[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-26, 19:40, said:

It is possible that the idea that the relationship between a country and its debt is different from that between a person or family and his or their debt is a myth?

I read somewhere recently that Saudi Arabia threatened to cash in all their US debt if Congress passed some law or other the Saudis don't want. Something to do with prosecuting people who support terrorists. What do you think will happen to the US economy if the Saudis do that? Or if China does it?

Any debt dumped will be resold - there is still great demand for U.S. debt. But I don't think it really matters as neither China nor Saudi Arabia really want to use that option. Do I think it would be better to reduce our debt? Sure, to a degree. The last number I saw was that debt was 104% of GDP. That is on the high side, but it is the result of multiple wars and the bailout of the financial system.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-April-26, 19:23, said:

Quite an interesting question that has long puzzled those in marketing.


Did ESPN create a demand for 24 hour sport news or did they simple met a demand that everyone, everyone knew was there?

They met a demand that was intrinsic but not necessarily "known".

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-26, 20:13, said:

They met a demand that was intrinsic but not necessarily "known".

fair enough and may or may not be the truth

Did marketing meet the demand or drive/create the demand......anyway your answer may be correct. I don't know

[kenberg]

So far so good. My votes for Pres, Sen, Repr, were Clinton, Van Hollen, Raskin. The first two have been called as winners, Raskin is leading. Pollsters should save money and ask me.

As for Trump. People keep explaining why he will lose and he keeps winning. I hope someone in the Democratic camp has some thoughts about this that go beyond dismissing his supporters as stupid. Stupid would be losing to this jerk. Get with it, guys.

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmmn, let's see: Eisenhower, check. Jimmy Carter semi-check (UFOs and some carnal thought issues.). All the rest of your presidents seem to have serious issues with intellectual, moral, legal and ethical requirements to be considered "with it". Trump would seem to fit into this pantheon somewhere in the middle I would suggest.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-26, 20:11, said:

Any debt dumped will be resold - there is still great demand for U.S. debt. But I don't think it really matters as neither China nor Saudi Arabia really want to use that option. Do I think it would be better to reduce our debt? Sure, to a degree. The last number I saw was that debt was 104% of GDP. That is on the high side, but it is the result of multiple wars and the bailout of the financial system.

"It is possible that the idea that the relationship between a country and its debt is different from that between a person or family and his or their debt is a myth?"

We can only create wealth. Debt is the imagined obligation required to acquire someone else's wealth. "Imagined" because it is a concept related to the value assigned to the desire to obtain that wealth.

A family cannot "borrow" from itself, it can only hypothecate any future earnings at a discount in order to pay for currently acquired assets. A nation can do so, because it has the "right" to tax citizens to acquire those earnings at present and in the future.

The big difference is that a sovereign country can create its own wealth as a means of borrowing against the future value that current assets may generate. When this is given over to other bodies then that possibility (rightly or wrongly) is lost. When interest payments on those amounts are included and further reserve quantities are involved, the certitude of debt-failure is virtually assured. Only jubilation of accumulated debt will release the involved from eventual servitude.

All the rest (Saudi threats etc.) are just a shell game and you really have to keep an eye on that pea...

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-April-26, 20:30, said:

fair enough and may or may not be the truth

Did marketing meet the demand or drive/create the demand......anyway your answer may be correct. I don't know

I think that an interest in sports and sports information was tapped into by an entrepreneur taking a risk. He recognized demand and tried to create the supply.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-26, 20:11, said:

The last number I saw was that debt was 104% of GDP. That is on the high side, but it is the result of multiple wars and the bailout of the financial system.

Not to mention tax reductions for the wealthy.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-26, 20:13, said:

They met a demand that was intrinsic but not necessarily "known".

There is good evidence to suggest that the demand for mouthwash was created through marketing (fear) rather than intrinsic. So I think the basic idea you are suggesting here is flawed in the general case.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-27, 11:26, said:

There is good evidence to suggest that the demand for mouthwash was created through marketing (fear) rather than intrinsic. So I think the basic idea you are suggesting here is flawed in the general case.

Wouldn't the intrinsic demands be the fear of embarrassment and the craving to fit in be liked?

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-27, 11:59, said:

Wouldn't the intrinsic demands were the fear of embarrassment and the craving to fit in be liked?

Naturally the general fear is there but the specific fear of having bad breath was (probably) an invention of the marketing campaign.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-27, 13:35, said:

Naturally the general fear is there but the specific fear of having bad breath was (probably) an invention of the marketing campaign.

Still, I would consider the demand intrinsic - the specific product to me is a subset of that demand.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on 2016-April-27, 10:23, said:

Not to mention tax reductions for the wealthy.

Yes, and those tax cuts are tied directly to the Reagan-era supply-side belief that wealthy individuals were the job creators rather than increased demand.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-27, 17:03, said:

Still, I would consider the demand intrinsic - the specific product to me is a subset of that demand.

It seems like a circular argument. If people have an intrinsic desire to follow the herd, then marketing is just a way of convincing them that the herd is buying that product, and thus create demand for that specific product.

So they didn't actually have a desire for the product until the marketers told them they should.

[barmar]

I don't think you can really draw a hard line in this demand vs. marketing issue.

For instance, there's a general demand for stylish clothes. But if styles didn't change, people would wear the same clothing for many years, until it wears out. But styles do change, so people buy new clothes to meet the current style.

But why do styles change? Some of it is natural -- new generations and cliques (e.g. hippies, goths, grunges) like to distinguish themselves from previous trends. But marketing also has a big hand in it -- they get celebrities to wear a new style, and people like to emulate them.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2016-April-27, 18:59, said:

I don't think you can really draw a hard line in this demand vs. marketing issue.

For instance, there's a general demand for stylish clothes. But if styles didn't change, people would wear the same clothing for many years, until it wears out. But styles do change, so people buy new clothes to meet the current style.

But why do styles change? Some of it is natural -- new generations and cliques (e.g. hippies, goths, grunges) like to distinguish themselves from previous trends. But marketing also has a big hand in it -- they get celebrities to wear a new style, and people like to emulate them.

I see your example as variations of intrinsic desires. If the question is: does marketing work? Then the answer is yes. But there is a distinct difference between preferences within the category of clothing and the intrinsic demand for being warm and dry.

I think demand can really be traced back to a few basic human wants: food, shelter, clothing, knowledge, information, safety, etc. What we buy to fulfill that demand is more akin to variations within species I should think.

The point being that supply-side works best as a response.

[kenberg]

I should probably resist getting involved with the intrinsic desires issue, but here goes.

I have been pulling some dandelions out of the lawn. Dandelions are at least somewhat attractive when they have their bright yellow bloom, and my understanding is that they are very good for bees. The bees around here definitely like dandelions. I imagine bees are impervious to marketing strategies, but how about me? When I pull dandelions, am I driven by marketing forces or by intrinsic desire? Am I just like a bee, only my intrinsic desires conflict with the intrinsic desires of the bees, or have I been conned by marketing forces into removing a lovely plant that benefits a dwindling bee population? This must be resolved today.

A friend of my wife's was over the other day and commented on how much she liked that the back part of our yard is natural. Uh huh. It does need a little weeding and mowing back there but I have been busy.

[y66]

From Gail Collins column today:

Quote

And it came to pass, barely seconds after he became the near-inevitable Republican presidential nominee, that Donald Trump began a gender war.

“Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote. The only thing she’s got going is the women’s card,” Trump said in the aftermath of his five-state primary sweep on Tuesday. “And the beautiful thing is, women don’t like her.”

Observers felt they discerned a distinct eye roll on the part of Chris Christie’s wife, Mary Pat, who was standing onstage behind the triumphant Trump. Her husband maintained his now-traditional demeanor of a partially brainwashed cult member.

People, why in the world do you think Trump went there?

A) He analyzed Clinton’s entire public career and decided her weakest point was the possibility of being the first woman president.

B) He felt his unimpeachable record on feminist issues gave him the gravitas to bring the matter up early.

C) The remarks were a self-censored version of an initial impulse to comment on her bra size.

Maybe all of the above. The man evolves.

Or

D) Intrinsic demand of Trump supporters for anti-Hillary rhetoric.

E) Marketing strategy, i.e., define your opponent early as he was able to do with low-E JB.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-27, 22:36, said:

I see your example as variations of intrinsic desires. If the question is: does marketing work? Then the answer is yes. But there is a distinct difference between preferences within the category of clothing and the intrinsic demand for being warm and dry.

I think demand can really be traced back to a few basic human wants: food, shelter, clothing, knowledge, information, safety, etc. What we buy to fulfill that demand is more akin to variations within species I should think.

The point being that supply-side works best as a response.

This tangent began in reference to products like the iPhone and ESPN. We already had phones and sports reporting, so the basic needs were being fulfilled, and the question raised is whether people were clamoring for the additional features they provided, or did marketing convince us that we needed them.

It didn't convince me -- I don't have a smartphone, and I don't watch sports news (although I frequently listen to "Only a Game", public radio's weekly sports show -- it tends to be more about the sociological and historical aspects, not who won and lost).

[kenberg]

y66, on 2016-April-28, 08:55, said:

From Gail Collins column today:


Or

D) Intrinsic demand of Trump supporters for anti-Hillary rhetoric.

E) Marketing strategy, i.e., define your opponent early as he was able to do with low-E JB.

I think the Hillary forces need to think this through. Her response (summarized from what I saw) was to list some women's issues, sensible ones, that she supports. I would far have preferred her to say: "Woman card? I would be most happy to hold a public debate tomorrow with Mr. Trump on foreign policy. Brazil? China? ISIS? You name the topic, the time, the location for the debate, I'll be there."

Most people, I believe, are long past caring whether a candidate is male or female. What has s/he done, what is his/her understanding of and his/her approach to the issues?


DT says something shocking and everyone plays their role. "Oh. How shocking. Isn't he awful. "
Ok. he is a jerk. Got that. Long ago I said that if DT agreed with everything I thought about everything I still couldn't vote for him. But the best response to his provocations is a calm "When you are done calling me names, I am ready to discuss the issues".

I think this is important. As long as everyone is talking about how shocking his insults are, the larger point of how bad a president he would be gets ignored.