If We Want to Increase Demand in the Market, We Must First Increase Production

by
Frank Shostak
My articles My booksMy videos
Follow on:

Following the ideas of John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman, many commentators associate economic growth with increases in the demand for goods and services.

Both Keynes and Friedman held that the Great Depression of the 1930s was due to an insufficiency of aggregate demand and that thus the way to fix the problem was to boost aggregate demand.

For Keynes, this could be achieved by having the federal government borrow more money and spend it when the private sector would not. Friedman advocated that the Federal Reserve pump more money to revive demand.

But there is never such a thing as insufficient demand. An individual’s demand is constrained by his ability to produce goods. The more goods that an individual can produce, the more goods he can demand, i.e., acquire.

Note that the production of one individual enables him to pay for the production of the other individual. (The more goods an individual produces, the more of other goods he can secure for himself. An individual’s demand therefore is constrained by his production of goods.)

In this sense, producers and not consumers are the engine of economic growth. Obviously, if he wants to succeed, a producer must produce goods and services in line with what other producers require.

According to James Mill,

When goods are carried to market what is wanted is somebody to buy. But to buy, one must have the wherewithal to pay. It is obviously therefore the collective means of payment which exist in the whole nation that constitute the entire market of the nation. But wherein consist the collective means of payment of the whole nation? Do they not consist in its annual produce, in the annual revenue of the general mass of inhabitants? But if a nation’s power of purchasing is exactly measured by its annual produce, as it undoubtedly is; the more you increase the annual produce, the more by that very act you extend the national market, the power of purchasing and the actual purchases of the nation….Thus it appears that the demand of a nation is always equal to the produce of a nation. This indeed must be so; for what is the demand of a nation? The demand of a nation is exactly its power of purchasing. But what is its power of purchasing? The extent undoubtedly of its annual produce. The extent of its demand therefore and the extent of its supply are always exactly commensurate.1

If a population of five individuals produces ten potatoes and five tomatoes—this is all that they can demand and consume.

No government and central bank tricks can make it possible to increase their effective demand. The only way to raise the ability to consume is to raise the ability to produce.

The dependence of demand on the production of goods cannot be removed by means of monetary pumping and government spending.

Loose fiscal and monetary policies will only impoverish real wealth generators and weaken their ability to produce goods and services—they will weaken the effective demand.

Since government does not produce any real wealth, the real savings will have to be diverted from wealth-generating activities. This however, is going to undermine wealth generators and is going to weaken the real wealth generation process. The following simple example encapsulates the situation.

In an economy which is comprised of a baker, a shoemaker, and a tomato grower, another individual enters the scene. This individual is an enforcer who is exercising his demand for goods by means of force.

Can such demand give rise to more output as the popular thinking has it? On the contrary, it will impoverish the producers.

The baker, the shoemaker, and the farmer will be forced to part with their product in an exchange for nothing and this in turn will weaken the production of final consumer goods.

Therefore, what is then required to revive the economy is not boosting aggregate demand but sealing off all the loopholes for the creation of money out of thin air and curbing government spending.

This will enable true wealth generators to revive the economy by allowing them to move ahead with the business of wealth generation.

We can conclude that by strengthening the economy’s ability to produce goods and services we are in fact strengthening the so-called aggregate demand and promoting real economic growth.

• 1. James Mill, On the Overproduction and Underconsumption Fallacies, ed. George Reisman (Laguna Hills, CA: Jefferson School of philosophy, Economics, and Psychology, 2006).

You Might Also Like

The COVID Crisis Supercharged the War on Cash

The corona crisis has already taken a very high toll and caused deep damage in our societies and our economies, the extent of which is yet to become apparent. We have seen its impact on productivity, on unemployment, on social cohesion and on political division. However, there is another very worrying trend that has been accelerated under the veil of fear and confusion that the pandemic has spread.

The Social Consequences of Zero Interest Rates

Anyone who has ever been to Japan knows: Japan is special. The country has many strange habits. The Japanese culture is simply different and many peculiarities are hardly understood in the West. But it’s not only the old established traditions that are foreign to us Westerners.

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists

[This article first appeared in the Libertarian Forum, January 1, 1970.]
Now that the New Left has abandoned its earlier loose, flexible non-ideological stance, two ideologies have been adopted as guiding theoretical positions by New Leftists: Marxism-Stalinism, and anarcho-communism.
Marxism-Stalinism has unfortunately conquered SDS, but anarcho-communism has attracted many leftists who are looking for a way out of the bureaucratic and statist tyranny that has marked the Stalinist road.
And many libertarians, who are looking for forms of action and for allies in such actions, have become attracted by an anarchist creed which seemingly exalts the voluntary way and calls for the abolition of the coercive State.
It is fatal, however, to abandon and lose sight of one’s own principles in the

America’s Riots Are Just the Latest Version of Marxist “Syndicalism”

The year 2020 is one of the most disrupted times in at least the last half century, maybe longer. Global protests and riots, the covid-19 virus, lockdowns, and police killings of unarmed citizens. Add to that widespread rioting, looting, arson, homelessness, and destruction of property, including the tearing down of statues.

Hayek’s Plan for Private Money

The most famous Austrian economist is 1974 Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek. Because of his moderate views excusing state interventions in various circumstances, hardcore Rothbardians tend to regard Hayek as less than pure in many areas.

Monetary Policy Flapping in the Wind

Stephanie Kelton’s new book has attracted much attention, and Bob Murphy and Jeff Deist have already reviewed it, with devastating results. Why another review? The policies proposed in the book are so pernicious that further exposure of what she has in store for us is needed, and I have some new points to offer for your consideration.

Mises and Moral Relativism

I heard several days ago from my friend Larry Beane that people in Walter Block’s seminar who had been reading Theory and History wondered whether Mises is a moral relativist. As I’ll try to show, the answer depends on what you mean by “moral relativist,” but in the way the term is usually understood in contemporary philosophy, he isn’t.

Why “Taxing the Rich” Doesn’t Make Us Better Off

The complete confiscation of all private property is tantamount to the introduction of socialism. Therefore we do not have to deal with it in an analysis of the problems of interventionism. We are concerned here only with the partial confiscation of property. Such confiscation is today attempted primarily by taxation.