Recession

[M.Dancer]

But there is demand! Demand and markets are not the same thing. Not being able to afford something does notmean that I don't want things.

Actually they are. If there is no demand there is no market. While most of us would love to have a small yaught, most of us can't afford one. The demand for yaghts is quite low and the market is small.

Demand for the Nintendo Wii has outstripped production. They are affordable, there are line-ups for them, the market for Wiis is huge.

Real demand affects the marketplace. Wishfully wanting something does not.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Demand for the Nintendo Wii has outstripped production. They are affordable, there are line-ups for them, the market for Wiis is huge.

Good for nintendo?

Real demand affects the marketplace. Wishfully wanting something does not.

If I'm dying of thirst, is it wishful wanting to want water and not be able to pay for it?

Edited March 20, 2008 by lost&outofcontrol

[M.Dancer]

If I'm dying of thirst, is it wishful wanting to want water and not be able to pay for it?

To the seller it is. If the seller's only custumers are those who can't afford his product, he has no market and demand for his product at the price he is asking is zero.

[M.Dancer]

Good for nintendo?

Excellent for Nintendo. Not being able to meet demand is a problem....but not as big of a problem as surplus production.

Amazingly even with stores being given quotas and some waiting for weeks to buy the unit, prices are still low. You would think that in order to control demand prices would go up....but then again, Nintendo publishes games as well so it is intheir interest to keep production at 110% and prices stable.

[lost&outofcontrol]

To the seller it is. If the seller's only custumers are those who can't afford his product, he has no market and demand for his product at the price he is asking is zero.

So we've establish that from your point of view production is not meant for actual human needs but for market needs. The basis or goal of production is to meet market needs then. You've abstracted real living people instead of starting from them(the kind that have to eat/think/etc to live). In other words your definition of people from the point of view of your economy is someone that can afford goods (that can participate in markets). This is the main issue with most bourgeois economist. They start from the markets to analyze the economy and in the process they define the various parts of this economy (machinery, people) not as real things existing outside the markets. Goods being produce for money instead of human needs.

Excellent for Nintendo. Not being able to meet demand is a problem....but not as big of a problem as surplus production.

Amazingly even with stores being given quotas and some waiting for weeks to buy the unit, prices are still low. You would think that in order to control demand prices would go up....but then again, Nintendo publishes games as well so it is intheir interest to keep production at 110% and prices stable.

If nintendo was a real person he or she would be rocking it!

Edited March 20, 2008 by lost&outofcontrol

[M.Dancer]

So we've establish that from your point of view production is not meant for actual human needs but for market needs.

The market is people. Those who can't afford my water need to find a cheaper source or upgrade their ability to pay for it. If the seller is pricing his water too high he may go out of business. Or perhaps his production costs are too high to lower them for those who can't pay so he needs to find a new market.

Don't confuse the need for people to make money with the need for some to live on welfare. If those on welfare can't afford water they should move to a lake.

[M.Dancer]

If nintendo was a real person he or she would be rocking it!

I'm sure the shareholders are happy and the management and staff are pleased their source of revenue and employment is solid for the foreseeable future.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Don't confuse the need for people to make money with the need for some to live on welfare. If those on welfare can't afford water they should move to a lake.

Screw people, market = God (by conveniently forgetting the fact that markets i.e. value, are nothing more than though in consciousness).

Need to live is a real need. Whether I'm part of the market through welfare or by being able to pay for my needs is irrelevant to real needs. The production circuit should not be Money (Market) -> Goods (People) -> Money (Market) but Goods (P) -> Money(M) -> Goods(P); production to meet actual real needs outside of a narrowly defined "market". The basis of your analysis are abstract market driven needs (need to create value).

Edited March 20, 2008 by lost&outofcontrol

[M.Dancer]

Screw people, market = God (by conveniently forgetting the fact that markets i.e. value, are nothing more than though in consciousness).

Need to live is a real need. Whether I'm part of the market through welfare or by being able to pay for my needs is irrelevant to real needs. The production circuit should not be Money (Market) -> Goods (People) -> Money (Market) but Goods (P) -> Money(M) -> Goods(P); production to meet actual real needs outside of a narrowly defined "market". The basis of your analysis are abstract market driven needs (need to create value).

You are certainly part of the market if you are on welfare....but a negative force driving down everyone's standard of living. If too many are on welfare then the whole economy blows....personally I am offended by the homelss and professional welfare cases....i would rather see them sent to work camps where they could hope to become net contributers to scoiety.

I'm sorry I don't understand your flow chart or your point.

[lost&outofcontrol]

You are certainly part of the market if you are on welfare....but a negative force driving down everyone's standard of living. If too many are on welfare then the whole economy blows....personally I am offended by the homelss and professional welfare cases....i would rather see them sent to work camps where they could hope to become net contributers to scoiety.

I'm sorry I don't understand your flow chart or your point.

I agree that people on welfare are part of the market. My point about the circuit of capital is that we have to start from the concrete reality of human needs (production/commodity) and not of market driven needs (money/abstract people). I realize that we appear to be far from the original subject of the current financial crisis. My point of contention is that if we try to understand it (financial crisis) from a market perspective (abstract things, market driven needs and not real human needs) we will not be able to grasp the essence of the problem and end up reproducing it (like august's point about being scared of death driving the current volatility).

My original point was in part this: the destruction of the labour movement in the 1970's reduced the cost of labour which led to unbridled (I can't find the quote from Alan Greenspan) expansion on the back of debt which became the main driving force in the creation of profit (surplus-value) after the 70's. This (in part) led to the current credit crunch.

Edited March 20, 2008 by lost&outofcontrol

[M.Dancer]

I agree that people on welfare are part of the market. My point about the circuit of capital is that we have to start from the concrete reality of human needs (production/commodity) and not of market driven needs (money/abstract people).

I'm not sure if that's the basis of a solid business plan. My human need to to make money to provide for my family. I do this by addressing the needs of the marketplace. If I sell more I make more. If my production costs are lowered my profits are higher and the needs of my family are met.

[HisSelf]

I'm not sure if that's the basis of a solid business plan. My human need to to make money to provide for my family. I do this by addressing the needs of the marketplace. If I sell more I make more. If my production costs are lowered my profits are higher and the needs of my family are met.

The problem is not what you do to address the marketplace, but what the marketplace actually is and how it is maintained. The Brits built an empire on controlling the marketplace. The Yanks have done the same, well at least so far...

Can there ever be a truly free marketplace? And what exactly is a truly free marketplace?

I'd sure as hell like to know.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I'm not sure if that's the basis of a solid business plan. My human need to to make money to provide for my family. I do this by addressing the needs of the marketplace. If I sell more I make more. If my production costs are lowered my profits are higher and the needs of my family are met.

I don't know if you noticed but your entire argument is a prisoner of market logic.

[M.Dancer]

I don't know if you noticed but your entire argument is a prisoner of market logic.

I am a prisoner to my family's needs.

[msj]

Just to update with some actual analysis and facts:

Yes, it does look serious when we are talking about the most serious regulatory overhaul since the Great Depression.

Some might appreciate to read a http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business...ml?pagewanted=1.

Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't opportunity. 15 cents on the dollar for land, anyone?

Edited to add:

Goldman Sachs is predicting $1.2 trillion in total losses. That's only about 8.5% of total GDP, right up there with other historically bad blowups. (this last link is a PDF)

Edited March 30, 2008 by msj

[Topaz]

I'm just wondering, did everyone here get money back on their income taxes as the Cons said they would? I still think for most people a cut in income tax is far better than the reduction of GST.

[msj]

I'm just wondering, did everyone here get money back on their income taxes as the Cons said they would? I still think for most people a cut in income tax is far better than the reduction of GST.

Whether you get money back or not is not an indication of whether or not you have paid less income tax.

Getting a tax refund is a function of taxable income, tax credits, and tax deducted at source/installments paid.

Given that the CPC have finally lowered the lowest bracket tax rate to 15% (as it was in 2005) and fully implemented the employment tax credit and implemented the new tax credit for kids (worth ~$300 per kid) undoubtedly people will be paying less tax on equivalent taxable income and tax credits as compared to prior years.

Now, is it better to have income tax cuts rather than a consumption tax cut? I would agree, yes.

Is it better to cut income taxes rather than consumption taxes when we are heading into a recession (or at least a slow down)? Certainly.

[Wilber]

A nice thing about so called experts when it comes to predicting the future is that they are invariably wrong. Y2K is a great example.

[jdobbin]

A nice thing about so called experts when it comes to predicting the future is that they are invariably wrong. Y2K is a great example.

Is that because of a better preparation for that event or because the problem was overstated? Many say that because of the preparation on Y2K that it prevented a complete meltdown of the system on September 11. The back-ups simply didn't exist in 1999 but did in 2001.

Certainly government, banking and insurance among big business needed to adjust for the problem. The issue was probably less of a concern for schools with computers in the classroom or the average PC owner. The fact that some survivalists packed up and headed for the hills was just as likely linked to numerous tales about end of days and the millennium as it was the Y2K.

One thing is certain: It would have been absurd to say that nothing had to be done about the flaw in the computer system. It was a gaping hole in records keeping that had to be fixed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is that because of a better preparation for that event or because the problem was overstated? Many say that because of the preparation on Y2K that it prevented a complete meltdown of the system on September 11. The back-ups simply didn't exist in 1999 but did in 2001.

True...."disaster recovery" with off-site redundancy flourished before Y2K, but was also augmented after 9/11. Part of this was due to concurrent security efforts (e.g. denial of service or viral attacks). We had each of our HP-Unix, Oracle, and MVS (mainframe) teams compete for fastest recovery in training. The older technology always won the race.

[Wilber]

Is that because of a better preparation for that event or because the problem was overstated?

Both, there was obviously preparation for the event but there is no doubt the probable effects were grossly overstated.

[msj]

Both, there was obviously preparation for the event but there is no doubt the probable effects were grossly overstated.

Do you have any idea how amusing it is to see you comment about an investment bank's estimate on how much credit losses its industry is likely to face while you, some anonymous joe, speculates about the "grossly overstated probable effects" of the Y2K preparation?

edited to change "whine" to "comment" per posts #223 and 224.

Edited April 1, 2008 by msj

[Wilber]

Do you have any idea how amusing it is to see you whine about an investment bank's estimate on how much credit losses its industry is likely to face while you, some anonymous joe, speculates about the "grossly overstated probable effects" of the Y2K preparation?

Please point out where I have "whined" about any such thing. Seems to me that I am not the one who is doing the whining.

[msj]

Please point out where I have "whined" about any such thing. Seems to me that I am not the one who is doing the whining.

Fair enough. Poor choice of word.

How about "comment" instead?

[msj]

If we were to measure GDP per capita then the US has been in recession since at least 2007 Q4:

Which means that maybe Japan hasn't done so badly for the past several years after all.