growth with out savings if you follow the chain through.

now, do you so how the person demanding something has done so by being productive (they worked for the businessman and then got paid then they used that money to buy their demanded wishes) this is called Say's law, imagine me and you are small countries, hold that thought, we must exchange goods and services, i want something, you want something (money comes later, lets say we are battering) no people are no different, the person sells their labor than uses that money to either save or spend, thus Say's law

says law: As each of us can only purchase the productions of others with his own productions – as the value we can buy is equal to the value we can produce, the more men can produce, the more they will purchase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say's_law

its very complex at first, please stay with me, say basically argues in order for you to buy something, you must produce something then use that money to pay for it.



secondly, you argue government expenditure is investment, you say if they invest in roads etcs it creates jobs, this is wrong and fallacious. why?

government has no money, so they must tax me and you to spend that money, thus the basis of that tax was produced once ( i worked for it and then government taxed me, or you the businessman worked for it once, made profits then were taxed) thus this money was earned once (me or you) money is distributed from john(laborer employed by you the businessman) and given to Paul (government worker) Paul is using money already earned and produced by john, thus its a saving john could have spent but taken from him and simply given to Paul the government parasite that is what they are) to have income for consumption one must first produce something useful that can be exchanged in the market.


but most importantly the state (government) cannot invest money already earned by another person earned bacuse of the simply univeral law of imperfect knowledge ( no one has perfect information on what consumers want, economist say only God has perfect foresight of all demands and wants thus government so called investment is in reality crowding out private sector investment by lowering real investment (through taxes that lower savings of its private citizens) and no state can ever know the marginal utility of goods and service for everyone (wont even get into the argument that the private sector can produce these infrastructure if marginal utility is not intervened with by the state) want to keep it light. still with me?

good. so to recap the last point: state cannot invest money already earned once and cannot by any means know marginal utility nor have perfect information even of they wanted to invest (this is why governess miss allocate resources on white elephants no one wants: india has many airports unused, Spain has airports rotting, Britannia, Russia, USA etc have wasted money on these infrastructures)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-ghost-cities/5421229

https://mises.org/library/myth-magical-multiplier


http://www.firstpost.com/india/no-passe ... 98466.html


all these projects failed for one simple reason: the state has no way of ascertaining knowledge about marginal utility or time preference subjective demand. in a non geeky way, only Allah knows best what people want to spend their money on hence all those white elephant projects were a waste of money, e.g. chinas has nearly 70 million empty homes (hint: if you learn time preference theorems and marginal utility you will understand why recessions happen and will also profit massively from bubbles )


any questions welcomed, i hope i was not too geeky in my explanations?

With all due respect, I think you need to enroll a pre-university level economics course so you can better understand basic concepts before you start debating.
Its embarrassing that you don't understand that in economics, a person or a firm demanding a particular product or service is already assumed to have the means to demand, ie. money from savings or from borrowing. In other words, demand= a person or a firm which have enough money to purchase a particular good or product it is interested. In economics, demand does not equal to a wishful want as you seem to think.
Anyway, i will respond to the rest of your post tomorrow or after tomorrow when I have time. Now I am a bit sleepy, so habeen wanaagsan sxb

[TeeriReturns]

Teri,

I did not say lower tax intake by government reduce demand and investment, contrary to that it increases people's disposable income which in theory leads to higher consumer spending which in turn leads to more investment as the result of increased demand.

And yes investment is driven by demand, 100%. Its one of the basic concepts of economics.

.

Ok sam, interesting assumptions,

i will rectify a couple of things, please don not be offended or thinking i am acting like smarty pants:

demand does not drive economic growth/or investment.

just because someone demands cars/houses/planes/ 5 star hotels etc doesn't mean it grows investment, what drives economic investment is SAVINGS. stay with me.

if i want to demand something, first i must have the money right? you agree? excellent, then i must now figure out a way of paying for that demand with money, so i either use my savings if i want to buy that demanded item or earn an income, now are we good? cool

if i don't have savings to pay for that demand, i must work for it, meaning i must be employed by someone, cool? now, i have to look for a job, the businessman/woman must pay me for my labour so i can spend and demand soemthing, money wilol not fall out of the sky just because i want it?

where does the entrepreneur get the money to pay me for my labour so i can save/ear and thus demand something to buy ( hint either they have saved to open the business or must borrow) saved or borrowed from bank or borowed, thus the entrepreneur to pay for the factors of production (land i.e. rent, labour, machinery/capital etc must be paid for through his own savings or savings of another person/bank (remember if we can just print money and give it to people it would have wiped out world poverty so that is discounted) so far so good?,

you with me still?

so we agree the entrepreneur cannot invest with out savings (his own or borrowed) thus the basis of economic growth/investment is only through savings and not demand, why? because the person demanding something must first have the money (either again through savings of his own or earned income in exchange for labour ---------still with me?)

hence you can not demand something until the cows come home, with out savings no one is able to purchase their demanded items in their wishlist? all clear? let me know if any confusion. thus basis of economic growth is through investment and no one can invest with out savings, hence no econ growth with out savings if you follow the chain through.

now, do you so how the person demanding something has done so by being productive (they worked for the businessman and then got paid then they used that money to buy their demanded wishes) this is called Say's law, imagine me and you are small countries, hold that thought, we must exchange goods and services, i want something, you want something (money comes later, lets say we are battering) no people are no different, the person sells their labor than uses that money to either save or spend, thus Say's law

says law: As each of us can only purchase the productions of others with his own productions – as the value we can buy is equal to the value we can produce, the more men can produce, the more they will purchase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say's_law

its very complex at first, please stay with me, say basically argues in order for you to buy something, you must produce something then use that money to pay for it.



secondly, you argue government expenditure is investment, you say if they invest in roads etcs it creates jobs, this is wrong and fallacious. why?

government has no money, so they must tax me and you to spend that money, thus the basis of that tax was produced once ( i worked for it and then government taxed me, or you the businessman worked for it once, made profits then were taxed) thus this money was earned once (me or you) money is distributed from john(laborer employed by you the businessman) and given to Paul (government worker) Paul is using money already earned and produced by john, thus its a saving john could have spent but taken from him and simply given to Paul the government parasite that is what they are) to have income for consumption one must first produce something useful that can be exchanged in the market.


but most importantly the state (government) cannot invest money already earned by another person earned bacuse of the simply univeral law of imperfect knowledge ( no one has perfect information on what consumers want, economist say only God has perfect foresight of all demands and wants thus government so called investment is in reality crowding out private sector investment by lowering real investment (through taxes that lower savings of its private citizens) and no state can ever know the marginal utility of goods and service for everyone (wont even get into the argument that the private sector can produce these infrastructure if marginal utility is not intervened with by the state) want to keep it light. still with me?

good. so to recap the last point: state cannot invest money already earned once and cannot by any means know marginal utility nor have perfect information even of they wanted to invest (this is why governess miss allocate resources on white elephants no one wants: india has many airports unused, Spain has airports rotting, Britannia, Russia, USA etc have wasted money on these infrastructures)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-ghost-cities/5421229

https://mises.org/library/myth-magical-multiplier


http://www.firstpost.com/india/no-passe ... 98466.html


all these projects failed for one simple reason: the state has no way of ascertaining knowledge about marginal utility or time preference subjective demand. in a non geeky way, only Allah knows best what people want to spend their money on hence all those white elephant projects were a waste of money, e.g. chinas has nearly 70 million empty homes (hint: if you learn time preference theorems and marginal utility you will understand why recessions happen and will also profit massively from bubbles )


any questions welcomed, i hope i was not too geeky in my explanations?

With all due respect, I think you need to enroll a pre-university level economics course so you can better understand basic concepts before you start debating.
Its embarrassing that you don't understand that in economics, a person or a firm demanding a particular product or service is already assumed to have the means to demand, ie. money from savings or from borrowing. In other words, demand= a person or a firm which have enough money to purchase a particular good or product it is interested. In economics, demand does not equal to a wishful want as you seem to think.
Anyway, i will respond to the rest of your post tomorrow or after tomorrow when I have time. Now I am a bit sleepy, so habeen wanaagsan sxb

is that the best you can do to insult me samatar? looool, dont run off, you can do better than that, you did not make it clear, this besides the point, my point still stands, you clearly said demand creates investment and did not mention savings, the production factors and stages, marginal utility, but if an insult is the best you can throw instead of saying Teeri thanks for educating me, then be a typical somali and go home ignorant of basic economics, all the best,

regardless if you hide under the cloak of i meant demand to be saving etc. then know this rule all economist adhere to: semantics is a required training in economics and everyone knows the difference between demand and expenditure, you used demand not expenditure, former is a wish, later is means to pay is ready. semantic is the first thing we all learn and if your an economist then you know what i am talking about.


all the best dude if you don not want to learn its fine, give credit where credit is due. but then your somali.

[Basra-]

Darood and Isaaq economics in action. LOL

[TeeriReturns]

Darood and Isaaq economics in action. LOL

you idoor?

[Basra-]

Teeri


I am Somali. My long thin acquiline nose tells me. My alongated face tells me. My red lips tells me. My jiiini eyes tells me. Is that enough?