It would be nice if you used more precise terms than "sc--d."
More importantly, you did not talk about capital. You made a nonsensical statement istead about wages vs. consumption. No need to substitute the topic and pretend the conversation was about something else.
" You can't have supply without demand,"
To get out of one nonsense you now produce another. Who on earth told you that one cannot have supply without demand or vice versa? Total nonsense.
"which is exactly where the US economy is today."
I'll stop here. Your remarks sound like those of an undergraduate that just completed one half of an introductory course on economics and misunderstood most of it.
It would be nice if you used more precise terms than "sc--d."I'd say deflation, but that lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.
More importantly, you did not talk about capital. You made a nonsensical statement istead about wages vs. consumption. No need to substitute the topic and pretend the conversation was about something else.Capital was implied mr Pendant.
To get out of one nonsense you now produce another. Who on earth told you that one cannot have supply without demand or vice versa? Total nonsense.Yawn... says someone who lacks the most rudimentary rhetorical skills.I'll stop here. Your remarks sound like those of an undergraduate that just completed one half of an introductory course on economics and misunderstood most of it.
Now, imagine the phrase "you can't have supply without demand" was a rhetorical device used to imply that an overabundance of one or the other was a bad thing.
Are you autistic? That would explain your inability to understand context and the implied aspects of argumentation.