More about our favorite crisis
A recent publication has once again made us think about the problems of the global economy :)
I absolutely do not pretend to understand the economic mechanisms in general and current events in particular. I am just interested in the opinion of others about the next “spherical horse in a vacuum” - how much is it possible in principle and is it worth to expect such a thing.
Obviously, with the current state of technology, only a small part of people work to meet basic human needs - that is, to grow food, build a modest home and pump out enough gas to heat it. Many more people are working to meet “conditionally important” needs. And as much, probably, is engaged exclusively in luxury. By luxury, I mean luxury in the broadest sense - i.e. that thing you can easily do without.
')
Imagine now that society has had a difficult year. Well, you never know for some reason. Suppose each person did not receive 10% of the income.
It would seem that nothing terrible, it seems, and so are not poor, we can do without these 10%. But here it turns out an interesting thing: a person refuses some unimportant luxury. Suppose, decides this month not to go to the movies, not to buy a new iPod instead of a working player of another brand, do not change the old car for the time being.
At the same time, at the level of any particular person, the discomfort is minimal, it does not even feel like a big and serious problem (well, I did not buy an iPod, another time, you will think). But on the whole, a drop in demand for these goods can be catastrophic - say, twice for cars, as I read somewhere recently.
I now do not believe that a person who really needs a car, he changed his mind to buy it because of the crisis. Most likely (assumption), he would have done without it. Such a nice opportunity to upgrade the car - why not, since the revenues allow it?
And here the snowball begins to grow: if we produce cars, which are, in fact, luxury, then we instantly go bankrupt. Or, in order not to go broke, we raise prices, but thereby we kill the demand for the root. Or we reduce prices, if we can afford ... A lot of people are ruining, and these people themselves used to buy luxury goods in exactly the same way, and therefore, they are ruining other “luxury men” - and so on ...
And now the question on the backfill. If such a scenario is possible, then can, in principle, a modern economy (spending 10% of its forces on the production of really necessary things and 90% of forces on the production of unnecessary things) be stable? After all, any small blow outside - and 90% of production can be “blown away”!
PS This is so a random thought. Swam to a foreign harbor, I promise to return to the issues of scientific career :)
I absolutely do not pretend to understand the economic mechanisms in general and current events in particular. I am just interested in the opinion of others about the next “spherical horse in a vacuum” - how much is it possible in principle and is it worth to expect such a thing.
Obviously, with the current state of technology, only a small part of people work to meet basic human needs - that is, to grow food, build a modest home and pump out enough gas to heat it. Many more people are working to meet “conditionally important” needs. And as much, probably, is engaged exclusively in luxury. By luxury, I mean luxury in the broadest sense - i.e. that thing you can easily do without.
')
Imagine now that society has had a difficult year. Well, you never know for some reason. Suppose each person did not receive 10% of the income.
It would seem that nothing terrible, it seems, and so are not poor, we can do without these 10%. But here it turns out an interesting thing: a person refuses some unimportant luxury. Suppose, decides this month not to go to the movies, not to buy a new iPod instead of a working player of another brand, do not change the old car for the time being.
At the same time, at the level of any particular person, the discomfort is minimal, it does not even feel like a big and serious problem (well, I did not buy an iPod, another time, you will think). But on the whole, a drop in demand for these goods can be catastrophic - say, twice for cars, as I read somewhere recently.
I now do not believe that a person who really needs a car, he changed his mind to buy it because of the crisis. Most likely (assumption), he would have done without it. Such a nice opportunity to upgrade the car - why not, since the revenues allow it?
And here the snowball begins to grow: if we produce cars, which are, in fact, luxury, then we instantly go bankrupt. Or, in order not to go broke, we raise prices, but thereby we kill the demand for the root. Or we reduce prices, if we can afford ... A lot of people are ruining, and these people themselves used to buy luxury goods in exactly the same way, and therefore, they are ruining other “luxury men” - and so on ...
And now the question on the backfill. If such a scenario is possible, then can, in principle, a modern economy (spending 10% of its forces on the production of really necessary things and 90% of forces on the production of unnecessary things) be stable? After all, any small blow outside - and 90% of production can be “blown away”!
PS This is so a random thought. Swam to a foreign harbor, I promise to return to the issues of scientific career :)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/50957/
All Articles