Some years ago, I posted the following in the Comment section of a major newspaper. I can't recall the details of the story, but there was the threat of an economic downturn.
A puzzle about Depressions keeps bothering me: In a Depression there is tremendous demand for goods, mostly consumables. There is a pool of workers willing to produce and satisfy that demand. It looks to me like a Depression violates the "law" of Supply and Demand.
So why doesn't production match demand? The culprit seems to be "debt", which must be paid at all costs. Even if it prolongs the Depression by reducing the profits needed to pay the debt.
Something is seriously wrong with an economic theory that can't explain why its founding principles don't work.
Another reader commented as follows:
@Wolf Kirchmeir
Something is seriously wrong with your understanding of the economic dynamics of depressions. In a depression contrary to your assertion there is NOT a tremendous demand for goods. In fact, due to massive unemployment demand plummets, as does the incentive to supply that demand. The result is spiral where decreasing demand and the decrease incentive to supply feedback on one another. The dirty little secret about capitalism is that distressed markets when left to their own devices will collapse without outside i.e. government intervention in the form [of] fiscal and monetary policy and massive fiscal stimulus which creates enough demand to literally resuscitate a distressed economy until markets are able to function without that assistance.
@[name] You're using classical economics, which equates "demand" with the amount of money available to spend. But demand is what I need and want. Money is merely a measure of my ability to satisfy my demand, and that's not the same thing at all.
In short, the classical explanation doesn't resolve the puzzle, it creates the puzzle.
My need and desire for stuff doesn't depend on the amount of money I have. It depends on how much food, shelter, clothing etc that I have. Demand rises and falls with that supply of needs and wants. To repeat: Money is just a measure of my ability to satisfy my demand. Not enough money means incomplete satisfaction of demand. It does not mean reduction of demand. On the contrary. The less money I have, the more demand I have. So if you use available money as a measure of "demand", that shows that there is something wrong with how money is distributed.
The reference to the "dirty little secret of capitalism" I think reinforces that point, if I understand it correctly. Government's injection of money doesn't "create demand", it just reduces the mismatch between demand and money.
The puzzle remains, because it's about psychology, not about finance.