Strunz ha scritto: ↑06/04/2021, 22:31
No, perchè la produzione esiste in previsione della domanda...a meno che non ti risulta che la nostra sia un economia pianificata dove lo stato stabilisce cosa servirà e lo produce.
Noi ci troviamo in un economia di mercato e ogni imprenditore prima di produrre (acquistare materie prime, assemblare macchinari, assumere personale) paga degli specialisti per stimare quale sarà la domanda.
Sempre ammesso che non ci troviamo nell'unione sovietica del secolo scorso si intende.
Ironico che mi dici questo perché io ti sto spiegando la teoria austriaca sul risparmio, il denaro e gli investimenti. E la scuola austriaca è la teoria economica più pro-mercato che sia mai esistita: spesso gli economisti austriaci sono anche anarcocapitalisti, cioè vedrebbero di buon occhio la sostituzione dello stato con entità private che fornirebbero quindi anche servizi di difesa, gestione delle strade e giustizia.
Cmq lo sapevo che mi avresti tirato fuori il discorso della previsione dei consumi
da manuale
Il fatto che tu produca qualcosa in previsione della domanda non inficia il discorso che prima di iniziare a consumare devi produrre.
Estratto di un intervista a Hans Hermann Hoppe, noto economista marxista:
[From an interview with Hans-Hermann Hoppe conducted by Juan Fernando Carpio.]
Carpio: Why do economists in general not teach the role of saving for the economy?
Hoppe: I agree with your assessment: In the economics profession today very little attention is given to the role of savings and very much, indeed overwhelming importance is attached instead to the role of consumption. This is a very curious situation. For while it is true that the ultimate goal of all human activity is consumption, there can be little or no consumption without prior production, and there can be no production without prior saving. To explain: Nature on its own provides us with only very few consumer goods, such as apples growing on trees or berries on bushes. For anything more and above this nature-given level of possible consumption, we must first produce the goods that we then afterwards can consume. That is, we must first devise and construct tools, instruments or machines – in economic terms: indirectly useful producer goods – which help us increase the supply of nature-given consumer goods (such as apples and berries) above their natural level or which help us bring about entirely new consumer goods, i.e., goods not found in nature at all (such as houses or cars). But: to devise and construct these producer goods (such as knifes, buckets, nets, hammers, bricks, steel plates, etc.) always requires some time, and to bridge the time to complete the construction of these goods, i.e., to eat and drink while working on them, prior savings of food and drink are necessary. Without prior savings and the “investment” of such savings in the production and accumulation of producer goods, then, no increase of future consumption is possible.
Why, then, economists pay so little attention to saving despite its enormous importance, is a question concerning the psychology or sociology of the economics profession. Naturally, the answer must be somewhat speculative.
The most apparent reason is the dominant influence gained by John Maynard Keynes and his so-called new “Keynesian economics” since the late-1930s, first in Britain, then, promoted in particular by Paul Samuelson in the US, and subsequently throughout the entire western world owing to the rank of the US as the world’s foremost superpower and its policy of military, monetary and cultural imperialism and hegemony. Characteristically, Samuelson’s Economics has been translated into all major languages and was for many decades the worldwide bestselling economics textbook.
However, the more fundamental reason is another one. It concerns the immediate follow-up question as to why Keynesian economics could possibly achieve such extraordinary success. The answer: Because what Keynesianism teaches is exactly what state-governments want to hear. And saying and preaching what governments like to hear in order to “scientifically” legitimize what they want to do all along anyhow brings rich rewards within a system of “public education,” i.e., within a school and university system almost totally controlled and tax-financed by government.
And what, then, is it that the “high priests” of Keynesianism, ensconced everywhere in the most prestigious and well-paying academic positions, teach and preach and that all governments love to hear? That all economic problems (stagnation, recession, depression, or whatever) are the result of under-consumption; and never ever are they, as plain common sense would suggest, the result of under-saving or under- production. And how to fix the problem of under-consumption and stimulate consumption? By taxing the rich (because they supposedly spend too little of their income on consumption and too much on savings) and giving it to the poor (who spend almost all of their income on consumption), by printing and spending more government paper-money, by the expansion of government paper-money credit, and by increasing government debt.
Rightly, Ludwig von Mises has characterized and ridiculed this economic “stimulus program” as the vain attempt of performing the biblical miracle of turning stones into bread.
https://mises.org/wire/our-obsession-co ... ig-problem
Quello che tu stai dicendo è equivalente a dire che un incel che wage cucka tutta la settimana e poi il w/e sta a casa a nerdare al pc impoverisce la società mentre un suo collega che il w/e spende centinaia di euro in toppate al ristorante arricchisce la società.
Per quanto riguarda l'altro discorso, i vecchi che paralizzano soldi bloccandoli in banca sono come gli immigrati che rimettono al loro paese quello che guadagnano ovvero sottraggono liquidità al sistema paese.
La liquidità circolante non misura la ricchezza, la ricchezza è misurata dal potere d'acquisto. Se un operaio frontaliero sgobba tutta la settimana e il w/e mangia al ristorante in patria non sottrae nessuna ricchezza al paese in cui lavora. Innanzitutto i soldi che guadagna sono suoi e non del paese dove lavora, secondo arricchisce il paese dove lavora perché offre un servizio richiesto dai clienti del suo imprenditore. Perché il proprietario del ristorante nel comune dove lavora l'operaio dovrebbe pretendere che i frontalieri mangino da lui?
