Opinion Does Demand Create Supply? - Guess who?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

https://mises.org/mises-wire/does-demand-create-supply
https://archive.is/wip/XNgEj


By popular thinking, increases in demand cause economic growth. According to such thought, whenever the economy falls into a recession what is required is to strengthen demand. Since government is seen as an important part of total demand, what is then required is to increase government outlays, thereby lifting overall demand and hence increasing economic growth.

According to the popular view, it is also possible to strengthen overall demand through the inflationary increases in money supply. With more money in their possession, and for given prices, the so-called real balances will increase and this, in turn, will strengthen individuals’ expenditure on goods and services. This allegedly will strengthen the economy’s overall demand and will strengthen economic growth. A decline in the prices for a given money supply will also boost the real balances and thus the economic growth. But does it make sense that demand is the key driver of the economy?

In the free market economy, wealth-generators do not produce everything for their own consumption. Part of their production is used to exchange for the products of other producers. Hence, in the free market economy, production precedes consumption. This means that something is exchanged for something else. This also means that an increase in the production of goods and services sets in motion an increase in the demand for goods and services. According to David Ricardo,

No man produces but with a view to consume or sell, and he never sells but with an intention to purchase some other commodity, which may be immediately useful to him, or which may contribute to future production. By producing, then, he necessarily becomes either the consumer of his own goods, or the purchaser and consumer of the goods of some other person.
An individual’s demand is constrained by his ability to produce goods demanded by others. The more goods that an individual can produce, the more goods he can demand.

Expanding Private Savings: Key to Economic Growth

Without the expansion and the enhancement of the production structure, it is difficult to increase the supply of goods and services. The expansion and enhancement of the production structure hinges on the expansion of production, private saving, and capital investment. Saving supports individuals in the various stages of production. It supports individuals that are employed in the enhancement and the expansion of the production structure. Hence, what matters for economic growth is not just tools, machinery, and labor, but saving and investment in capital goods.

Government Is Not a Wealth-Generator

Contrary to popular thinking, the government does not produce any wealth. Increases in government spending cannot grow the economy. By nature, the government must take from the private, productive economy to facilitate any of its actions. By doing this, the government weakens the wealth-generating process and undermines prospects for economic recovery during a downturn. According to Rothbard,

Since genuine demand only comes from the supply of products, and since the government is not productive, it follows that government spending cannot truly increase demand.
Likewise, an increase in money supply only sets in motion an exchange of nothing for something. This means a weakening in the process of wealth formation and leads to economic impoverishment.

An important factor that makes the fiscal and monetary stimulus appear to “work” is if the amount of private savings is large enough to support non-wealth generating activities while still permitting a growth rate in the activities of wealth generators. It also gives the appearance of wealth as new sectors are stimulated. Additionally, if funded by inflation, the benefits of inflation appear early and are only realized later.

If, however, voluntary saving is declining, then, regardless of any increase in government spending and inflation by the central bank, overall economic activity cannot be revived. In this case, the more the government spends, and the more the central bank inflates, the more will be taken from wealth-generators, thereby weakening any prospect for a recovery. Additionally, these measures will further distort the economy.

As one can see, not only does the increase in the expansionary fiscal and monetary policies not raise overall output, but, on the contrary, it leads to a weakening in the process of wealth generation in general. According to Say,

. . .the only real consumers are those who produce on their part, because they alone can buy the produce of others, [while]. . .barren consumers can buy nothing except by the means of value created by producers.

Conclusion

By popular thinking, increases in government spending and central bank inflation strengthens the economy’s overall demand. This, in turn, sets in motion increases in the production of goods and services. What we have here is a claim that “demand creates supply.” However, to be able to exchange something for goods and services, individuals must first have something that others want. This means that, in order to demand goods and services, individuals must produce something useful first. Hence, supply drives demand and not the other way around. Governments, by nature, must take from the private, productive sector in order to fund their activities. Increases in government spending and the money supply growth rate results in the diversion of savings from the wealth-generators to non-wealth-generators, thus undermining the wealth generating process.
 
What we have here is a claim that “demand creates supply.” However, to be able to exchange something for goods and services, individuals must first have something that others want. This means that, in order to demand goods and services, individuals must produce something useful first. Hence, supply drives demand and not the other way around.
Demand creates supply because a "demand" is the the problem and the "supply" is the solution to said problem. The problem has to exist first for someone to create the solution to it, thus "Demand creates supply".

Even if you go with the authors flawed argument, supply creates demand INITIALLY then Demand takes over to create more supply.

Had to point this out even if I agree with the overall conclusion that government spending does nothing to actually generate wealth by artificially creating both demand and supply in sectors people are not interested in by exchanging nothing for something weakening the overall value of exchange (the dollar) for everyone else.
 
By popular thinking, increases in government spending and central bank inflation strengthens the economy’s overall demand. This, in turn, sets in motion increases in the production of goods and services. What we have here is a claim that “demand creates supply.” However, to be able to exchange something for goods and services, individuals must first have something that others want. This means that, in order to demand goods and services, individuals must produce something useful first. Hence, supply drives demand and not the other way around. Governments, by nature, must take from the private, productive sector in order to fund their activities. Increases in government spending and the money supply growth rate results in the diversion of savings from the wealth-generators to non-wealth-generators, thus undermining the wealth generating process.
While some government supported efforts are glorified money sinks that have little to no chance of making a profit, it's not always the case. For example, take a look at ChangXin Memory Technologies and Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit, two state-backed (one is state-owned outright) DRAM manufacturers in China who were established in 2016 by the Chinese state as part of the Made in China 2025 initiative and are now on the cusp of flooding the consumer electronics market internationally.
 
Last edited:
In theory and in most cases, but certain demands can be socially engineered, which creates hyper consumerism and a certain dependence on low quality manufacturing because it's cheap and quick.
 
By popular thinking, increases in demand cause economic growth
Until it causes destruction because there is such a thing as market size.

The more the demand, the more people on the supply side. Meaning that margins get skinny and advertising costs rise. And like in every profitable business, things settle down with a couple winners and a ton of losers. If the industry does not collapse on itself.
Since government is seen as an important part of total demand, what is then required is to increase government outlays, thereby lifting overall demand and hence increasing economic growth.
How did we even make this leap in logic all of a sudden? You fucking retard.
An individual’s demand is constrained by his ability to produce goods demanded by others. The more goods that an individual can produce, the more goods he can demand.
No, demand and supply don't overlap like this. This makes no fucking sense. I give up. Whoever wrote this should be put out of their misery.
 
The point could be somewhat more elegantly made by framing government and/or central bank "demand" via inflationary monetary policy as not demand, but (over-)supplying dollars when there isn't demand for them.
 
How did we even make this leap in logic all of a sudden? You fucking retard.
He's restating Keynesianism, to argue against it. I don't know why he doesn't outright call it that and says "the popular view" instead.

No, demand and supply don't overlap like this. This makes no fucking sense.
This is a weird allusion to Austrian monetary theory, without including the money. Restated properly, these sentences are a truism:

An individual’s demand is constrained by his ability to produce goods demanded by others.
When he produces goods, he gets paid money. While his wants are infinite, his expressed economic demand is constrained by the amount of money he has earned from producing.​
(Notice that while Austrians will defend an individual's right to give money to others, through inheritance, marriage, or other nepotism, they ignore the effect of non-earned money in their economic calculus.)​
The more goods that an individual can produce, the more goods he can demand.
The more money he has, the more he can demand.​

I don't know why he's talking around concepts like this. It feels like a rudimentary AI generated summary of Austrian economics. But it's incomplete, it doesn't name the concepts, and it doesn't jump between individual and collective actor mechanics. Also, it completely lacks the moral punch that's supposed to come with the condemnation of inflation, money printing, easy economics, and government-enforced solutions that get corrupted by politics.

What's the point?
 
When the government spends, it spends other people's money.

That means government spending is not actually an increase in spending, but a transfer, from spending on the things people think they need to for themselves, to things the government wants to subsidize.

There is no actual increase in demand, and so no increase in supply, rather both demand and supply are transferred away from the people.
 
I'll give you the short answer: yes.
I think what he is saying is, to sum it up -

Supply is created by suppliers, not by demand. If you have no suppliers, then you have no supply, regardless of the amount of demand.

Destroying suppliers with high taxes, so that the government has money to spend to create demand, is backwards and pointless.
 
Back
Top Bottom