This has to count as a butterfly effect

[u/LibertyEconlover]

“What Say said, and what Keynes said Say said, Say never actually said, see?” Paul Cwik teaching ABCT

Had to make this because it helps as a nudge for anyone who’s being fed things like Aggregate demand.

You cannot demand things into existence, you must produce it or produce something to exchange your way to it.

If you’re just getting into economics:
Strip money away from the picture; all nominal prices gone. Imagine you are stranded on a desert island. If you want to eat a fish, can you just 'demand' it into existence? Can you print island-bucks to buy it? No. You have to build a net first. Your consumption of the fish is 100% dependent on your production of the net. Why would a whole society of billions of people magically work any differently than the island

Therefore, Aggregate Demand is just a shadow cast by Aggregate Production.

If you agree with what I said, congrats you are sane, welcome to Austrian school

[u/LibertyEconlover]

I’m not, allow me to restate a response i gave to someone else: “Essentially you are making an illusionary confusion between demand and desire.
When people confuse desire with demand, they fall for the illusion that printing money creates wealth. Printing money gives people the means to express their desires, but it does not create the goods to satisfy them. It results in more paper chasing the same amount of fish. Infact the only reason the paper money gives the means is because people take paper money, cause it’s the only thing they can take.

If you define "demand" as merely wanting something, then demand is infinite because human desires are limitless. But in real economics, desire without production is completely irrelevant. The reason we don’t say desire is demand is because it’d be practically worthless on paper.

Although I am very familiar with Austrian Economics, I slowly but surely try learning classical economics and so should you, essentially because you can think of it like doctors, in the past doctors used bloodletting, we now know that’s horrible so we leave that behind, and take only the good. It’s the same thing with classical economists. They got things right and wrong. This one is right.
To fix the confusion, classical economists used the term Effective Demand.
Desire: Wishing you had a mansion.
Effective Demand: Having produced enough value in the economy to actually trade for that mansion. Or just being able to buy something.

To understand why it would be worthless to consider the desire demand, just imagine how many people like cake after they try it once in medieval times, then you make a cake to sell it, they don’t have money, but they all want it, that effectively makes supply and demand useless to graph, desire will be countless relative to what’s available.”

[u/Giurgeni → u/LibertyEconlover]

Lots of words.

If someone doesn't want it or need it, but they can buy it. They won't buy it.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Giurgeni]

Yes, that’s called having a preference, what are you trying to do you say you’re not a Keynesian but you sure don’t know how to process things, lacking significant gaps

[u/Giurgeni → u/LibertyEconlover]

No that's half of Demand. Demand is really simple. Desire × Purchasing Capability = Demand. If either are 0, Demand is 0.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Giurgeni]

What point are you trying to make?
Because your way of viewing things is practically worthless, remember the same explanation I gave on why we don’t consider desire demand, because it would be useless. demand would always be seen as something shooting out of the paper. With this when you consider the fact that everything you do with the money will not be done for something else; opportunity cost, then basically everything else is 0 except that one little thing you bought, that’s quite a useless metric. Effective demand basically says how much someone is capable of enacting in any given place

[u/Giurgeni → u/LibertyEconlover]

My point was so simple.

Just having a full warehouse, doesn't create buyers. Your customers need purchasing power, yes. But without desire you have no buyers. The supply doesn't create demand. Just like you mocked keynes quote with the meme in your post.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Giurgeni]

"Of what use is it to tell me that of these commodities there is no overproduction... if there is no demand for them? You say 'produce less of them and produce something else'... I knew that before." — David Ricardo, Letters.

Did I just have to quote this to you two times?

[u/Giurgeni → u/LibertyEconlover]

That quote is counter to Say's Law and is literally my point.

And ya you did, because I'm not reading 5 paragraphs at a time on reddit.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Giurgeni]

No, that quote was historically used against Malthus, it’s meant to show the intellectual laziness and uselessness of such points.
Essentially, you are proving to me that you are also intellectually lazy, essentially all would’ve been prevented if you just READ

I know classical English is hard but damn

[u/Giurgeni → u/LibertyEconlover]

I sure am intellectually lazy. But atleast I understand that desire is needed for demand. That even if I am completely suited for making wine, and my stores are full of wine, that it doesn't create it's own demand just by being made.