The first context is about the banks taking your money via overdraft fees. So I said that companies (lets stick with clothes because I mentioned those already...clothing companies) will charge more to make up for it. Yes, I said that, but this context doesnt account for people buying clothes.
In the second context, Im talking about demand going down because people already have clothes. In the first instance demand stays where it is because it doesnt factor in people having appeased their need / desire for clothes.
enough of your incoherent blabbering if people didn't need to buy clothes it would mean that the population wasn't growning and economic growth would be zero.
Yep. There it is. I won.
Obviously there will never be a time when no one is buying clothes, but certainly there can come a time when less clothes are bought (and demand for them goes down) if they ever had the buying power to satisfy not only their need to stay warm and covered, but also their fashion sensibilities a little...By that I mean that of course if people have the extra cash, then most of them will go out and try to buy clothes that make them feel a little better about themselves, or express themselves more specifically, etc. They will want to be a little extra, you know.
Then there will of course be some frugal people who will just buy whatever they need to replace clothes that are old or stained or torn, etc. So again, I'm not talking about achieving some absolute collective adequacy for volume of clothes...but certainly demand can go down via less overall desire for clothes due to having bought more.
no you lost the more money banks make the more money they can lend out to businesses which lowers prices now enough of your silly examples