Guests!

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Who said I wasn't allowed to cheat?

[The Lost One]

e eats everything wrote:

Maybe your voodoo economics says that demand doesn't mean anything. But if there's no demand for something, people don't produce it. That's just a fact. I fail to see how producing something that never gets used is a virtue. If no one buys games, then the industries reaping money from those buyers dies. How does that have no effect on economic health?

You missed my point. In macroeconomics, there is always demand so stop saying that I don't think that demand doesn't mean anything, it just doesn't affect economic health as much as production does because it is a constant when aggregated.

e also wrote:

Hardly convincing, when I can point out that by spending a lot of money in an industry, I help keep the companies in that industry viable, which translates to industry viability and their ability to employ more people (who can then afford to support businesses) and produce more, which means, even if production is the only useful index, that consumption is a factor in determining what the production will be in the future.
I can't see how consumption can possibly be completely unrelated to economic health. Can you give me reasons why consumption is a nonfactor when it appears to have several influences on employment and production

I'm not taking about an industry, I'm taking about the economy. The economy doesn't care whether one industry is successful or not, it can still grow even if an industry completely collapse because productivity can be increased in other sectors of the economy. For example, the US economy didn't collapse when people decided to buy computers instead of typewriters (devistating the typewriter industry). Rather, the US economy boomed because computers increased productivity in just about every sector of the economy.

Companies and whole industries rise and fall (based on individual demand) but the economy will keep on going as long as it keeps producing.

[The Lost One]

MsFish wrote:

No, the "real interesting question" is, why would anyone in their right mind want to discuss Econ for fun?

Because some people have more multi-facited interest so Econ is a fun subject to discuss. I personally think that it is much more fun to talk about Econ than many of the subjects posted on TWG. To each their own. If you think I'm stange or not in my right mind for liking Econ and talking about it, I'm okay with that.  

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

so you're saying that the economy isn't affected at all by the collapse of an entire industry? I'm not talking about typewriters, the majority of manufacturers of which were certainly manufacturing other items (for example, computers). You say there's always demand for "something" but what if there's very little demand for much? You're saying that not unhealthy?

Are you also saying that when people aren't buying as much, that producing a lot is still healthy?

You also seem to be saying that it's irrelevant whether the production is diversified or not.

See, my point is that my choice is between buying games or buying *nothing*. If I don't spend that money, it sits in a bank account. That reduces over all demand. it's not about just one industry.

[The Lost One]

If your money sits in a bank account it doesn't reduce demand because the bank will loan the money or otherwise invest the money which will then be spent by someone else (probably as a capital expenditure which can increase long-term productivity). This is why demand is constant.

The only way that you not spending money will hurt the economy is if you hoard your money under a mattress (which I personally don't think would work for you because your wife or kids will find the money and then spend it) or you burn your money.

As for the collapse of an industry, the economy with adjust for this. The resources that taht industry used will be shifted to another industry and the economy will continue to grow. It might have some local and/or temporary distortions but the overall economy can remain healthy and grow.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Didn't the economy of Ireland collapse because the potato farming industry collapsed?

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

It wasn't the fact that the potatoes stopped growing alone that ruined their economy, it was that mixed with the fact that there was famine and disease at the time, too.  This was also caused by the potatoe famine, but it wasn't because the potatoe industry failed that the economy failed, it was because the nation as a whole started to collapse.  

It wasn't the fact that the potato industry collapsed alone that ruined the economy (Mod: fixed a typo...) , it was the fact that the entire country's wellfare relied almost independantly on the potatos, this wouldn't happen in a nation that has many sectors of industry today, and if it wasn't for the disease and famine that the potatos caused it wouldn't have been the case in Ireland, I would assume.

[The Lost One]

GorgontheWonderCow stomps on e.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Yet an economy collapsed because of the loss of an industry. That industry had other ramifications, true, but it's still there. Most industries depend on many others. The loss of an industry impacts other industries, which in turn affects the economy.

All i'm saying is it seems silly to say that demand means nothing. If no one's buying, then no one sells. If no one sells, no one produces.

[Fellfrosch]

He's not saying that demand means nothing, he's saying that demand is so ubiquitous as to be a non-factor: it will always be there, and there will always be plenty of it to go around.

[The Lost One]

Point is that on industry is not the entire economy and that the economy will adjust to a downfall in one industry. Recessions in the economy is usually because of multiple factors and not simply because one industry is hurting.

And with the Irish potato famine, it was a decrease in potato production that caused the problem, not because people in Ireland weren't buying/demanding potatoes. Thus, this example supports my position that it is production that drives economic growth.

[Fellfrosch]

Oh snap!

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

You misunderstood the purpose of my example. I had already considered that it was a drop in production.

My point is that one industry collapsing led to a collapse of the economy. THUS if the demand for an industry causes it to collapse, it *will* affect the economy. YES it will recover, but it will STILL affect the economy, and people are hurt when the economy is hurt.

So yes, you can use the potato famine as an example of your production bit. However, that was not the end to which I pointed with the example.

By stating "the economy will recover" you've pretty much agreed that the loss of an industry DOES impact the economy. Maybe it's only temporary, but it does impact. Thus, suddenly eliminating demand for an industry, causing it to collapse, will affect economic health.
Thus, I am right to say that I am doing a service by supporting industries.

[The Lost One]

I can't deny that you are supporting an industry (under microeconomic theory) but that is not the same as supporting the economy (under macroeconomic theory).

When I say that the economy will recover, I mean that resource will "shift" within the economy. This doesn't mean that there is a recession (in fact the opposite could be occurring). I'm fine is this agrees with what you were saying e.

Also, it is very unlikely that the demand for an industry would suddenly decrease (maybe in some fad/trend industry which would probably not be a significant part of the economy). Again, production has a greater impact of the economy than demand.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Let me rephrase my position:

By purchasing, I keep an industry alive: and that keeps people employed. Those people then remain active participants in the economy.

Macro- or micro-, however you want to label it, that means my purchasing keeps people in economic health. By definition, that means i support "the" economy. Or "an" economy. Whatever. It doesn't matter whether that, as a whole, affects production, it affects the lives of individuals, and thus is a benefit.

To say this doesn't affect the economy is to be inhumane and look at economics for its own sake, rather than the participants who are supposed to benefit from a healthy economy.

Thus, I re-reiterate myself. Gamers are economically helpful by purchasing large quantities of expensive goods.