Posted on 04/16/2015 9:57:34 AM PDT by fredericbastiat1
If you listen to the news on the economy or financial markets, you have probably heard statements like “consumption drives the American economy,” or “consumption is 70% of the economy.”
But in a new book out that follows in the footsteps of Henry Hazlitt’s classic “Economics in One Lesson” — though in a much more fun package — titled “Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You about Economics,” Forbes and RealClearMarkets Editor, and senior economic advisor to Toreador Research and Trading John Tamny challenges this and much other “conventional wisdom” on taxes, regulations, trade and money.
In an in-depth interview with Mr. Tamny, I asked him in particular about the notion that consumption drives economic growth, to which he responded:
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
We in production declare that those who leave us and go into marketing have “gone to the dark side”.
Yes, marketing results/opinions can oftentimes be the source of much frustration. Our response is often: “we are not interested in giving the (ignorant) customer what they want, we are giving them what they NEED”. lol
Creating doesn’t drive the economy. There were touch screen smartphones before the iPhone but nobody consumed them. Really the economy is a circle, it starts where you want to start looking at it. Kind of like the food chain.
“That is why I made the claim that the relationship is symbiotic.”
Yep. It’s “supply and demand”.
Not “supply or demand”.
However, the problem is when all the stuff we are demanding is supplied from overseas. Like my young kids. They get spending money from birthdays and Christmas. Without actually producing anything, they are pretty limited in their consumption.
Yup. I know exactly what you mean.
I have rarely seen anything useful come out of marketing surveys.
It takes a really good technologist (usually an engineer with a really good business sense), that makes the difference.
That is a result of Keynesian economics which is the dominant school across the globe. Unfortunately, it's mostly wrong.
Keynesians insist that consumption drives the economy and that savings is a withdrawal from the spending stream. It's nonsense, of course. Money we save then becomes part of the pool of loanable funds which are then borrowed and spent by someone else.
My wife thinks I'm crazy because I study advertising in television and sit there and analyze it to her.
It drives her up the wall.
One observation is that commercials are produced to make you consume.
This whole argument that one is more important than the other seems like a pointless waste of energy ...get out there and produce so you can consume.
The other thing about savings that Liberals hate: it gives you more flexibility and a buffer against hard times. If you have a savings cushion, you’re less likely to need Government assistance. And, it probably means you are a responsible, rationale, disciplined adult; in other words, everything they don’t want you to be. So more savers = fewer clients = less Democratic voters.
The fact that we are huge consumers is probably a good thing. It means that we are higher up on the economic food chain and can afford the non-necessities.
However, you have a very good point — at what point does the whole thing unravel? We take a lot for granted and are very dependent on these “things.” How many of us could forage for food if we really had to. Or how many of us have a big enough backyard to be able to grow food to sustain our families? Very few of us, I bet.
Yeah, go find an empty plain and see how much one’s need to consume produces.
Walmart believes in that model. A large percentage of transfer payments wind up in their account the day the payments are made.
Walmart provides goods that folks need - at a low price.
I could to choose to buy many of the exact same items at different retailers - but at a higher cost.
Those who are on a limited budget find their dollars purchase more goods when shopping a Walmart.
If you want to keep arguing the concept of consumption, fine. But as has been stated earlier “need” & “want” are the precursors of consumption.
I NEED food, therefore my demand is high. I WANT my food at the lowest reasonable cost. To fill this demand of mine, producers will jockey for position. Some will fill the low cost niche, others will try to satisfy the best quality niche, and the “best value” producers try to supply the middle-ground cost.
If in an impoverished neighborhood, I try to open a Whole Foods market next to a Walmart, I will most likely fail. Why? Don’t I have an excellent product? Yes, but I will fail because the DEMAND for low-priced items is HIGH in that neighborhood. Walmart will thrive in that neighborhood - not because they have stuff to sell, but because they meet the DEMAND for low-cost stuff...
Government destroys wealth and causes distortions and malinvestment when it attempts to create or stimulate aggregate demand, even in hard times.
h/t Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises
Define 'exists'.
Not necessarily. It’s simply pointing out that if nobody is buying stuff the economy will be bad. There’s nothing wrong with savers in that instance, because savers put money in the bank, who lend it to people who will spend it.
I’ll have to take your word for all that since I don’t own any of those products but it is still true that need has never created anything. PERCEIVED need may inspire all kinds of creativity in people but NEED NEVER creates anything.
Or one could argue that - by definition - true need always DRIVES creation.
Need creates one very important thing: an exploitable market.
Sure. But if the production is done abroad and the money to pay for it is borrowed it complicates things. Just repeating a few old truisms won’t clear things up or convince anybody.
You're on the same side as Obola.
When obie talks about a consumer driven economy he’s misusing words and ideas he’s not smart enough to understand. As properly used and understood all a consumer driven economy is saying is that if people aren’t buying stuff the economy will suffer. An economy is built on exchanging goods, services, and money. If one of those becomes seriously lacking the economy shrinks. Nobody who actually understands the terms wants to punish anybody. For one thing we all understand that all the methods of saving that don’t involve your mattress get money in the hands of spenders, that in fact in the long view saving IS consuming, a saver is “spending” their money for interest or ownership stake instead of goods or services.
So if you want to buy into Obie’s gross misunderstanding of the concept that’s on you. But that puts you much more on his side (since you’re buying his poor definitions) than I am.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.