Buyers Create Sellers

As far as I know, there aren't any successful companies selling spinach flavored beer, pre-skidded underwear, or penis shrinkers.  It takes a buyer to create a seller. If there were buyers for those products, I'm sure you'd see businesses open to sell them.

And it's not just a matter of a worthy product, but buyers have to be able to purchase the product from the seller.  It doesn't make a difference how great a product is if a potential buyer can't afford to purchase it.  If the buyer can't buy it, then they aren't really a buyer at all.

Reaganomics and the trickle down theory is fundamentally flawed in that way.  It's a theory based around maximizing the short term gain of sellers on the assumption it will magically create more sellers.  It doesn't take into consideration that sellers aren't created by short term gains, sellers are created by buyers.

If there's a demand from capable buyers, there will always be sellers.  If a seller's net income is taxed at a higher rate, we're not going to suddenly find a lack of people willing to sell us shoes, televisions, or golf balls.  It's never worked like that anywhere.

That's why, statistically speaking, things like food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicare/Medicaid & Social Security are at the top of what most stimulates an economy.  They create capable buyers.  That's also why an expansion of Medicaid and insurance subsidies for mid and low income individuals & families will undoubtedly bring a long term economic gain.

Progressivism isn't an antonym to Capitalism, it's what makes Capitalism successfully function.  Without it you're bound to have a system that will ultimately implode on itself.

< American Overdose | Death of Polish President in a Plane Crash >
 Display:
You are taking away from those who will produce in order to give to those who will waste...

That money literally doesn't grow on trees - when the government produces money out of thin air, we end up in the position we are in today!

Buyers are great, but I don't want to pay for someone elses shit who hasn't gone out and earned it! Why should they enjoy the fruits of MY labor?

by bobo1 on 04/09/2010 11:02:43 PM EST

Nobody is taking anything from YOU.  Your tax money will be spent by the time it makes it out of your township.  The money he's talking about would come from people who make more than all the TYT members combined.  I don't know what school you're teaching at, but judging by how shitty educational compensation is, I doubt YOU personally will be subsidizing anyone.  The problem that I have with your stance is that the people who use the defense are often poor or no where NEAR well off, and aren't really paying taxes that will make it to another person.  

Theoretically, I agree that you shouldn't pay for anyone's shit if they haven't earned it, but that's not what happened with the stimulus package.  Only taxpayers got money...so those people were contributing, but everybody knows that most jobs are not fairly compensated.  Surely as a teacher, you know that you're not getting what you should be getting for what you do, and the superintendent is getting way too much for the little they do.  This is the same situation with the ceo's who take a tremendous amount of the profit for terrible decisions, and the people who do the REAL work get shit on.  

You're not going to get any arguments from me about people who don't work not deserving any benefits, but if you have EVER paid taxes, then you have shown a desire to contribute to the system, and that should be taken into account as well.  There are times when people simply can't find a job, but that doesn't mean they aren't looking.  The right wing has demonized people who can't find work, but at the same time they fetishize the blue collar jobs that their outsourcing and deregulation is killing.  No wonder poor republicans are against social programs.

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 04/10/2010 01:50:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
...if you have EVER paid taxes, then you have shown a desire to contribute to the system...

If you have ever claimed a tax deduction, then you have shown a desire to minimize your contribution to the system.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 04/10/2010 03:07:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No. I have never in my life made enough to be worth itemizing.

Have you?

by RedPossum on 04/10/2010 12:13:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's why, statistically speaking, things like food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicare/Medicaid & Social Security are at the top of what most stimulates an economy.

How did food stamps and other entitlement programs stimulate people to create Intel, Microsoft, Dell and Cisco?

Progressivism isn't an antonym to Capitalism, it's what makes Capitalism successfully function.

What if your progressive programs are actually parasitic and weaken the capitalist system upon which they feed?


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 04/10/2010 03:05:45 AM EST

Capitalism itself is parasitic, or does draining the 3rd world of its resources not count? But no, there is no rule of sustainability in the capitalistic model only profit; where as "progressive" or socialist programs aim to distribute some for of safety net for the populace to stand on. If people think we over consume as it is you haven’t seen anything if we take away all regulations on Capitalism, there wouldn’t be a fucking tree left on this planet.

Food stamps and Medicare/Medicaid aren't used to buy PCs dumbass they help other industries. Does this really need explaining?

by Alloy on 04/10/2010 04:34:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And so is any other system that depends on growth, even if they are fairer in terms of distribution.

And it isn't just the 3rd world that's losing its resources. Populations grow, soils are degraded, aquifer levels fall, oceans are acidified. No sustainability anywhere.

Do you know what happens to economic systems that can't be sustained? One guess.

Can we eat money? Can we eat economics textbooks? (I suppose we could eat economists).

Sorry, what were you saying? Something about supply side, and consuming?

by Landbeyond on 04/11/2010 07:49:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If people think we over consume as it is you haven't seen anything if we take away all regulations on Capitalism, there wouldn't be a fucking tree left on this planet.

Private landowners have a profit motive to plant trees to replace trees they harvest. Don't confuse the tragedy of the barren commons with lushly forested private property.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 04/15/2010 07:49:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]

The limiting reactant in the process is creativity and innovation, not money.  Men with truly great ideas will always find ways to obtain capital to put them into action.  However, all the money in the world won't buy you a great idea. 

If you look at global capital markets they're awash with cash, what they lack is profitable opportunities to put that cash to work.  The core of supply side economics is that the limitation is availability of capital.  When capital is not limiting then supply side approaches don't do shit. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/10/2010 01:55:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
>>How did food stamps and other entitlement programs stimulate people to create Intel, Microsoft, Dell and Cisco?

were founded when the top tax rate was 50% or higher.  So obviously, the progressive tax system didn't stop them from being created.

But more to the point, I'm middle class and I have been able to buy their products.  There are people below me who have been able to buy their products.  

Would people have been able to buy their products - which is what makes a company successful - during the Great Depression, before progressivism really began to take off?  

The answer to that is objectively no.  People could no longer afford to spend then, and the population that some of the best companies in the world relied upon stopped purchasing their products and the companies folded.  

Why did they fold?  Because buyers create sellers, sellers don't create buyers.

My website: History By Day
Follow my on twitter @historyday.

by HistoryByDay on 04/10/2010 02:19:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If you really think that you should fight for negative income tax as Friedman calls it or unconditional bsic income as the German Left party (Die Linke) calls it.
Everybody would get subsidized by the government and everybody would pay the same tax rate. That would of course mean getting rid of all deductibles.

However, since there are no progressives in America that will never happen.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/10/2010 04:28:52 AM EST

Ken, come on.

It's true I was born in the afternoon, but it was not yesterday afternoon. I was a Reagan Republican. I remember supply-side economics. I remember that "rising tide lifts all boats" horseshit.

It didn't work.

I gave them my vote, my money, my faith, and I waited patiently. It never happened. I was managing or helping run small businesses, two different ones both here in SD and in KC, MO, for the entire 8 years of the Reagan presidency. Economically, those were some very hard years for working folks at a small business.

The tide rose for the corporate cronies all right, while small business got fucked in the ass with no lube.

So your rising tide does not lift all boats. It lifts the big ships, and sinks the small boats.

Ken, when you state opinions I disagree with, I can respect that. But when you insult my intelligence, that impresses me not :Þ

by RedPossum on 04/10/2010 12:20:50 PM EST

I remember that "rising tide lifts all boats" horseshit.

President Kennedy used that phrase in 1963.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 04/15/2010 07:58:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: