/liberty/ - Liberty

>>63404

>click on it

>recognize voice

>nope

Done.

>>63405

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

Where did this retard got his diploma from? A tiny group of people decides what is produced? The demands decide, enterpreneurs are mere servants of the consumers who save and allocate capital in these branches where it gives them the biggest return and therefore increase the production in response to great demand. I hate these 2 minute videos from both left and right which are not aimed at broadening my worldview and expanding my understanding but at giving laymen weak arguments for their standpoints.

>>63420

Harvard College (B.A., 1963)

Stanford University (M.A., 1964)

Yale University (M.A., M.A., 1966, 1967)

Yale University (Ph.D., 1969)

> The demands decide

If that was true no business would ever fail. 😂 What is supposed to happen in theory and how it happens in practice are very different.

>>63426

>no business would ever fall

Sure, if you exclude situations of

>dropping demand and therefore dropping prices and profits

>increasing costs of production due to raises in the prices of these factors

How does a statement "demand regulates the profitability of a business" imply that "no business would ever fall"? Quite the contrary - it contradicts it, for if demand regulates the profitability, it takes only a decrease in revenues caused by a drop in demand to drive a business out of a market. I should perhaps not focus only on the demand side and emphasize the role of the supply side and costs in shaping the profitability but then again - costs become higher when the factors of production are more expensive and that happens when they are better priced in other competing industries which is also an effect of an increase in demand for the commodities produced by these industries.

>>63436

You claimed that "demands" decide what is produced, which is obviously wrong since "demands" cannot do anything. A tiny group of people decides what to produce, no matter how you try to twist it.

>>63440

You could analogically say that you do not decide what is going to land on your plate in a restaurant since you have no entry to the kitchen not to mention any control over the cooks. But that is not the point - the cooks have to cook whatever the meal you've wished for yourself (and - of course - which is included in the menu), because this is their job and they get money for it. If they would start preparing meals according not to their customers' will, but to their own nobody would visit their restaurant and their business would soon become unprofitable. The same is true for factories and bigger businesses. This is what von Mises meant when he was talking about consumer's sovereignty:

>The real bosses [under capitalism] are the consumers. They, by their buying and by their abstention from buying, decide who should own the capital and run the plants. They determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. Their attitudes result either in profit or in loss for the enterpriser. They make poor men rich and rich men poor. They are no easy bosses. They are full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. They do not care a whit for past merit. As soon as something is offered to them that they like better or is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. (227)

>>63450

No, it's like saying that the cooks should have a say in what's on menu instead of the board of directors deciding it among themselves.

>>63451

David Hume is angry at your confusion about is/ought problem. I've intended my post to be a response to your claim that the bosses are the only decision makers in terms of what is being produced in the economy and I've tried to convince you that even if the bosses are the ones who manage the factories, they produce only in response to the demand declared by the consumers. That's the point of consumer's sovereignty. Your response was a claim about what SHOULD be the case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

>>63464

They are the only decision makers, period. What they base their decision changes nothing.

>>63468

It is relevant. The basis of their decision regulates whether the demands of consumers will be satisfied or not. Suppose you were a salesman and had a black customer. Whether you let your racist prejudices take over and make him go away or engage in voluntary transaction with him does matter - it is only in the second case that the consumer's wishes were fulfilled. This is why - in fact - most classical liberal philosophers of the Enlightenment like Voltaire favored free, unhampered trade - because, in their minds, the profit motive would take over atavistic racial sentiments and help the sense of belonging to the same race and community flourish.

>>63470

It's not. Watch the video again.

>>63464

Then start your own restaurant.

>>63440

if by a tiny group of people you mean whoever owns it then yea sure, but if their decision is not shared by their customers they will not make money and if they dont make money for long enough they will not be able to pay their workers and will no longer have the power to decide what is produced

in short with buzzwords to make it simpler, the owner of the means of production only retains his right to decide what is produced as long as he is capable of producing it, and this capability is tied to his money, which is tied to meeting demand

>>63404

it just proves that democracy is light version of communism

>>63426

>😂

O.O

STOP

>>63440

>>63468

The costs of production and the wants of consumers decide what is produced. The CEOs are only able to produce what makes money for their investors, or else they will be removed from their posts.

The market is democracy without real tyranny. Of course inequality means votes on what is produced are not equal.

But inequality is only present in so far as people 'vote' for it by rewarding production.