4 ms·

Why are the Rich-old-comers any good? Wouldn't with this model mean that the richer are always the problem?

lotsofpulp 6y ago
This whole thread is just people complaining about the demand curves moving, and the supply curve lagging, because it takes time in real life for people to see and react to the moving demand curves. There is a little bit of pain, initially, but if they step back and compare life in an economically prospering place (rich people coming in) versus an economically declining place (rich people and opportunities to earn money leaving), they would realize they are actually lucky. One might say well those aren’t the only two options, and I would say, yes they are. The world moves faster and faster there is no “stasis” anymore. You’re on the up or down, volatility is higher, and you need to stay on the right side of it.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  I should know better than to reply to you but sometimes I can't help myself. >people complaining about the demand curves moving >There is a little bit of pain, initially Demand curves move in decades! Nobody wants life to suck for a couple decades because a bunch of people showed up and turned the local economy upside down. That's a huge fraction of a lifetime. If you're unlucky your kids might even be born at the start of it. >economically declining place You call it declining and I call it stable and sustainable. The world will always need soybeans, dairy products, corn and timber. The machinery to produce these things will always need to be fixed. Yes the people employed in that capacity will decline over time. With current birth rates and options for geographic mobility I don't think this is a real problem. It just means more kids will grow up to move to the cities than stick around. >You’re on the up or down, volatility is higher, and you need to stay on the right side of it. This seems like a world view minted where the primary industry is a volatile money fire. Not everywhere is like this, yet.
- conanbatt 6y ago
  I think there's a good case to dampen/smoothen supply/demand shocks in general, but I think this goes deeper, as in the belief that the equilibrium is worse after the shock then before it.

This whole thread is just people complaining about the demand curves moving, and the supply curve lagging, because it takes time in real life for people to see and react to the moving demand curves. There is a little bit of pain, initially, but if they step back and compare life in an economically prospering place (rich people coming in) versus an economically declining place (rich people and opportunities to earn money leaving), they would realize they are actually lucky. One might say well those aren’t the only two options, and I would say, yes they are. The world moves faster and faster there is no “stasis” anymore. You’re on the up or down, volatility is higher, and you need to stay on the right side of it.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I should know better than to reply to you but sometimes I can't help myself. >people complaining about the demand curves moving >There is a little bit of pain, initially Demand curves move in decades! Nobody wants life to suck for a couple decades because a bunch of people showed up and turned the local economy upside down. That's a huge fraction of a lifetime. If you're unlucky your kids might even be born at the start of it. >economically declining place You call it declining and I call it stable and sustainable. The world will always need soybeans, dairy products, corn and timber. The machinery to produce these things will always need to be fixed. Yes the people employed in that capacity will decline over time. With current birth rates and options for geographic mobility I don't think this is a real problem. It just means more kids will grow up to move to the cities than stick around. >You’re on the up or down, volatility is higher, and you need to stay on the right side of it. This seems like a world view minted where the primary industry is a volatile money fire. Not everywhere is like this, yet.
conanbatt 6y ago
I think there's a good case to dampen/smoothen supply/demand shocks in general, but I think this goes deeper, as in the belief that the equilibrium is worse after the shock then before it.