Merged A Thread for AlexPontik to Explain his Ideas

[Leftus]

You are offering fuzzy definitions for economic concepts that are both already well defined and definitions that already exist.

You should buy a book and learn these definitions, as it allows you to communicate with all economists. Some economic theory is counter intuitive and needs explaining.

But if he does that, he might learn that his ideas are not novel. And that might be a bridge too far.

 

[catsmate]

I think you need to know about a Giffen Good, in economics. A Giffen good is a commodity that goes against demand curve logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good

Don't forget the more general Inferior Goods which are a superset including like Giffen goods.
But I suspect your attempts to educate the willfully economically ignorant regarding Supply/Demand and the Income and Substitution Effects will be in vain.

Complete BS. Some people try to display their wealth conspicuous consumerism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption

....however as they pay more and more, then the supply curve increases production of that consumer product.

Related to Veblen Goods.

 

[catsmate]

So it's only a tit-for-tat exchange, if I agree with what the state / city is spending that tax on? Do I get to opt out? Why not?

As Thoreau. demonstrated, no.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Economics has basic fixed rules also, that humans wants to have fun. What does this mean? That humans try to avoid doing what is not fun when they can...

for example if something is too expensive for someone, then usually that someone tries to look for other options, because this is what is fun for that someone, but also for most humans.
And only because humans don't think it is fun to pay more than you should for something, they usually want to pay less.

This is just a collection of useless tautologies. When does something become 'too expensive', and how much is 'more than you should' pay? How often is 'usually'? Define 'fun'. Do people always try to avoid doing what is 'not fun' and maximize the amount of 'fun' they have?

Fun is generally defined as:-

"what provides amusement or enjoyment"​

Most people are willing to spend a large portion of their time not having 'fun', so they can enjoy having more fun at other times. Most people know that there are times when you have to endure a little pain to get what you want. You might not like paying for something, but the rewards of possession are worth it. And sometimes the money you paid is part of the reward. People also tend to value 'free' stuff less than things they have to work for.

When is something 'too expensive'? It may be when you simply don't have the money to purchase it, or when you don't feel like paying for it even though it would benefit you. But many people do buy things they can't afford and/or will hurt them. The total expense goes way beyond the purchase price.

The truth is, in a real economy people often do pay more than they 'should' - just like they often pay less than they 'should' - because prices don't perfectly match cost and utility.

people are trying to have fun in their lives, when the fun they have is common they have cooperation, when it is not they have conflict.
Some humans enjoy labeling conflict as competition, so let me explain what I mean.

When you have conflict, you want to be better than someone else, and this someone else to accept that.
When you have competition, you want to be better than no one else but yourself, and you don't care what this someone else thinks, you just have the patience to get better.

But competing against others can be enormous fun (eg. sport), and conflict is also fun (eg. drama), so these activities are a big driver of the economy. Competing against yourself? Not so much. Cooperation can be 'fun', but mostly it just makes the job easier. Many jobs are not at all fun, but are easier to bear when others are helping.

You have an inkling of what motives people, but you haven't developed it into a coherent theory that would help to understand economics. If you want to produce something of real value then you will have to do some work. Start by doing some proper research on the subject, and build on what others have found out. Then - maybe - after the not fun process of disciplining your thoughts, you might starting having real fun.

 

[AlexPontik]

I think you need to know about a Giffen Good, in economics. A Giffen good is a commodity that goes against demand curve logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good

hmm, actually thank you for this link, I was not aware of Giffen goods.
But also the article in wikipedia has the following, under Empirical Evidence part of the article (I'm copying phrases, but I've read the whole article):
1."Evidence for the existence of Giffen goods has generally been limited"
2."Charles Read has shown with quantitative evidence that bacon pigs showed Giffen-style behaviour during the Irish Famine, but that potatoes did not."
3."However, the empirical evidence has been generally considered incomplete."
The only conclusion I can draw about Giffen Goods, is that in the case of 2. in the Irish Famine, when society was going to **** by measure of food, and the economy wasn't exactly working, that Giffen Goods arise.
So this is indeed a valid argument, when the economy goes to ****, Giffen Goods arise.
Still I don't understand where you are going with this, where I am going with it is given below.

You mean there are demand curves in economics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve

Yes, but I prefer simple talk, people who haven't read demand curves in economics, won't understand if one writes demand curves to them, but what I wrote, it seems to me they will understand.
Now whether they agree or not, and whether I am correct or wrong remains to be seen, this is why I go through all this time and effort here, I am not looking for a fight.

Complete BS. Some people try to display their wealth conspicuous consumerism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption

....however as they pay more and more, then the supply curve increases production of that consumer product.

I am talking about Veblen goods (it is mentioned in the wikipedia article you send me also under Analysis line 5).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

And the reason I am talking about Veblen goods, or luxury goods, is that even if the economy is working, Veblen goods still exist, and there is not much one can do about them ( I don't have a negative or positive view on them, some people have fun this way, and I don't think I need to have a say on that).

 

[AlexPontik]

But they still get access to all of the general benefits, and even direct payments, from the federal government. So where, exactly, is the tit-for-tat exchange there?

For example, someone making the awesome sum of around 15K a year. They will pay ZERO income taxes, make a few grand from the EITC, and if they have kids, a few grand there. They will have paid a pittance in other taxes including SSI. Yet you exclude them from your creditor / debtor calculations.

The people you refer to seem to not have to pay taxes, because this is what the law states.
If you are asking me is this right or wrong, I don't know it depends on the specific society. If people need a support from the state as wages can't support their families, and allow them to have fun in their lives, I do.
If the state ends up giving money to people but the budget cannot be balanced and the state has an ever growing debt, I don't.
But to balance where you draw the line for a specific case, you need the details of the specific case.

In order for the tax payers and tax collectors roles to exist, law exists which states that, as it is the state that collects taxes usually.
For creditors and debtors, there may or may not be law which states who is who, so there are cases where the agreement is written, and becomes a rule, or there are cases where the agreement is spoken.
When the agreement is broken and the agreement is just spoken, then you are closer to what happens on the street, when things go wrong. And what happens next is that people usually have some sort of conflict, which may resolve the immediate problems with the agreement, but is not very productive. Why? Because instead of having conflict you could be having fun if you behaved, this is why.

So it's only a tit-for-tat exchange, if I agree with what the state / city is spending that tax on? Do I get to opt out? Why not?

You do get to opt out, you leave society and go live in the woods, where no people live with laws to manage the scale of society and the agreements made.
If people didn't write any laws, every agreement should be done ad hoc in society, with the expectation that people will behave and not try to gain by pushing towards "agree with what I want, or we have conflict". This doesn't seem very reasonable, but people have tried to built up such societies from scratch (in the USA they have tried this several times), which usually end up in conflict.
Now , you naturally ask me how well does that work? As long as society is fun to the majority of people it works, when it stops being fun people get angry and start protesting, and if things escalate, things get violent.
And after this, by some way things stabilize again. This usually isn't a very pleasant way for people, and I don't know what they expected, things are fun within limits for humans.
If you disagree stab yourself and you will see that you agree with me...also don't expect me to stab you, I don't question "things are fun within limits", as I don't questions "the fun is endless", I am just having fun in my daily life.

You are still missing the point. You have highly specific definitions for absolutely no reason. If they are just people or humans, then defining them as kids or jokers, with oddly specific definitions, makes no sense. If you define kids to include everyone, why use kids in the first place? It already has a set definition, and trying to supplant an established term with one of your own creation is a bad idea, unless you are intentionally trying to create confusion.

I am still missing the point I am trying to make, and you are not?

 

[AlexPontik]

This is just a collection of useless tautologies. When does something become 'too expensive', and how much is 'more than you should' pay? How often is 'usually'? Define 'fun'. Do people always try to avoid doing what is 'not fun' and maximize the amount of 'fun' they have?

Fun is what is fun for people, and what is not fun for people is not fun for them.
The phrase would be pointless to dolphins, but all people know that this phrase is true. How? It is a tautology, it is true and people know it by default.
from google: Tautology (in logic): a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
So how does one find what is fun for him/her? By trying out things and observing if they are fun, and within some limits, things are usually fun for humans, and there is no further things that one can know about what is fun for him/her.

So this is what I mean, know do you understand?

Fun is generally defined as:-

"what provides amusement or enjoyment"​

Most people are willing to spend a large portion of their time not having 'fun', so they can enjoy having more fun at other times. Most people know that there are times when you have to endure a little pain to get what you want. You might not like paying for something, but the rewards of possession are worth it. And sometimes the money you paid is part of the reward. People also tend to value 'free' stuff less than things they have to work for.

Most people as you said know that there are times when you have to endure a little pain to get what you want, as well as that this pain you have to endure and not others. Why do they know that? Because when they don't do that they don't have fun.
But for the rest of times, most people know that you don't have to endure pain, and you are just having fun.
So what happens on the times when you have to endure pain? You weren't patient, and you are trying to do things which hurt you.

d is something 'too expensive'? It may be when you simply don't have the money to purchase it, or when you don't feel like paying for it even though it would benefit you. But many people do buy things they can't afford and/or will hurt them. The total expense goes way beyond the purchase price.
have to work for.

Something is "too expensive" for one when one decides that it is too expensive for him/her, for whatever specific reasoning they have for the specific occasion.
Why? Because this is how people seem to be using "too expensive" in spoken language, things are "too expensive" for one, or one plus other people (from zero to all the people), but for one to use "too expensive" they have to be too expensive for him/her.
The phrase "too expensive" remains unchanged in spoken language regardless of the time you live, as it happens with phrases which are useful to humans (they describe situations which occur frequently).

The truth is, in a real economy people often do pay more than they 'should' - just like they often pay less than they 'should' - because prices don't perfectly match cost and utility.

The truth is in a real economy people often pay more than the theoretical prices they 'should', because the real economy is the real economy and theory is theory.
Also these two words "economy" and "theory" remain separate in human history.

But competing against others can be enormous fun (eg. sport), and conflict is also fun (eg. drama), so these activities are a big driver of the economy. Competing against yourself? Not so much. Cooperation can be 'fun', but mostly it just makes the job easier. Many jobs are not at all fun, but are easier to bear when others are helping.

When the others think it is fun, yes, when the others start thinking it is not fun for them, then usually the other start trying making it not fun for you. How? I think you know how, no?

You have an inkling of what motives people, but you haven't developed it into a coherent theory that would help to understand economics. If you want to produce something of real value then you will have to do some work. Start by doing some proper research on the subject, and build on what others have found out. Then - maybe - after the not fun process of disciplining your thoughts, you might starting having real fun.

For the economy to work, human action is needed, or else nothing human gets done (and things return to their natural order).
Human action cannot be separated from human behavior. (from google, behavior=the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others)
Humans can behave in a way that is fun for them individually, or for the family or group of people they belong into.
Whatever humans may think is fun for them, it is in the end nature that puts order.
This means that all of physical laws discovered by humans, still take place, you can't fly by jumping out of a window naked, birds can do that, and humans can do something similar by using planes. But humans are nowhere near to what birds can do, naturally.
So for the economy to work, humans should behave in a way that is fun for them, so that they don't exhaust themselves in conflict. When they don't do that, they need to spend more time and effort to do stuff, this is what I mean.

 

[Fonebone]

5. The kids who produce and the kids who consume
6. The kids who are creditors and the kids who are debtors
7. The kids who collect taxes and the kids who spend the taxes

Let the kids grow up and add about 100 different kinds of kids and you will start to get a model that resembles a modern economy.

Modern economics for grown-up children
the 2017 national debt......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqUwr-Nkq9g


the 2020 stimulus package.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHEM4gEqvg



the big picture.....
https://demonocracy.info/infographi...ion_2020/us_stimulus_package_10_trillion.html


Mood music to enhance your viewing experience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mh-Wj8TK6w

 

[catsmate]

hmm, actually thank you for this link, I was not aware of Giffen goods.

Obviously.

The only conclusion I can draw about Giffen Goods, is that in the case of 2. in the Irish Famine, when society was going to **** by measure of food, and the economy wasn't exactly working, that Giffen Goods arise.
So this is indeed a valid argument, when the economy goes to ****, Giffen Goods arise.
Still I don't understand where you are going with this, where I am going with it is given below.

Oh good grief......

Yes, but I prefer simple talk, people who haven't read demand curves in economics, won't understand if one writes demand curves to them, but what I wrote, it seems to me they will understand.

Tough. If you want to talk about technical matters reducing them to "simple words" rolleyes is grossly stupid.

 

[Leftus]

The people you refer to seem to not have to pay taxes, because this is what the law states.
If you are asking me is this right or wrong, I don't know it depends on the specific society. If people need a support from the state as wages can't support their families, and allow them to have fun in their lives, I do.
If the state ends up giving money to people but the budget cannot be balanced and the state has an ever growing debt, I don't.
But to balance where you draw the line for a specific case, you need the details of the specific case.

I'm not asking if it is right or wrong, I'm asking how it fits in your model of a tit-for-tat taxation system.

You do get to opt out, you leave society and go live in the woods, where no people live with laws to manage the scale of society and the agreements made.
If people didn't write any laws, every agreement should be done ad hoc in society, with the expectation that people will behave and not try to gain by pushing towards "agree with what I want, or we have conflict". This doesn't seem very reasonable, but people have tried to built up such societies from scratch (in the USA they have tried this several times), which usually end up in conflict.
Now , you naturally ask me how well does that work? As long as society is fun to the majority of people it works, when it stops being fun people get angry and start protesting, and if things escalate, things get violent.
And after this, by some way things stabilize again. This usually isn't a very pleasant way for people, and I don't know what they expected, things are fun within limits for humans.
If you disagree stab yourself and you will see that you agree with me...also don't expect me to stab you, I don't question "things are fun within limits", as I don't questions "the fun is endless", I am just having fun in my daily life.

Sorry, but living in the woods still has some expenses. You still need to get a license to hunt, buy seeds, and perhaps ammo. Also property tax. There is no way to opt out.

I am still missing the point I am trying to make, and you are not?

No, you are missing the point I was making. You are making your arguments unnecessarily obtuse by taking words with existing definitions, using them but with your own definitions, and then not defining them until well past the point of consideration. Why?

Eschew Obfuscation, Espouse Elucidation.

Everyone at almost every level understand demand curves, for example. So coloring demand as "fun" and the consumers as "kids" or "jokers" is adding a layer of obfuscation over a fundamentally understood idea. And I can't help but to think it's intentional. You don't have new ideas, you are just expressing them differently to sound like it's a novel idea. It's not.

 

[Leftus]

Tough. If you want to talk about technical matters reducing them to "simple words" rolleyes is grossly stupid.

Explaining hard concepts using simple words is a mark of someone who really understands the topic. This is not the case here. Substituting known, and already simple words, to his unnecessarily specific terms for absolutely no reason is a problem.

Fun for example, we all have our own definition that doesn't need explaining. But to insert fun as the function of demand, as far as I can tell, is somewhere between dishonest and trying to be too clever. It doesn't add to the conversation, and also distracts from it mightily.

 

[psionl0]

But to insert fun as the function of demand, as far as I can tell, is somewhere between dishonest and trying to be too clever.

It is the hallmark of somebody who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Economists usually talk about "needs and wants". We only have the ability to satisfy a fraction of our needs and wants and must therefore choose which ones we will satisfy. This is known as the "economic problem".

Now if AlexPontik wants to start a discussion using this more widely known terminology then we might know if he knows anything at all.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Fun is what is fun for people, and what is not fun for people is not fun for them.

You keep saying this, which displays your complete lack of knowledge about economics. Demand does not equal "fun". No one can say that a demand for petrol or costly synthetic petrol was "fun" yet WWII Germany evolved that exact substitution demand curve.

The phrase would be pointless to dolphins,

It is also pointless to economists. There is a demand cure for cancer drugs. Are you really claiming getting rid of cancer is fun?

The phrase "too expensive" remains unchanged in spoken language regardless of the time you live,

What an amazingly stupid claim. Economics only works in modern history when civilisation evolved legal rights. What Ottoman slave, who could not own things or have money, wondered how "expensive" some commodity was?

The truth is in a real economy people often pay more than the theoretical prices they 'should', because the real economy is the real economy and theory is theory.

Complete BS. In the long run the supply and demand curves reach equilibrium.

DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND EQUILIBRIUM IN MARKETS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES
https://opentextbc.ca/principlesofe...quilibrium-in-markets-for-goods-and-services/

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I'm not asking if it is right or wrong, I'm asking how it fits in your model of a tit-for-tat taxation system.

I'm a socialist who believes in moderate socialist policies guided by evolving economic capitalistic laissez-faire equilibriums in the marketplace.

I'm dying to see how Alex integrates social benefit goods as "Fun". The military, police, the courts and so on.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The people you refer to seem to not have to pay taxes, because this is what the law states.

All people pay transaction sales tax which is totally different to income tax which low income households do not pay in economies with progressive income tax percentiles.

Taxation theory is that taxation should not interfere with the market place reaching an equilibrium point that would occur in the absence of any taxation. Therefore most governments use a variety of taxation methods, in combinations, such as income tax, sales tax, poll (head) tax or direct service tax.

Australia's economy was "off balance" as we had a manufacturing tax only on some products but no, across the board, sales tax. When "GST" was introduced, in 1999, across the board, the economy improved, as efficient equilibriums evolved again.

Drug dealers in the black cash economy started to pay tax as they bought consumer products in Australia and paid 10% GST!

 

[Tippit]

Incompetent socialist governments use exactly the same methods to create money supply.The only way to reduce the wealth gap is through taxation, which is political and thus determined by voting.

Virtually all governments use fiat money, and thus create money out of nothing. If this money is used for the public benefit, then at best it is a form of regressive taxation. If the money is loaned to financial interests for the purpose of bidding up shares, bonds, and other assets, then it is nothing less than glorified counterfeiting. Since the latter is a completely usurious, un-meritorious method of wealth distribution for the super-rich in the first place, it follows that if we want to prevent this, we need to abolish fiat money. Tax policy doesn't come close to solving this problem, and cannot. There are only four countries in the world that implement a "wealth tax", Belgium, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. None of these prevent the rich from moving their wealth around, or storing it in forms that evade these countries, and it doesn't account for unmerited wealth in other countries. The idea of using tax policy to make up for past monetary looting is like trying to close the barn door after all of the horses have escaped.

Lenin introduced moderate capitalistic reforms in his New Economic Policy (1922) aware that he could retain socialist wealth policies through taxation.

Most tax policies exist to protect the rich. For instance, capital gains in the US are taxed much lower than earned income. None of this prevents the financialization of the world, and the insane wealth gaps that exist currently.

Complete crap. How could the USA "re-price" gold and silver when other countries are producing these metals. You obviously don't have a clue how OPEC and oil works, or De beers and diamond production.

The entire point of using metals as money, is to prevent governments from setting the price of money, and manipulating interest rates and engaging in financial repression. The market would reprice the metals.

Top 10 Gold Producing Countries
China – 399.7 tonnes.
Australia – 312.2 tonnes. ...
Russia – 281.5 tonnes. ...

I live in a democratic socialist country with free health and education. You're an American right?

Nothing is "free", your health care and education are just subsidized by others. What does my being an American have to do with anything?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Virtually all governments use fiat money, and thus create money out of nothing.

No. It is backed by the government issuing the currency. Are you really saying you didn't even know that?

If the money is loaned to financial interests for the purpose of bidding up shares, bonds, and other assets, then it is nothing less than glorified counterfeiting. Since the latter is a completely usurious, un-meritorious method of wealth distribution for the super-rich in the first place,

I pay tax on my dividends according to the government's progressive income tax or progressive capital gains tax percentiles. You didn't even know that?

Tax policy doesn't come close to solving this problem, and cannot.

So why do all these same countries have progressive tax scales? You seem very confused

For instance, capital gains in the US are taxed much lower than earned income.

capital gains tax covers years, not one year. Didn't you know?

The entire point of using metals as money, is to prevent governments from setting the price of money,

You're just funny. If the largest producers of gold are China, Australia and Russia, then they can increase production to the USA's detriment.

The market would reprice the metals.

That China, Australia and Russia owns and controls production levels? Are you kidding me?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

What does my being an American have to do with anything?

I'm assuming you are a Ron Paul subscriber. Ron Paul is very good at taking money off his subscribers......and Don Black from Stormfront.... and David Duke.... and anyone else he can sell his crap economic BS to.....

 

[psionl0]

No. It is backed by the government issuing the currency. Are you really saying you didn't even know that?

The confused icon is appropriate in this case because the government doesn't back anything. Fiat currency is backed by the future earnings of taxpayers.

As a matter of practice, the government doesn't print money at all. It prints and sells bonds. Base money only gets printed if the central bank decides to buy any of these bonds.

 

[AlexPontik]

I'm not asking if it is right or wrong, I'm asking how it fits in your model of a tit-for-tat taxation system.

Taxation to take place in the real world requires actions to be carried by the involved parts (usually on one end is the state with its employees, and on the other end are the tax payers).

These actions are generally described as "I do this for you, you do that for me", and specifically in the case of taxation it works as, "I", meaning the state, do these things for you (public infrastructure, public institutions, rule of law), "you", meaning the tax payer, pay this percentage of your earnings to me (usually annually, but could vary).

1.The state is an employer for the occasions, when the taxpayers have to work for the state. This usually involves some sort of restriction of the taxpayers freedom, and actions that they have to do (in short, this usually has to do with breaking the law).

2.The state, is an employee for for the occasions, when it was to work for the taxpayers, in return for which, the taxpayers pay the state (usually with money, but other methods exist as well e.g. property collection, etc.)

1.These hold when the states works.
2.Because when the state doesn't work, then the state is an employer for all occasions.
3.And then if things go to the breaking point, then the employees, remove the previous employer and find a new one (this usually involves blood).
And then the state starts on its journey, which either will be a cycle, or the state and the taxpayers will understand that their behavior affects the stability of the system.

Sorry, but living in the woods still has some expenses. You still need to get a license to hunt, buy seeds, and perhaps ammo. Also property tax. There is no way to opt out.

For the ones who think there is no way to opt out, there isn't.
For the ones who think there is, they opt out. Do they survive? Usually not, it seems to me, but I could be wrong.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that humans need each other, unlike some other beings, to survive, and most importantly, to have fun.
In order to have fun, there are some obvious rules to all of us, so obvious that most of us wouldn't have a problem if they were written down and enforced by others on our behalf.
For example, let's not allow murdering each other, or well...no fun, let's not allow stealing for each other, or people won't be able to build a stable life and well..no fun again, let's not allow lies to get out of hand, or people won't know what seems to be happening around them, and what seems to be happening around them, seems to be bound by the laws of physics, which for the human history, don't seem to change (if you want to, we can discuss the what if they did, but I don't think it's necessary...).
And the last one, not allowing lies to get out of hand, you will notice if you look around you, wherever you are, seems to be having a problem lately, doesn't it?
And what am I, am I a liar? I don't know yet, this is what I am trying to find out (hopefully I'm just an idiot, and I'll find out where I am wrong here).

No, you are missing the point I was making. You are making your arguments unnecessarily obtuse by taking words with existing definitions, using them but with your own definitions, and then not defining them until well past the point of consideration. Why?

Because, this is what seems obvious to me, and this is what I am trying to find out here, what is not obvious to you, any of you, and where I am wrong.
But, you will have to excuse me, you are many, I am one, so one argument at a time.
Also if you want to reply, spend a bit of time to think. Why? Because, I want your view after you spend some time and effort to think, if you don't want to spend time and effort, then I think it's a waste of your time and effort what you are doing here.

What I mean by that?
Simply, if you thing you know a way you can lead me to think that what I wrote first on this thread is wrong, then this is what I am looking for also, so, let me know.

Everyone at almost every level understand demand curves, for example. So coloring demand as "fun" and the consumers as "kids" or "jokers" is adding a layer of obfuscation over a fundamentally understood idea. And I can't help but to think it's intentional. You don't have new ideas, you are just expressing them differently to sound like it's a novel idea. It's not.

Demand and fun are not the same thing, it seems to me. Here's how I think about it.
There is demand for fun, from people.
There is no fun in demanding anything, from people.
For this reason, I don't think they are the same thing.
And the reason why the economy works, is that people in the end want to have fun, and try to balance their lives, to where it is fun for them.