Riducule
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3271 |
|
|
| 19 Jul 2014 07:59 AM |
so, should goods be limited?
[continue debate here, sonihi, rather then steam] |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Riducule
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3271 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
sonihi
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Jun 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3655 |
|
|
| 19 Jul 2014 08:11 AM |
No. Inflation might be keept in check but also are the producers. People would also lose jobs cause they lose their workplace cause they are not supposed to produce more. The valvue of goods would increase but the prices could be so high that nobody buyes so they would have virtualy no value. Also economic growth would stagenate due to the goods staying at to high prices cause the supply is low and that not many people have jobs and money these goods would not be sold. All you would have is a high GDP with nothing backing it up except unsold goods. Also for the ideal price and supply you should do some calculations on sales along with production cost and material. If those are better then your proposed supply then you have just slowed econimic growth. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Riducule
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3271 |
|
|
| 19 Jul 2014 08:21 AM |
For some reason, my post got deleted.
Keeping the supply of goods at a relative price would mean that the opposites are equal - by that I mean that the value of money doesn't go down, nor does the demand for goods goes down - thereby, the value of money would effectively either go high or stay a reasonable value, meaning that the economy is healthy and well-maintained. Another reason, is that the demand for goods goes up, effectively meaning more profit for businesses who would sell these sort of goods. Furthermore, inflation would be at a reasonable percentage, because if the supply of goods went up high, then it would lose its value, meaning money would also lose its value as well.
They see me rolling. Alone. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sonihi
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Jun 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3655 |
|
|
| 19 Jul 2014 08:35 AM |
What you are proposing seems like socialism in which in the first stages everything goes well but then it stops growing cause the management cant handle it. Also I think companies out to make profit know better to then a state that wants to keep its currency in check. The companies would also respond faster to changes as the people have to act immediatly. Also if you want to get a new good on the market would that first need to get a limit. And what would you base that limit on? The economy is also controlled by trends and people who buy stuff so the response to the limit would have to be fast which would first have to go through the goverment. Also the value of money related to the value of goods? The goods would inflate and the money would increase in buying power not both things at once. If there are only so many goods then their value would be higher and the money couldn't buy them anymore so the money has less buying power. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sonihi
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Jun 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3655 |
|
|
| 19 Jul 2014 08:43 AM |
| Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_clearing |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|