Almost exactly like the US Constitution

[Dan Goodman]

An extrasolar planet is to be settled, with a government based on the US
Federal Government. Except for a few changes to the constitution....

A few possibilities which have occurred to me:

Term limits on parties. An elected official can run for office as often
as they like -- but only twice for the same party. Third time has to be
on another party's line; and the party has to sit out that election.

Voting age lowered to fourteen.

Representation for persons living in spaceships, space habitats, and
scientific bases elsewhere in the system.

Explicit language saying that intelligent aliens, uplifted animals, and
sufficiently intelligent machinery are entitled to be citizens.

--
Dan Goodman

[J.Pascal]

Depending on which parts the founders of the new colonies don't like the changes could eliminate private ownership of weapons or strengthen private property rules to stop excuses like... you have to eat, therefore that's commerce.

Also, if life support is necessary the settlers might decide the issue of "obligation to shelter" requires a place in the Constitution, either explaining that you're not allowed to space someone who can't (or won't) pay for their air... or explicitly stating that you are allowed to kick someone out, even if "out" means vacuum or a toxic atmosphere.

-Julie

[Jymesion]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:52:32 -0500, Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com>
wrote:

>Term limits on parties. An elected official can run for office as often
>as they like -- but only twice for the same party. Third time has to be
>on another party's line; and the party has to sit out that election.

Supreme Court justices have lifetime terms so they'll remain
impartial. I wouldn't be surprised to see that thinking applied to
other offices.

Perhaps an election every four years to retain legislators. The ones
who get the lowest percentage of "keep" votes get booted and an
election is held to replace them.

I've never understood the thinking behind term limits. It's the best
way I know to insure they'll be supporting the interests of whoever
can give them the best job after they have to leave office.

>Voting age lowered to fourteen.

I was thinking earlier today that age requirements are inane.
Everyone's different. Some people can drink responsibly before they're
19, some can't even when they're 60.

How about a questionnaire concerning the ten major points each
candidate supports/opposes? Score lower than 78% and you can't vote in
that election (of course, it'll have to be based on what they say they
support rather than on what their policies will actually do).

>Representation for persons living in spaceships, space habitats, and
>scientific bases elsewhere in the system.

Like how D.C. has a congressional delegate?

>Explicit language saying that intelligent aliens, uplifted animals, and
>sufficiently intelligent machinery are entitled to be citizens.

It depends on what citizenship entails. Voting privileges? Civil
right? Income taxes? Draft registration?

[Joy Beeson]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:47:43 -0600, Jymesion <nore...@jymes.com>
wrote:

> How about a questionnaire concerning the ten major points each
> candidate supports/opposes? Score lower than 78% and you can't vote in
> that election

We tried restricting the right to vote to people who could pass a
test. We didn't like the results.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

[David Friedman]

In article <p9udnYEz99nNvObM...@iphouse.net>,

Going a little further afield, how about fluid representation, via the
equivalent of the internet.

You choose who will be your representative. Anyone who is representative
of more than 1/N of the voters, where N is the number of seats in
congress, gets a seat in congress, and casts a number of votes equal to
the number of people whose representative he is. A voter can change his
representative whenever he wants to. Representatives with fewer than 1/N
of the voters can form groups, each of which has at least 1/N, and share
a seat on any mutually agreeable terms--all of them get to cast their
votes.

I don't know that it would work better than the present system, but it's
more elegant.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[David Friedman]

In article <ddfr-702C3F.0...@news.giganews.com>,

Following up on my own post, I have a plot idea:

There is some issue that is popular with the voters but, for some
reason, unpopular with representatives--say a cut in representatives'
salary. There is one representative who is identified with the
issue--some others support it, but he's the one voters know support it.

The issue is about to come up for a vote. The morning of the vote, he
represents 53% of the voters--most of whom switched to him the previous
evening, and plan to switch back to their regular representative the
evening of the vote.

The issue comes up, it passes--and he proceeds to use his votes to pass
fifteen other bills that he wants, before his voters pull their votes
from him.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 26, 5:52 pm, Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:

> An extrasolar planet is to be settled, with a government based on the US
> Federal Government.  Except for a few changes to the constitution....
>
> A few possibilities which have occurred to me:
>
> Term limits on parties.  An elected official can run for office as often
> as they like -- but only twice for the same party.  Third time has to be
> on another party's line; and the party has to sit out that election.

Leading to the creation of meaningless shadow parties. Republican A
and Republican B. Democrat A and Democrat B.


Doesn't solve any real world problem. No reason for it to happen.

> Voting age lowered to fourteen.

So politics can get even MORE juvenile and stupid...

> Representation for persons living in spaceships, space habitats, and
> scientific bases elsewhere in the system.

Eh. Not really a change. Military personnel (well, anyone really,
military or otherwise) stationed overseas vote absentee in their old
home now.

> Explicit language saying that intelligent aliens, uplifted animals, and
> sufficiently intelligent machinery are entitled to be citizens.

Who decides on the defintion of "sufficiently"? Literacy tests have
been used in the past...

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 26, 6:36 pm, "J.Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:

> Also, if life support is necessary the settlers might decide the issue of "obligation to shelter" requires a place in the
> Constitution, either explaining that you're not allowed to space someone who can't (or won't) pay for their air... or
> explicitly stating that you are allowed to kick someone out, even if "out" means vacuum or a toxic atmosphere.

Utterly unrealistic. No reasonably realistic society would operate
that way. Popular in fiction, yes, I know. But it breaks my
suspension of disbelief wheve I see it.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 26, 7:47 pm, Jymesion <norepl...@jymes.com> wrote:

> Supreme Court justices have lifetime terms so they'll remain
> impartial. I wouldn't be surprised to see that thinking applied to
> other offices.

Thing is we WANT certain officials to be explicitly partial. That why
we elect them. The ones we don't want to be aprtial we don't elect in
the first place.

> Perhaps an election every four years to retain legislators. The ones
> who get the lowest percentage of "keep" votes get booted and an
> election is held to replace them.

Doesn't work with regional representation, and regional representation
works pretty well.

> I've never understood the thinking behind term limits. It's the best
> way I know to insure they'll be supporting the interests of whoever
> can give them the best job after they have to leave office.

That isn't the real problem. The real problem is that its only
POSSIBLE effect is to make the majority of the people necessarily
worse off. It can ONLY keep somone the majority wants in the job out
of it.

> I was thinking earlier today that age requirements are inane.
> Everyone's different. Some people can drink responsibly before they're
> 19, some can't even when they're 60.

Bring back literacy tests? What about when ability is not distributed
blindly? Say men are good at 24, but it takes women until 30 to reach
that level? And maybe you have an unfavored minority that takes even
longer...

> How about a questionnaire concerning the ten major points each
> candidate supports/opposes? Score lower than 78% and you can't vote in
> that election (of course, it'll have to be based on what they say they
> support rather than on what their policies will actually do).

I am a rather sincere Libertarian with a high level of training in
economics. I like Rand Paul. Why would I be remotely interested in
the policies of his necessarily crypto-communist Democratic opponent
in 2016? Conversely, I did not need to know the policies the
Republican candidate (who was, uh...) supported in 2012 to decide that
I was going to vote against Barack 'the anti-Christ' Obama...

How about instead requiring a level of education about how society
works? Does the minimum wage increase or decrease the total earnings
of poor people? Are unions good or bad for the set of all workers?
Does raw government spending, irrespective of the target, stimulate or
weakedn the economy?

...

[/rant off]

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 27, 12:46 am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> Following up on my own post, I have a plot idea:
>
> There is some issue that is popular with the voters but, for some
> reason, unpopular with representatives--say a cut in representatives'
> salary. There is one representative who is identified with the
> issue--some others support it, but he's the one voters know support it.
>
> The issue is about to come up for a vote. The morning of the vote, he
> represents 53% of the voters--most of whom switched to him the previous
> evening, and plan to switch back to their regular representative the
> evening of the vote.
>
> The issue comes up, it passes--and he proceeds to use his votes to pass
> fifteen other bills that he wants, before his voters pull their votes
> from him.

Or, he gets nailed by a negative rumor in the press costing him all
his support before a critical vote. Sure, it gets retracted the next
day, but by then... Cf 'October surprise'

[J.Pascal]

I described two diametrically opposite conditions... which one do you think is unrealistic?

The requirement which is essentially a "must respond" and "must shelter" to someone who is running out of air or supplies... or the "cold equation" model where people are specifically excused from rendering aid?

I would think it's possible to go either way, realistically, both having a different set of good and bad results.

-Julie

[Jymesion]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:54:50 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 26, 7:47�pm, Jymesion <norepl...@jymes.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps an election every four years to retain legislators. The ones
>> who get the lowest percentage of "keep" votes get booted and an
>> election is held to replace them.
>Doesn't work with regional representation, and regional representation
>works pretty well.

Why wouldn't it work? It ensures continuity while there's a constant
infusion of new blood.

>> I was thinking earlier today that age requirements are inane.
>> Everyone's different. Some people can drink responsibly before they're
>> 19, some can't even when they're 60.
>Bring back literacy tests? What about when ability is not distributed
>blindly? Say men are good at 24, but it takes women until 30 to reach
>that level? And maybe you have an unfavored minority that takes even
>longer...

Not literacy tests. A test of awareness of the political climate.

>> How about a questionnaire concerning the ten major points each
>> candidate supports/opposes? Score lower than 78% and you can't vote in
>> that election (of course, it'll have to be based on what they say they
>> support rather than on what their policies will actually do).
>
>I am a rather sincere Libertarian with a high level of training in
>economics. I like Rand Paul. Why would I be remotely interested in
>the policies of his necessarily crypto-communist Democratic opponent
>in 2016? Conversely, I did not need to know the policies the
>Republican candidate (who was, uh...) supported in 2012 to decide that
>I was going to vote against Barack 'the anti-Christ' Obama...

That's a description of the kind of person who shouldn't vote, imo.

Blind adherence to one party is what's led us to this disaster.

If nothing else, a person should know the stated principles of the
other parties as part of "know your enemy" enlightenment.

>How about instead requiring a level of education about how society
>works?

Never!

Level of education proves nothing.

I've never, repeat _never_ seen evidence that academia knows anything
about how society works!

>Does the minimum wage increase or decrease the total earnings
>of poor people? Are unions good or bad for the set of all workers?
>Does raw government spending, irrespective of the target, stimulate or
>weakedn the economy?

Those are never based on the facts. They're always debated on which
set of factoids a person wishes to use in their argument.

To my mind, they're also strawmen, brought up often to deflect
attention from the real problems.

[David Friedman]

In article <9710a4a5-0c98-4f07...@googlegroups.com>,

"J.Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:

> The requirement which is essentially a "must respond" and "must shelter" to
> someone who is running out of air or supplies... or the "cold equation"
> model where people are specifically excused from rendering aid?
>
> I would think it's possible to go either way, realistically, both having a
> different set of good and bad results.

As one small piece of evidence against the second alternative, Islamic
law holds that for a starving man to steal food does not count as theft.
That would have developed in a society much poorer than ours, hence one
in which many more people really were at the edge of starvation, at
least occasionally.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 27, 3:43 pm, "J.Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:

> > > Also, if life support is necessary the settlers might decide the issue of "obligation to shelter" requires a place in the
>
> > > Constitution, either explaining that you're not allowed to space someone who can't (or won't) pay for their air... or
>
> > > explicitly stating that you are allowed to kick someone out, even if "out" means vacuum or a toxic atmosphere.
>
> > Utterly unrealistic.  No reasonably realistic society would operate
>
> > that way.  Popular in fiction, yes, I know.  But it breaks my
>
> > suspension of disbelief wheve I see it.
>
> I described two diametrically opposite conditions... which one do you think is unrealistic?

Sorry, I was feeling maudlin and needed to rant politically. I *knew*
what you were saying (it's fiction anything *can* happen*) but I had
certain specific needs at the time so...

Anyway. Life support fees are /impractical/ in a 'write us a check
every month sense'. Government would take care of it, and pay out of
whatever regular tax revenues (income and sales are popular and will
remain so in the future, also likely is the government taking a cut of
whatever it is the colony is there to export, cf every commodity
exporting nation on Earth). The marginal cost of heat, oxygen and
fresh water would likely be fairly small anyway.

A working death penalty for unemployment/indigence is /unlikely/ to
say the least. Mandatory government work, maybe. If people ARE being
spaced there would be a robust loan sharking industry in place to meet
their needs. Trust me on this, I'm part Sicilian... (please note-
Hollywood notwithstanding, loan sharks never kill people or injure
them to the point they can't work, they would never get repaid if they
did...)

> I would think it's possible to go either way, realistically, both having a different set of good and bad results.

Anything CAN happen, the question is what are the likely consequences
of either. 'Death for not paying your air bill' will likely lead to
either extensive loan sharking or government mandated work for the
indigent. Either can be read as, or extend to, slavery. Trading
slavery for not dying has broad and deep historical roots. And
slavery does not have to be hellish. In many societies it was a
perfectly viable modus vivendi.

Other likliness is a notable (ie large) entry/immigration fee or bond
(refundable on leaving), to cover said marginal life support cost.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 27, 3:52 pm, Jymesion <norepl...@jymes.com> wrote:

> >> Perhaps an election every four years to retain legislators. The ones
> >> who get the lowest percentage of "keep" votes get booted and an
> >> election is held to replace them.
> >Doesn't work with regional representation, and regional representation
> >works pretty well.
>
> Why wouldn't it work? It ensures continuity while there's a constant
> infusion of new blood.

For one it makes it arbitrary which regions have elections or not.
And the question will depend on factors that are not local. Besides,
since you are already having a sort of election anyway...

What you are describing is basically a party list parliamentary system
dropped on a regional representation system. Two systems that don't
go well together. Nancy Pelosi is a lunatic. But she represents a
region that is primarily inhabited by lunatics. So she works well for
them. Local representation shouldn't be dependent on non-local
factors. If lunatics want to be represented by a lunatic...

> >> I was thinking earlier today that age requirements are inane.
> >> Everyone's different. Some people can drink responsibly before they're
> >> 19, some can't even when they're 60.
> >Bring back literacy tests?  What about when ability is not distributed
> >blindly?  Say men are good at 24, but it takes women until 30 to reach
> >that level?  And maybe you have an unfavored minority that takes even
> >longer...
>
> Not literacy tests. A test of awareness of the political climate.

Same-same. Do you think Republicans and Democrats would come up with
identical tests? And the political climate is irrelevant compared to
how socio-economic forces actually work in the real world.

> >> How about a questionnaire concerning the ten major points each
> >> candidate supports/opposes? Score lower than 78% and you can't vote in
> >> that election (of course, it'll have to be based on what they say they
> >> support rather than on what their policies will actually do).
>
> >I am a rather sincere Libertarian with a high level of training in
> >economics.  I like Rand Paul.  Why would I be remotely interested in
> >the policies of his necessarily crypto-communist Democratic opponent
> >in 2016?  Conversely, I did not need to know the policies the
> >Republican candidate (who was, uh...) supported in 2012 to decide that
> >I was going to vote against Barack 'the anti-Christ' Obama...
>
> That's a description of the kind of person who shouldn't vote, imo.

Someone who is an expert in socio-political policy shouldn't vote?

> Blind adherence to one party is what's led us to this disaster.

No, ignorance of basic economics is the problem. This is a problem
shared by both parties.

> >How about instead requiring a level of education about how society
> >works?
>
> Never!
>
> Level of education proves nothing.
>
> I've never, repeat _never_ seen evidence that academia knows anything
> about how society works!

Have you actually looked? Politicians and the press are utterly
ignorant, and the experts they like to trot out to support their
positions are useless, but those are just the lunatic fringe. Your
bog standard mainstream economist knows pretty damn well how society
works and what policies will or won't have the effect desired.

> >Does the minimum wage increase or decrease the total earnings
> >of poor people?  Are unions good or bad for the set of all workers?
> >Does raw government spending, irrespective of the target, stimulate or
> >weakedn the economy?
>
> Those are never based on the facts. They're always debated on which
> set of factoids a person wishes to use in their argument.

Actually they are. It is just the people you see in media don't know
what the fuck they are about. They pick a position more or less
arbitrarily and then audition 'experts' who will support it.

> To my mind, they're also strawmen, brought up often to deflect
> attention from the real problems.

Such as?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 27, 4:05 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> As one small piece of evidence against the second alternative, Islamic
> law holds that for a starving man to steal food does not count as theft.
> That would have developed in a society much poorer than ours, hence one
> in which many more people really were at the edge of starvation, at
> least occasionally.

I was reading a Cadfael mystery a while ago. Same thing holds for the
Welsh.

[David Friedman]

In article <9snon8tg0lbjquu0b...@4ax.com>,

Jymesion <nore...@jymes.com> wrote:

> >Does the minimum wage increase or decrease the total earnings
> >of poor people? Are unions good or bad for the set of all workers?
> >Does raw government spending, irrespective of the target, stimulate or
> >weakedn the economy?
>
> Those are never based on the facts. They're always debated on which
> set of factoids a person wishes to use in their argument.

A considerable exaggeration, at least in my field (economics).

As a small piece of evidence, consider the academic argument over the
effect of the minimum wage. The conventional position is that it
increases unemployment of low wage workers, by pricing some of them out
of the market. There was some work by two economists some time back
which claimed to provide evidence against that.

I came across an old discussion of the issue by Paul Krugman. Its
essence was that, despite that evidence, he thought most economist would
agree that the conventional view was correct; the implication pretty
clearly was that he agreed. It is certainly true now, and I am pretty
sure was true then, that Krugman favored a minimum wage--his basic
argument is that the size of the unemployment effect was unclear, and he
doesn't think it large enough to outweigh what he considers the benefits.

Oddly enough, essentially the same issue came up long ago in an exchange
between me and Shawn. He was claiming that the minimum wage had to make
poor people worse off (probably not his precise wording, but something
close). I responded that economics predicted it would increase the
unemployment rate of people previously making less than the new minimum
wage, but that economic theory didn't tell us the size of the effect, so
it was possible that the increased pay to those still employed would
outweigh the decrease to those now unemployed.

So we have two economists, one who is in favor of the minimum wage and
one against, who agree on the theoretical question. We disagree on the
empirical issue, but I don't think either of us claims to have enough
data to be sure his opinion is correct.

I'm sure there are people, possibly including Obama, who would deny that
increasing the minimum wage will increase unemployment of low wage
workers. But your "never/always" implies that such opinions are never
based on the facts, and that simply isn't true.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 28, 4:18 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> Oddly enough, essentially the same issue came up long ago in an exchange
> between me and Shawn. He was claiming that the minimum wage had to make
> poor people worse off (probably not his precise wording, but something
> close). I responded that economics predicted it would increase the
> unemployment rate of people previously making less than the new minimum
> wage, but that economic theory didn't tell us the size of the effect, so
> it was possible that the increased pay to those still employed would
> outweigh the decrease to those now unemployed.

Actually it does. On the labor demand side firms that employ min wage
workes can't be less profitable than ones who don't in equilibrium.
Total output can't rise from this policy as there are no new
resources. Some jobs may be priced out of existence. Some productive
resources (ie people) may be priced out, so output can fall. Other
resources are not less productive. Therefore the fall must come out
of min wage workers total earnings. QED.

Anyway, total earnings will fall v may remain constant is a technical
argument concerning minutia. Their (total) earnings WILL NOT rise.

[David Friedman]

In article
<58b46dfe-9eaf-4c18...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 28, 4:18�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Oddly enough, essentially the same issue came up long ago in an exchange
> > between me and Shawn. He was claiming that the minimum wage had to make
> > poor people worse off (probably not his precise wording, but something
> > close). I responded that economics predicted it would increase the
> > unemployment rate of people previously making less than the new minimum
> > wage, but that economic theory didn't tell us the size of the effect, so
> > it was possible that the increased pay to those still employed would
> > outweigh the decrease to those now unemployed.
>
>
> Actually it does. On the labor demand side firms that employ min wage
> workes can't be less profitable than ones who don't in equilibrium.

True.

> Total output can't rise from this policy as there are no new
> resources. Some jobs may be priced out of existence.

True.

Some productive
> resources (ie people) may be priced out, so output can fall. Other
> resources are not less productive. Therefore the fall must come out
> of min wage workers total earnings. QED.

No.

Suppose the demand for goods produced by low wage workers is very
inelastic. Their wage goes up 20%. Their employment falls 1%. The
reduction in total output is still there, but the effect on low wage
workers is outweighed by an income transfer from the consumers of what
they produce to them.

If it isn't obvious, imagine all the low wage workers are servants, and
people who employ servants have a very inelastic demand for them.
Nothing you wrote tells us that employment has to fall by at least as
large a percentage as wages are pushed up.

> Anyway, total earnings will fall v may remain constant is a technical
> argument concerning minutia. Their (total) earnings WILL NOT rise.

Whether they will is an empirical question. Nothing in economic theory
implies that they cannot.

[Jymesion]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 27, 3:52 pm, Jymesion <norepl...@jymes.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Perhaps an election every four years to retain legislators. The ones
>> >> who get the lowest percentage of "keep" votes get booted and an
>> >> election is held to replace them.
>> >Doesn't work with regional representation, and regional representation
>> >works pretty well.
>> Why wouldn't it work? It ensures continuity while there's a constant
>> infusion of new blood.

>What you are describing is basically a party list parliamentary system
>dropped on a regional representation system. Two systems that don't
>go well together. Nancy Pelosi is a lunatic. But she represents a
>region that is primarily inhabited by lunatics. So she works well for
>them. Local representation shouldn't be dependent on non-local
>factors. If lunatics want to be represented by a lunatic...

It wouldn't affect regional representation in a negative way at all!
The ones who are booted are the ones whose constituents are the least
enthusiastic about keeping them.

Say that the results of the election show that 58% of the voters in my
state support keeping one of our senators, but only 24% of the voters
in my state support keeping the other.

If the lowest two results nationwide are 17% and 21%, we keep our both
of our senators.

If the lowest two results nationwide are 24% and 26%, then we lose the
one we're not eager to keep.

>> >> I was thinking earlier today that age requirements are inane.

>> >Bring back literacy tests?

>> Not literacy tests. A test of awareness of the political climate.
>Same-same. Do you think Republicans and Democrats would come up with
>identical tests? And the political climate is irrelevant compared to
>how socio-economic forces actually work in the real world.

Each side would come up with their own set of questions. It's a test
of the voter's awareness of what each side claims to believe.

>> >> How about a questionnaire concerning the ten major points each
>> >> candidate supports/opposes? Score lower than 78% and you can't vote in
>> >> that election (of course, it'll have to be based on what they say they
>> >> support rather than on what their policies will actually do).
>>
>> >I am a rather sincere Libertarian with a high level of training in
>> >economics.  I like Rand Paul.  Why would I be remotely interested in
>> >the policies of his necessarily crypto-communist Democratic opponent
>> >in 2016?  Conversely, I did not need to know the policies the
>> >Republican candidate (who was, uh...) supported in 2012 to decide that
>> >I was going to vote against Barack 'the anti-Christ' Obama...
>>
>> That's a description of the kind of person who shouldn't vote, imo.
>Someone who is an expert in socio-political policy shouldn't vote?

Not if they follow one party so blindly that they refuse to even
listen to what the other side is saying.

>No, ignorance of basic economics is the problem. This is a problem
>shared by both parties.

Economics is the hot topic of the moment, but it's very low in
real-world importance, especially since a well-managed government will
produce a stable economy.

>> I've never, repeat _never_ seen evidence that academia knows anything
>> about how society works!
>Have you actually looked? Politicians and the press are utterly
>ignorant, and the experts they like to trot out to support their
>positions are useless, but those are just the lunatic fringe. Your
>bog standard mainstream economist knows pretty damn well how society
>works and what policies will or won't have the effect desired.

If they truly knew how things work, they'd make a killing in the stock
market.

>> >Does the minimum wage increase or decrease the total earnings
>> >of poor people?

>> Those are never based on the facts. They're always debated on which
>> set of factoids a person wishes to use in their argument.
>Actually they are.

Can't be. Absolutely, positively _cannot_ be since all the facts
simply can't be know. There are so many variables, so many tangential
interactions, it'd be easier to predict the weather six years from
now.

[Jymesion]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:18:30 -0700, David Friedman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

>In article <9snon8tg0lbjquu0b...@4ax.com>,
> Jymesion <nore...@jymes.com> wrote:
>
>> >Does the minimum wage increase or decrease the total earnings
>> >of poor people? Are unions good or bad for the set of all workers?
>> >Does raw government spending, irrespective of the target, stimulate or
>> >weakedn the economy?
>>
>> Those are never based on the facts. They're always debated on which
>> set of factoids a person wishes to use in their argument.
>
>A considerable exaggeration, at least in my field (economics).
>
>As a small piece of evidence, consider the academic argument over the
>effect of the minimum wage. The conventional position is that it
>increases unemployment of low wage workers, by pricing some of them out
>of the market. There was some work by two economists some time back
>which claimed to provide evidence against that.

I'm afraid you just shot yourself in the foot. :)

That there's a 'conventional position' and 'evidence against that'
shows the facts aren't known.

If the facts aren't known, then you can't base an argument on the
facts.

If you say "water freezes," you'll have scientists trot out sets of
tables and charts showing when it happens under different conditions,
but you won't have them saying "no it doesn't."

>But your "never/always" implies that such opinions are never
>based on the facts, and that simply isn't true.

If there are facts, opinions don't come into it at all.

[David Friedman]

In article <rgurn8lv7n118m795...@4ax.com>,

Jymesion <nore...@jymes.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:18:30 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <9snon8tg0lbjquu0b...@4ax.com>,
> > Jymesion <nore...@jymes.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Does the minimum wage increase or decrease the total earnings
> >> >of poor people? Are unions good or bad for the set of all workers?
> >> >Does raw government spending, irrespective of the target, stimulate or
> >> >weakedn the economy?
> >>
> >> Those are never based on the facts. They're always debated on which
> >> set of factoids a person wishes to use in their argument.
> >
> >A considerable exaggeration, at least in my field (economics).
> >
> >As a small piece of evidence, consider the academic argument over the
> >effect of the minimum wage. The conventional position is that it
> >increases unemployment of low wage workers, by pricing some of them out
> >of the market. There was some work by two economists some time back
> >which claimed to provide evidence against that.
>
> I'm afraid you just shot yourself in the foot. :)
>
> That there's a 'conventional position' and 'evidence against that'
> shows the facts aren't known.

But not that the opinions are not based on facts--merely that the facts
they are based on are not sufficient to establish the relevant
conclusion with certainty.

> If the facts aren't known, then you can't base an argument on the
> facts.
>
> If you say "water freezes," you'll have scientists trot out sets of
> tables and charts showing when it happens under different conditions,
> but you won't have them saying "no it doesn't."
>
> >But your "never/always" implies that such opinions are never
> >based on the facts, and that simply isn't true.
>
> If there are facts, opinions don't come into it at all.

Nonsense. You have a very simplified view of how science works.

Someone does an experiment and produces a result. Is it a fact? He might
have made a mistake. His result--say a correlation coefficient--might be
due to chance. The experiment might be fraudulent. As more experiments
get done, the probability that a conclusion is correct increases (or
decreases).

Is it a fact or an opinion that nothing can move faster than c? That
global temperatures are rising due to the increase in anthropogenic CO2?
That global temperatures have been generally declining since the end of
the last glaciation?

[JF]

I wish to point out that the chances of my reading a novel which
was about a political constitution are vanishingly small. The SF
setting -- adventure, high science, speculation -- would clash
with the plodding. dull and tedious minutiae of political
bargaining and thought. That is not to say that politics is
unimportant, just boring*.

It might work, though, in an alt history, where the dissonance
would be much less.

JF
Who once read an Asimov(?) where the amazing weapon that would
change the universe turned out to be a piece of paper with the
word 'We behold these truths to be self evident...' written on it.

I love the description of politics as 'rock and roll for ugly
people'.

[David Friedman]

In article <AJSdnbqy17Q6g-PM...@brightview.co.uk>,

JF <jul...@oopsoopsfloodsclimbers.co.uk> wrote:

> I wish to point out that the chances of my reading a novel which
> was about a political constitution are vanishingly small. The SF
> setting -- adventure, high science, speculation -- would clash
> with the plodding. dull and tedious minutiae of political
> bargaining and thought. That is not to say that politics is
> unimportant, just boring*.

Have you read Heinlein's _Double Star_? Partly about politics, and with
a great line to the effect that politics has all sorts of things wrong
with it, but it's the only game worth playing for grown ups.

More generally ... . Warfare, adventure, science, all include a lot of
dull and tedious minutiae--but the author gets to choose how much of
that to show. Similarly for politics.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 28, 5:08 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> Some productive
>
> > resources (ie people) may be priced out, so output can fall.  Other
> > resources are not less productive.  Therefore the fall must come out
> > of min wage workers total earnings.  QED.
>
> No.
>
> Suppose the demand for goods produced by low wage workers is very
> inelastic.

Suppose pigs could fly. There are NO goods that can be produced only
by low wage workers. There may be goods typically produced by low
wage workers, but they can always be produced by other means. Take
for example clean floors. Under one set of circumstances you get your
floors clean by hiring three guys with mops and buckets at say $15/hr
total. Raise the minimum wage to $6/hr and the alternative of the $8/
hr guy with the (amortized) $8/hr floor mopping machine becomes the
preferred option. And that is a case where demand for the 'good'
produced by low wage workers (ie clean floors) is perfectly
inelastic.

Alternatively, in a scenario where the productin function absolutely
demands a certain number of workers (say you definitely need three
guys to make a human pyramid for an art installation) if you start at
say 3 $5/hr workers and the minimum is raised to $7/hr you might as
well hire $7/hr workers do do it. They cost the same now and will be
more productive (likely in a showing up on time and not stoned sense).

$5/workers can do nothing that $50/hr workers (or $5.05/hr) can't do.
The converse is not true, which is why some people make $50/hr in the
first place.

> If it isn't obvious, imagine all the low wage workers are servants, and
> people who employ servants have a very inelastic demand for them.
> Nothing you wrote tells us that employment has to fall by at least as
> large a percentage as wages are pushed up.

Higher ability people can ALWAYS substitute for lower ability people.
Even if demand for the output is perfectly inelaastic, that doesn;t
mean demand for the specific inputs will be.

[David Friedman]

In article
<41f9246f-937d-4b61...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 28, 5:08�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Some productive
> >
> > > resources (ie people) may be priced out, so output can fall. �Other
> > > resources are not less productive. �Therefore the fall must come out
> > > of min wage workers total earnings. �QED.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Suppose the demand for goods produced by low wage workers is very
> > inelastic.
>
>
> Suppose pigs could fly. There are NO goods that can be produced only
> by low wage workers.

Irrelevant. There are goods and services for which low wage workers are
the least expensive form of production. And there is no theoretical
limit on how inelastic a demand for a particular good or service can be.

...

> > If it isn't obvious, imagine all the low wage workers are servants, and
> > people who employ servants have a very inelastic demand for them.
> > Nothing you wrote tells us that employment has to fall by at least as
> > large a percentage as wages are pushed up.


> Higher ability people can ALWAYS substitute for lower ability people.
> Even if demand for the output is perfectly inelaastic, that doesn;t
> mean demand for the specific inputs will be.

The argument doesn't require that demand be perfectly inelastic.

I would think that, with several years to think about it, you would have
recognized that your claim simply isn't true--there is nothing in
economic theory that implies that a minimum wage cannot raise the total
income of the people who were making below it.

It also might occur to you that a policy of announcing your beliefs as
following from economics when they don't is one of the things that
persuades people not to take economics seriously.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 29, 9:47 am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> > > Suppose the demand for goods produced by low wage workers is very
> > > inelastic.
>
> > Suppose pigs could fly.  There are NO goods that can be produced only
> > by low wage workers.
>
> Irrelevant. There are goods and services for which low wage workers are
> the least expensive form of production.

Uh, David, within human error EVERYTHING is made the least expensive
way. If min wage workers weren't the least expensive they wouldn't
have been hired in the first place.

Now, imagine what happens when the cost of min wage workers rises...

No longer the least expensive, huh?

> And there is no theoretical
> limit on how inelastic a demand for a particular good or service can be.

Well, there's perfectly inelastic, can't get less than that... But,
the issue isn't outputs but inputs. Demand for inputs will only be
inelastic where there aren't substitutes, and pretty much any person
can substitute for a minimum wage worker, that's why they're minimum
wage in the first place. And, of course capital can be substituted
for labor with varying efficiency. There are ALWAYS alternatives.

> I would think that, with several years to think about it, you would have
> recognized that your claim simply isn't true--there is nothing in
> economic theory that implies that a minimum wage cannot raise the total
> income of the people who were making below it.

You are repeating yourself David, and I already showed you the theory.

[Jymesion]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:50:42 -0700, David Friedman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

>In article <rgurn8lv7n118m795...@4ax.com>,
> Jymesion <nore...@jymes.com> wrote:

>> If there are facts, opinions don't come into it at all.
>
>Nonsense. You have a very simplified view of how science works.

My background is mainly engineering with a touch of physics, i.e.
hard.

>That global temperatures are rising due to the increase in anthropogenic CO2?

Since CO2 levels during an ice age several million years ago were 12x
what they are now, and the polar caps of Mars show warming identical
to ours, the idea that anthropogenic CO2 being significant is
laughable.

[David Friedman]

In article <ufgtn8pubf53pihcq...@4ax.com>,

Is that a fact or an opinion?

[David Friedman]

In article
<fccda0ae-62c2-41d6...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 29, 9:47�am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > > Suppose the demand for goods produced by low wage workers is very
> > > > inelastic.
> >
> > > Suppose pigs could fly. �There are NO goods that can be produced only
> > > by low wage workers.
> >
> > Irrelevant. There are goods and services for which low wage workers are
> > the least expensive form of production.
>
>
> Uh, David, within human error EVERYTHING is made the least expensive
> way. If min wage workers weren't the least expensive they wouldn't
> have been hired in the first place.
>
> Now, imagine what happens when the cost of min wage workers rises...
>
> No longer the least expensive, huh?

Two is less than ten. Imagine what happens when you increase it to
three. No longer lower, huh?

Nothing in theory tells you how large the gap is. The obvious guess is
that for some things produced with low skill labor, producing them with
other inputs is only a little more expensive, so when the cost of low
skill labor rises, those things shift to the alternative production
technology. For other things the alternative is much more expensive, so
only a large increase in the cost of low skill labor causes a shift.
Nothing in theory tells us how much of what is produced with low skill
labor fits in which category or where in between.

> > And there is no theoretical
> > limit on how inelastic a demand for a particular good or service can be.
>
>
>
> Well, there's perfectly inelastic, can't get less than that... But,
> the issue isn't outputs but inputs. Demand for inputs will only be
> inelastic where there aren't substitutes, and pretty much any person
> can substitute for a minimum wage worker, that's why they're minimum
> wage in the first place. And, of course capital can be substituted
> for labor with varying efficiency. There are ALWAYS alternatives.

Which is a reason to think that the demand is not perfectly inelastic,
but does not imply that it cannot be between perfectly inelastic and
unitary elasticity, which is what your claim requires.

...

I give up. You had the chance to learn economics when you were a
graduate student in the field. If your teachers then couldn't teach it
to you, I don't think I can.

[John F. Eldredge]

During the early Industrial Age in England, the displacement of many
former tenant farmers to the cities meant that the numbers of urban poor
grew very rapidly, frequently faster than the number of urban jobs did.
As a result, street crime went up, because this was the only way some of
the new arrivals could survive. The initial response was to drastically
increase the severity of punishments, including making many property
crimes punishable by death or exile for life to penal colonies, such as
Australia.

--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

[Dan Goodman]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:41:56 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:

> Uh, David, within human error EVERYTHING is made the least expensive
> way.
> If min wage workers weren't the least expensive they wouldn't have been
> hired in the first place.

Correction: If the employers didn't BELIEVE they were the least
expensive.

Whether it's true is another matter.



--
Dan Goodman

[Dan Goodman]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:17:51 +0100, JF wrote:

> I wish to point out that the chances of my reading a novel which was
> about a political constitution are vanishingly small.

And I have no intention of writing one.

> The SF setting --
> adventure, high science, speculation -- would clash with the plodding.
> dull and tedious minutiae of political bargaining and thought. That is
> not to say that politics is unimportant, just boring*.

Scandals uncovered, people saying hilariously ridiculous things,
seduction, political enemies lusting after each other.... politics does
have its interesting aspects.

I find the central subject matter of most military sf boring. But a fair
number of sf readers don't.

> It might work, though, in an alt history, where the dissonance would be
> much less.
>
> JF Who once read an Asimov(?) where the amazing weapon that would change
> the universe turned out to be a piece of paper with the word 'We behold
> these truths to be self evident...' written on it.
>
> I love the description of politics as 'rock and roll for ugly people'.

--
Dan Goodman

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 29, 11:02 am, Jymesion <norepl...@jymes.com> wrote:

> >That global temperatures are rising due to the increase in anthropogenic CO2?
>
> Since CO2 levels during an ice age several million years ago were 12x
> what they are now, and the polar caps of Mars show warming identical
> to ours, the idea that anthropogenic CO2 being significant is
> laughable.

And it isn't the atmosphere that is warming, but the oceans are.
AGW? No. Warming Sun.

[Dan Goodman]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:17:05 -0700, David Friedman wrote:

> In article <AJSdnbqy17Q6g-PM...@brightview.co.uk>,
> JF <jul...@oopsoopsfloodsclimbers.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I wish to point out that the chances of my reading a novel which was
>> about a political constitution are vanishingly small. The SF setting --
>> adventure, high science, speculation -- would clash with the plodding.
>> dull and tedious minutiae of political bargaining and thought. That is
>> not to say that politics is unimportant, just boring*.
>
> Have you read Heinlein's _Double Star_? Partly about politics, and with
> a great line to the effect that politics has all sorts of things wrong
> with it, but it's the only game worth playing for grown ups.

It has one great advantage over much other sf: the viewpoint character
grows up.

>
> More generally ... . Warfare, adventure, science, all include a lot of
> dull and tedious minutiae--but the author gets to choose how much of
> that to show. Similarly for politics.

Speaking as a reader: If helps if the author has personal experience
with the subject. Or at least, can sound as if they do.

Tangent: A depressing number of scientists and engineers writing sf
describe political systems which work exactly according to the specs,
with no waste motion.



--
Dan Goodman

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 29, 11:56 am, Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:

> > Uh, David, within human error EVERYTHING is made the least expensive
> > way.
> > If min wage workers weren't the least expensive they wouldn't have been
> > hired in the first place.
>
> Correction:  If the employers didn't BELIEVE they were the least
> expensive.
>
> Whether it's true is another matter.

Note bene "within human error..."

[David Friedman]

In article <au7tti...@mid.individual.net>,

"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:12:36 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 4:05 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> As one small piece of evidence against the second alternative, Islamic
> >> law holds that for a starving man to steal food does not count as
> >> theft. That would have developed in a society much poorer than ours,
> >> hence one in which many more people really were at the edge of
> >> starvation, at least occasionally.
> >
> >
> > I was reading a Cadfael mystery a while ago. Same thing holds for the
> > Welsh.
>
> During the early Industrial Age in England, the displacement of many
> former tenant farmers to the cities meant that the numbers of urban poor
> grew very rapidly, frequently faster than the number of urban jobs did.
> As a result, street crime went up, because this was the only way some of
> the new arrivals could survive. The initial response was to drastically
> increase the severity of punishments, including making many property
> crimes punishable by death or exile for life to penal colonies, such as
> Australia.

Australia was later--initially transportation was to North America.

The change, as far as I know, c. 1700, which is a bit early for effects
of the enclosure movement, wasn't to increase the stated penalty but to
make more crimes non-clergyable, eliminating an odd get-out-of-jail-free
card that existed as a holdover from the independent legal authority of
the church over its clergy.

And such evidence as we have suggests that only a small minority of
those charged with non-clergyable felonies actually got hanged.

Is there evidence that crime went up? The long term trend for England
was pretty clearly a gradual decline.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 28, 8:48 pm, Jymesion <norepl...@jymes.com> wrote:

> >What you are describing is basically a party list parliamentary system
> >dropped on a regional representation system.  Two systems that don't
> >go well together.  Nancy Pelosi is a lunatic.  But she represents a
> >region that is primarily inhabited by lunatics.  So she works well for
> >them.  Local representation shouldn't be dependent on non-local
> >factors.  If lunatics want to be represented by a lunatic...
>
> It wouldn't affect regional representation in a negative way at all!
> The ones who are booted are the ones whose constituents are the least
> enthusiastic about keeping them.

Still, you are already holding a quasi-election anyway...

> >> >Bring back literacy tests?
> >> Not literacy tests. A test of awareness of the political climate.
> >Same-same.  Do you think Republicans and Democrats would come up with
> >identical tests?  And the political climate is irrelevant compared to
> >how socio-economic forces actually work in the real world.
>
> Each side would come up with their own set of questions. It's a test
> of the voter's awareness of what each side claims to believe.

Which is unrelated to actual reality.

> >> >I am a rather sincere Libertarian with a high level of training in
> >> >economics.  I like Rand Paul.  Why would I be remotely interested in
> >> >the policies of his necessarily crypto-communist Democratic opponent
> >> >in 2016?  Conversely, I did not need to know the policies the
> >> >Republican candidate (who was, uh...) supported in 2012 to decide that
> >> >I was going to vote against Barack 'the anti-Christ' Obama...
>
> >> That's a description of the kind of person who shouldn't vote, imo.
> >Someone who is an expert in socio-political policy shouldn't vote?
>
> Not if they follow one party so blindly that they refuse to even
> listen to what the other side is saying.

I KNOW what they are saying. They don't have the slightest idea what
they are talking about.

> >No, ignorance of basic economics is the problem.  This is a problem
> >shared by both parties.
>
> Economics is the hot topic of the moment, but it's very low in
> real-world importance, especially since a well-managed government will
> produce a stable economy.

What constitutes "well managed"?

> >> I've never, repeat _never_ seen evidence that academia knows anything
> >> about how society works!
> >Have you actually looked?  Politicians and the press are utterly
> >ignorant, and the experts they like to trot out to support their
> >positions are useless, but those are just the lunatic fringe.  Your
> >bog standard mainstream economist knows pretty damn well how society
> >works and what policies will or won't have the effect desired.
>
> If they truly knew how things work, they'd make a killing in the stock
> market.

Actually no. For that to happen the market would have to be
systematically and predictably wrong, and it isn't.

> >> >Does the minimum wage increase or decrease the total earnings
> >> >of poor people?
> >> Those are never based on the facts. They're always debated on which
> >> set of factoids a person wishes to use in their argument.
> >Actually they are.
>
> Can't be. Absolutely, positively _cannot_ be since all the facts
> simply can't be know.

We don't need ALL the facts, we only need one- 'what is the effect of
a minimum wage on the total earnings of poor people?' There are ony
three possible answers- up, down, or sideways (ie zero).

> There are so many variables, so many tangential
> interactions, it'd be easier to predict the weather six years from
> now.

Weather is confusing and complicated and chaotic. Economics is
confusing and complicated, but it is NOT chaotic. We can make
predictions. Economists are goo at pulling facts out of myriads of
misleading data.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 29, 12:17 am, JF <jul...@oopsoopsfloodsclimbers.co.uk> wrote:
> I wish to point out that the chances of my reading a novel which
> was about a political constitution are vanishingly small. The SF
> setting -- adventure, high science, speculation -- would clash
> with the plodding. dull and tedious minutiae of political
> bargaining and thought. That is not to say that politics is
> unimportant, just boring*.

Starship Troopers?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 29, 11:44 am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> > Now, imagine what happens when the cost of min wage workers rises...
>
> > No longer the least expensive, huh?
>
> Two is less than ten. Imagine what happens when you increase it to
> three. No longer lower, huh?

It is no longer lower than 2.01. Highly conditional circumstances are
irrelevant to the myriad variations of an entire economy. No edge
solutions here, it's a continuous function.

> Nothing in theory tells you how large the gap is.

I can be pretty sure that for something as large and varied as the US
economy is is sufficiently close to zero.

> The obvious guess is
> that for some things produced with low skill labor, producing them with
> other inputs is only a little more expensive, so when the cost of low
> skill labor rises, those things shift to the alternative production
> technology. For other things the alternative is much more expensive, so
> only a large increase in the cost of low skill labor causes a shift.
> Nothing in theory tells us how much of what is produced with low skill
> labor fits in which category or where in between.

There aren't more resources available. Some resources are priced out
of use. There is less to go around. That has to come from someone.

> > > And there is no theoretical
> > > limit on how inelastic a demand for a particular good or service can be.
>
> > Well, there's perfectly inelastic, can't get less than that...  But,
> > the issue isn't outputs but inputs.  Demand for inputs will only be
> > inelastic where there aren't substitutes, and pretty much any person
> > can substitute for a minimum wage worker, that's why they're minimum
> > wage in the first place.  And, of course capital can be substituted
> > for labor with varying efficiency.  There are ALWAYS alternatives.
>
> Which is a reason to think that the demand is not perfectly inelastic,
> but does not imply that it cannot be between perfectly inelastic and
> unitary elasticity, which is what your claim requires.

Hence the general equilibrium part- there is less to go around and
other assets are not less productive.

> I give up. You had the chance to learn economics when you were a
> graduate student in the field. If your teachers then couldn't teach it
> to you, I don't think I can.

David... of the two of us, *I* have the education here. You do not.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Of the two of you, he has the teaching position, the authorships, the
respect of other professionals in the field, and other things that show
he actually knows what he's talking about. There is, quite literally, NO
ONE ON THIS PLANET who would take you more seriously than him about
economics. No one. Not even any economists who agree with your views,
because you are still a nobody and a nothing to them, while he's a man
with real professional credentials.

You can try to sneer at them all you like, but the fact remains he is,
and has been many times, gainfully employed in the field and his views
are listened to by real economists. You have never been in the field,
you have never published, and you don't even have a degree, yet --
somehow -- you think having some courses makes you more educated than
someone who, you know, actually makes his LIVING there.

This is like the guy with a few courses on navigation telling the
career sea captain that he knows more about sailing.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[David Friedman]

In article
<7d9a16f2-3ecc-4688...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> David... of the two of us, *I* have the education here. You do not.

You believe in the labor theory of value?

You have an undergraduate education in economics and part of a graduate
education. I have been hired to teach economics at the undergraduate and
graduate level by a number of highly ranked universities, published lots
of articles in good journals, published books in the field that have
been well reviewed and sold lots of copies.

And I do not believe the value of the output is defined by the inputs
that went into it.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <kln25h$ahe$1...@dont-email.me>,

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>There is, quite literally, NO

>ONE ON THIS PLANET who would take [Shawn Wilson] more seriously than
>[David Friedman] about economics.

Good Lord, Wasp, don't you think he knows that perfectly well?
What makes you think you're going to get any more acknowledgement
of it out of him this time than you did the last two dozen?

--
David Goldfarb |"As an experimental psychologist I have been
goldf...@gmail.com |trained not to believe anything unless it can be
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |demonstrated in the laboratory on rats or
|sophomores." -- Steven Pinker

[J.Pascal]

On Monday, April 29, 2013 6:13:40 PM UTC-6, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

"There is, quite literally, NO
ONE ON THIS PLANET who would take you more seriously than him about
economics. No one."

Fun ambiguity there.

I read it... there is no one on this planet who would take you more seriously than he takes you...

Which strikes me as true. David seems to have unlimited patience and persistence in these discussions and always without condescension.

-Julie

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 29, 6:29 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <7d9a16f2-3ecc-4688-acc4-04d2ee3c1...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>,

>  Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > David...  of the two of us, *I* have the education here.  You do not.
>
> You believe in the labor theory of value?
>
> You have an undergraduate education in economics and part of a graduate
> education. I have been hired to teach economics at the undergraduate and
> graduate level by a number of highly ranked universities, published lots
> of articles in good journals, published books in the field that have
> been well reviewed and sold lots of copies.
>
> And I do not believe the value of the output is defined by the inputs
> that went into it.

David, once again, *I* have an education, you do not. You can't even
correctly parse an economic system.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 29, 5:13 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> > David...  of the two of us, *I* have the education here.  You do not.
>
>         Of the two of you, he has the teaching position, the authorships, the
> respect of other professionals in the field, and other things that show
> he actually knows what he's talking about. There is, quite literally, NO
> ONE ON THIS PLANET who would take you more seriously than him about
> economics. No one. Not even any economists who agree with your views,
> because you are still a nobody and a nothing to them, while he's a man
> with real professional credentials.

Really? I suspect every professor I ever had would, for several dozen
right there.

I know you like ad hominems rather than actual discussion, because you
aren't capable of it. But I am uninterested in your ankle-biting. Go
away little boy.

[David Friedman]

In article
<2bad1116-33d4-48c6...@k8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 29, 5:13�pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > > David... �of the two of us, *I* have the education here. �You do not.
> >
> > � � � � Of the two of you, he has the teaching position, the authorships,
> > the
> > respect of other professionals in the field, and other things that show
> > he actually knows what he's talking about. There is, quite literally, NO
> > ONE ON THIS PLANET who would take you more seriously than him about
> > economics. No one. Not even any economists who agree with your views,
> > because you are still a nobody and a nothing to them, while he's a man
> > with real professional credentials.
>
>
> Really? I suspect every professor I ever had would, for several dozen
> right there.

I vaguely remember your saying that you went to University of Illinois,
Chicago, although I could be wrong. Was McClosky one of your professors?
You could probably find her view of me with a little googling.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 30, 12:26 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> > Really?  I suspect every professor I ever had would, for several dozen
> > right there.
>
> I vaguely remember your saying that you went to University of Illinois,
> Chicago, although I could be wrong. Was McClosky one of your professors?

(right) After my time. Though I was in the vicinity for the
auditioning/interview process.

And, really, I don't care what she thinks. I passed the comps, you
never even took a single course.

[David Friedman]

In article
<f8ce9ddc-f5ee-4d99...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,

You offered a factual claim--I was trying to see if we could test it.

I never even took a single course. I did, however, teach a very large
number of them.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 30, 4:04 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> > > I vaguely remember your saying that you went to University of Illinois,
> > > Chicago, although I could be wrong. Was McClosky one of your professors?
>
> > (right) After my time.  Though I was in the vicinity for the
> > auditioning/interview process.
>
> > And, really, I don't care what she thinks.  I passed the comps, you
> > never even took a single course.
>
> You offered a factual claim--I was trying to see if we could test it.
>
> I never even took a single course. I did, however, teach a very large
> number of them.

Sigh... if you were competent in micro you wouldn't make the error
you make here.

[David Friedman]

In article
<94f15600-2ad4-4042...@dg5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn says X.

David says not-X.

Shawn says "people should believe me, not him, because I understand
economics."

David says "What is the evidence that you understand economics and I
don't."

Shawn says: "That I say X and you say not-X."

There is something circular in that argument.

[Joy Beeson]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:13:40 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> This is like the guy with a few courses on navigation telling the
> career sea captain that he knows more about sailing.

I once gave a surgeon a lecture on first aid -- but I was heavily
drugged at the time.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

[Gerry Quinn]

In article <p9udnYEz99nNvObM...@iphouse.net>,
dsg...@iphouse.com says...

> Term limits on parties. An elected official can run for office as often
> as they like -- but only twice for the same party. Third time has to be
> on another party's line; and the party has to sit out that election.

This will require some sort of legislation to prevent parties
effectively renaming themselves periodically, or operating as a large
coalition of nominally separate parties. Such legislation seems like it
might be difficult to write.

- Gerry Quinn

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Well, his other argument is that he sat in a classroom listening to a
teacher and got grades for it. Why he doesn't realize that this implies
that the teacher knew more about economics than he, and that therefore
you, as a multiply-employed teacher of economics, can be assumed to know
more about it than he, is left as an exercise for the non-student.

[David Friedman]

In article <klrf9s$17q$2...@dont-email.me>,

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> Well, his other argument is that he sat in a classroom listening to a
> teacher and got grades for it. Why he doesn't realize that this implies
> that the teacher knew more about economics than he, and that therefore
> you, as a multiply-employed teacher of economics, can be assumed to know
> more about it than he, is left as an exercise for the non-student.
>

Perhaps more important, as I pointed out in a part of my response he
didn't respond to, it implies that he is going on an input theory of
value, which is an odd thing for an economist to do and particularly odd
for a neo-classical economist to do.

I'm pretty sure Shawn is not a Marxist.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 1, 9:48 am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> Perhaps more important, as I pointed out in a part of my response he
> didn't respond to, it implies that he is going on an input theory of
> value, which is an odd thing for an economist to do and particularly odd
> for a neo-classical economist to do.
>
> I'm pretty sure Shawn is not a Marxist.

Or, in the real world, David is incompetent to correctly parse what I
said because he lacks actual economic training.

I passed the comps, you didn't.

I have yet to see a general equilibrium analysis from you that
supports your hypothesis.

[David Friedman]

In article
<a8dfebc1-dcab-4984...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I passed the comps, you didn't.

I got articles accepted for publication in reputable economics journals,
you didn't.

Output measure.

[Dan Goodman]

Only if those consequences were 1) foreseen, 2) considered unlikely to be
corrected by the free market of ideas, and 3) considered to be problems.




--
Dan Goodman

[Gerry Quinn]

In article <5LOdnfhhUvsX9xzM...@iphouse.net>,
dsg...@iphouse.com says...

I foresaw them in about two microseconds, and I think most people would.
I don't see how or why 'the free market of ideas' (whatever that is)
would correct them. And I think they would obviously be considered to
be problems by whoever drew up the law on term limits for parties
because they subvert the ostensible purpose of such a law, and because
many people would clearly have an interest in subverting it.

- Gerry Quinn

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 1, 11:16 am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>

wrote:

> > I passed the comps, you didn't.
>
> I got articles accepted for publication in reputable economics journals,
> you didn't.
>
> Output measure.

Indeed, the measure of your output HERE indicates your ignorance.
Getting a paper published on X does not make you an expert on Y. Paul
Krugman has a Nobel Prize, but he still doesn't know shit about
macro. A paper on an irrelevant topic does not make you an expert in
the general equilibrium effects of a minimum wage.

[David Friedman]

In article
<49d45309-fcfd-4e59...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 1, 11:16 am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > I passed the comps, you didn't.
> >
> > I got articles accepted for publication in reputable economics journals,
> > you didn't.
> >
> > Output measure.
>
>
> Indeed, the measure of your output HERE indicates your ignorance.

Meaning that you disagree with it. Similarly, I take your output here as
indicating your ignorance of elementary price theory.

> Getting a paper published on X does not make you an expert on Y. Paul
> Krugman has a Nobel Prize, but he still doesn't know shit about
> macro. A paper on an irrelevant topic does not make you an expert in
> the general equilibrium effects of a minimum wage.

As it happens, price theory is a subject that I have not only taught but
published on.

[Joy Beeson]

All you really have to do is to stop granting unusual privileges to
organizations called "political parties".

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 2, 2:57 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> > Indeed, the measure of your output HERE indicates your ignorance.
>
> Meaning that you disagree with it. Similarly, I take your output here as
> indicating your ignorance of elementary price theory.

Gee, I have a university which has actually tested and is willing to
certify my competence. You have a famous father and no training in
the field whatsoever.

But, let us get back to the actual case- You are arguing that a
minimum wage can increase the total earnings of poor people in
equilibrium. That would require them to produce more than they do
without one (markets are pretty efficient that way).

So... why weren't they doing that before the minimum wage increase?
You know, for profit (someone's)...

> > Getting a paper published on X does not make you an expert on Y.  Paul
> > Krugman has a Nobel Prize, but he still doesn't know shit about
> > macro.  A paper on an irrelevant topic does not make you an expert in
> > the general equilibrium effects of a minimum wage.
>
> As it happens, price theory is a subject that I have not only taught but
> published on.

So you published something. So what? Lots of people publish articles
on stuff they actually know nothing about. Paul Krugam has published
on macro-economics. He's still dead wrong.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/4/13 2:02 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On May 2, 2:57 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:

>> As it happens, price theory is a subject that I have not only taught but
>> published on.
>
>
> So you published something. So what?

He published in a peer reviewed journal. Which means that a bunch of
other ECONOMISTS (i.e., people who, unlike you, actually completed the
requirements to be called Economists) looked at the stuff and agreed
that his work was sound.

Sort of like being tested for it, except it's a lot more important
overall; the test's just there to get you through a class and the
professor really can't care less in many cases, but your published
papers are making actual statements about the work that is going on NOW
in the field.

In other words, he has the actual qualifications. Which you do not.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 4, 11:15 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>         He published in a peer reviewed journal. Which means that a bunch of
> other ECONOMISTS (i.e., people who, unlike you, actually completed the
> requirements to be called Economists) looked at the stuff and agreed
> that his work was sound.

You mean like the economists who tested and certified my competence in
micro?

>         Sort of like being tested for it, except it's a lot more important

No, actually. You don't read journals.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/4/13 4:08 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On May 4, 11:15 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> He published in a peer reviewed journal. Which means that a bunch of
>> other ECONOMISTS (i.e., people who, unlike you, actually completed the
>> requirements to be called Economists) looked at the stuff and agreed
>> that his work was sound.
>
>
> You mean like the economists who tested and certified my competence in
> micro?

Not really. That was work you're doing to *GET TO THE POINT* of being
considered an economist. You actually have to COMPLETE that journey to
be called one. You didn't. Again, you have no degree, you have no job
experience, and you have no publications.

David may not have a degree, but he does have job experience, and he
has publications. He is a professional and recognized economist,
respected in the field. You are a guy who failed to finish his degree
and desperately tries to insist that, nonetheless, that qualifies you to
argue with him, or anyone else, in his field. It doesn't.

[David Friedman]

In article
<552cd783-3261-4b49...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But, let us get back to the actual case- You are arguing that a
> minimum wage can increase the total earnings of poor people in
> equilibrium. That would require them to produce more than they do
> without one (markets are pretty efficient that way).
>
> So... why weren't they doing that before the minimum wage increase?
> You know, for profit (someone's)...

The relevant issue is marginal product.

The reason that, when they could be hired at (say) $5/hour, their
marginal product was only $5/hour, was that employers kept hiring more
of them until diminishing returns reduced marginal product to the wage.
As you may possibly remember from back when you studied price theory, in
a competitive market the marginal value product equals the wage, just as
the marginal value of goods consumed to the consumer equals their price,
and for the same reason.

The wage now goes up to $6/hour, due to a minimum wage law. At that
price, the last worker hired is costing the employer $1/hour net, so
gets laid off. As the number of low skill workers employed decreases,
their marginal product increases, again due to diminishing returns, this
time run backwards--reducing the amount of the input raises the marginal
product.

The employer keeps reducing his labor force until marginal product is up
to $6/hour, the new equilibrium. That might be due to an increase in
physical marginal product, it might be due to an increase in the price
of what he is producing, since producing it is now more costly for both
him and his competitors, which increases marginal value product, most
probably it is due to increases in both.

Nothing in economic theory tells us what the shape of the production
function is, or of the demand function. Marginal physical product might
go up to $6/hour with a small reduction in the input of unskilled labor,
it might take a large reduction. Price of the output might rise enough
to get MVP up to $6/hour with a small reduction in quantity supplied or
might take a large reduction.

Despite your bluster, if you don't understand this stuff you ought not
to have passed your prelims, or for that matter the final exam in
intermediate price theory. It's possible that you understood it once,
and have forgotten it since.

If you want a free refresher course, my price theory textbook is webbed
on my site.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 4, 1:16 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:


>         David may not have a degree, but he does have job experience, and he
> has publications. He is a professional and recognized economist,
> respected in the field. You are a guy who failed to finish his degree
> and desperately tries to insist that, nonetheless, that qualifies you to
> argue with him, or anyone else, in his field. It doesn't.

I passed the (econ) comps. He didn't. I win. It really is pretty
simple. I didn't do a dissertation, correct. Neither did David. I
don't have a (econ) PhD. Neither does David.

David is wrong here. He makes basic mistakes because he lacks
thorough understanding. Note his recent post- "ignorance of
elementary price theory". David can only think of this from a bottom
up perspective. He can't see it top down. In micro ends can be loose
all over the place, the rest of the economy absorbs them. In macro
there are no loose ends. That makes some things work differently.
The forces of an economy of size 100X are not described by taking X
and multiplying by 100.

We have a system where there is simply less to go around. He is
claiming in this system that less desireable resources will someone
attract MORE of what there is. Doesn't work like that. If it DID
work like that, poor people could simply organize to create their own
minimum wage, paying off the ones who lose their jobs with the extra
the group would make.

Do we see that? No. Do we see that among ANY income group? Anyone
can substitute for a min wage worker. No one can substitute for the
ones at the top. If poor people could pull off that trick, rich
people could do it infinitely better. They don't.

David has claimed that because there is no organic micro limitation on
the (in)elasticity of demand, that it is possible for a min wage to
increase total earmings. I have shown him the macro limitation. He
doesn't understand it.

He goes on about price theory, and is so limited in his understanding
of economics that he believes that an econ ABD could somehow not know
what elasticity of demand is.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <f9f7e71c-64d3-4275...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I passed the (econ) comps. He didn't.

He's been paid money to teach. You haven't.

>It really is pretty simple.

There at least we agree.

--
David Goldfarb |"I think hyperbole is the second greatest thing to
goldf...@gmail.com |come along since the invention of the mixing bowl."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Todd VerBeek, on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/4/13 7:46 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On May 4, 1:16 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>> David may not have a degree, but he does have job experience, and he
>> has publications. He is a professional and recognized economist,
>> respected in the field. You are a guy who failed to finish his degree
>> and desperately tries to insist that, nonetheless, that qualifies you to
>> argue with him, or anyone else, in his field. It doesn't.
>
>
> I passed the (econ) comps. He didn't. I win

N o t h i n g.

You passed a test. Big whoop. You FAILED TO GET YOUR DEGREE. You NEVER
got employment in the field. You NEVER were published.

If you had ANY of those three, you'd be a qualified economist.

You have NONE of them, so you are NOT, and at most you're regurgitating
stuff you heard in class --- how long ago? -- without any actual
experience or even continuing education in the field. You're arguing
with a professional in his area of expertise, something you deny doing.
You also, again, have dismissed a Nobel Prizewinner in economics, on the
basis of a few college courses. This is doubly ironic, as you are
perfectly happy to trot out "Nobel Prizewinning" economists whenever
they support your argument, yet whenever they don't you think your puny
academic record has complete authority over them -- yet I've seen you
dismiss other people for arguing without actual credentials, which you
lack.

[David Friedman]

In article <km4aki$7le$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> and at most you're regurgitating stuff you heard in class

Actually, he isn't. He is trying to make it up for himself.

He will not have taken any class where the professor or textbook made
either the claim he is making or the argument he is offering for it.

Like most of us, he wants to feel important, and, unfortunately, he has
staked his ability to do so on the claim that he is a competent
economist, which doesn't happen to be true.

[JF]

On 04/05/2013 21:16, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> You are a guy who
> failed to finish his degree and desperately tries to insist that,
> nonetheless, that qualifies you to argue with him, or anyone
> else, in his field. It doesn't.

Anyone is qualified to argue. Whether the arguments make sense
is another matter -- they have to be judged on their merits.
Nullius in Verba.

JF
It has been a very long, cold winter, but at last we have had a
few warm days. The blackthorn, always the first to bloom, has
responded magnificently, with spikey branches so thick with
flowers that the hedges look as if the hawthorn is here already.
In a little meadow surrounded by trees we had a picnic and, as I
lay on my back looking up into the blessedly clear blue sky, I
saw a bumblebee busy among the topmost flowers, with disturbed
petals fluttering down onto the thick green grass.

Housman has a poem about the hawthorn, the maytree, with one line
that resonates in the mind long after the rest of the poem is
forgotten: 'lie long high snowdrifts in the hedge that will not
shower on me.'

I murmured the words to myself, smiling in the sunshine at the
clumsy busyness of the bee, and watched one petal float out from
the tree. Slowly, gently spiralling down, it hit me right
between the eyes.

Hah! One up for the Suffolk lad.

[David Friedman]

In article <pemdnYFNrrP8ixvM...@brightview.co.uk>,

JF <jul...@oopsoopsfloodsclimbers.co.uk> wrote:

> On 04/05/2013 21:16, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> > You are a guy who
> > failed to finish his degree and desperately tries to insist that,
> > nonetheless, that qualifies you to argue with him, or anyone
> > else, in his field. It doesn't.
>
> Anyone is qualified to argue. Whether the arguments make sense
> is another matter -- they have to be judged on their merits.
> Nullius in Verba.

Agreed.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/5/13 4:20 AM, JF wrote:
> On 04/05/2013 21:16, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> You are a guy who
>> failed to finish his degree and desperately tries to insist that,
>> nonetheless, that qualifies you to argue with him, or anyone
>> else, in his field. It doesn't.
>
> Anyone is qualified to argue.

I would say that anyone is *entitled* to argue -- it's a world of free
speech, at least at the moment. But that doesn't make them *qualified*
to argue on a particular subject.

[David Friedman]

In article <km6uf3$9vc$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> On 5/5/13 4:20 AM, JF wrote:
> > On 04/05/2013 21:16, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >
> >> You are a guy who
> >> failed to finish his degree and desperately tries to insist that,
> >> nonetheless, that qualifies you to argue with him, or anyone
> >> else, in his field. It doesn't.
> >
> > Anyone is qualified to argue.
>
> I would say that anyone is *entitled* to argue -- it's a world of free
> speech, at least at the moment. But that doesn't make them *qualified*
> to argue on a particular subject.

But what qualifies someone isn't the degree, it's the knowledge--as
demonstrated by the quality of the argument.

[JF]

On 06/05/2013 01:48, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

>> Anyone is qualified to argue.
>
> I would say that anyone is *entitled* to argue -- it's a
> world of free speech, at least at the moment. But that doesn't
> make them *qualified* to argue on a particular subject.

Qualified to argue badly...

JF

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 4, 4:30 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> Nothing in economic theory tells us what the shape of the production
> function is, or of the demand function. Marginal physical product might
> go up to $6/hour with a small reduction in the input of unskilled labor,
> it might take a large reduction. Price of the output might rise enough
> to get MVP up to $6/hour with a small reduction in quantity supplied or
> might take a large reduction.

You've already said all this. You have yet to establish your
hypothesis in the real world. "*IF* demand is sufficiently inelastic
then..." Well, IS it or not? You take your argument halfway and stop
before the hard part.

If you ASS-UME inelasticity as an input you will get the effects of
inelasticity as an output. I keep pointing out that that is not a
reasonable assumption.

Additionally, you are assuming that the set of minimum wage workers at
$X is the same as the set at $X+a. It isn't. Much of the earnings
are being received by higher quality workers, as a minimum wage law
puts them in competition for the same jobs. Employers will hire the
better quality person whereever possible.

Unskilled workers can only attract employment from higher skiled
workers by being cheaper. Take away that and they aren't employed at
all.

> Despite your bluster, if you don't understand this stuff you ought not
> to have passed your prelims, or for that matter the final exam in
> intermediate price theory. It's possible that you understood it once,
> and have forgotten it since.

David, has it EVER occured to you that just maybe I understand this
stuff better than you do? That I actually have an education in this
field from which I learned things?

But, you know, whatever. You want to engage in personal attacks, I
will just lose more respect for you.

You want to discuss economics, you need to finish your argument. IS
demand for low quality workers in the US an inelastic as you claim?
Prove, or at least justify your claim.

Note especially-

We can order the bottom of the labor market (everyone making the new
minimum wage or less) by levels of human capital/prodictivity and
break them into three groups-

A- Unemployed before and after the minimum wage change. Their income
is zero before and after the change.

B- Employed before the minimum wage change, unemployed after. Their
income falls from (whatever) to zero after the change.

C- Employed before and after the change. Their income rises.


'Poor' is, of course, a term of definition. It must start at the
bottom, but how far up it goes from there is a matter of debate.

Your ENTIRE argument is predicated on the income rise obtained by
group C.

So, if you want to claim that a minimum wage makes 'the poor' better
off, you also need to defend you claim that 'poor' is better defined
by ABC than by AB. No minimum wage law ever made the unemployed
better off.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 4, 5:09 pm, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:

> >I passed the (econ) comps.  He didn't.
>
> He's been paid money to teach.  You haven't.

He has a famous father, I don't.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 4, 6:59 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>

wrote:

> > and at most you're regurgitating stuff you heard in class
>
> Actually, he isn't. He is trying to make it up for himself.
>
> He will not have taken any class where the professor or textbook made
> either the claim he is making or the argument he is offering for it.

Milton Friedman observed: “The
real tragedy of minimum wage laws is that
they are supported by well-meaning groups
who want to reduce poverty. But the people
who are hurt most by higher minimums are
the most poverty stricken.”

Quoted in Policy Analysis #701, June 21, 2012.


Also-

"As an example, with the original 1938 imposition
of the minimum wage, the lower-income
U.S. territory of Puerto Rico was severely
affected. An estimated 120,000 workers in
Puerto Rico lost their jobs within the first year
of implementation of the new 25-cent minimum
wage, and the island’s unemployment
rate soared to nearly 50 percent.22
Similar damaging effects were observed
on American Samoa from minimum wage
increases imposed between 2007 and 2009. Indeed,
the effects were so pronounced on the island’s
economy that President Obama signed
into law a bill postponing the minimum wage
increases scheduled for 2010 and 2011.23
Concern over the scheduled 2012 increase of
$.50 compelled Governor Togiola Tulafono
to testify before Congress: “We are watching
our economy burn down. We know what to
do to stop it. We need to bring the aggressive
wage costs decreed by the Federal Government
under control. . . . Our job market is being
torched. Our businesses are being depressed.
Our hope for growth has been driven away.”


Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50
Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the
Working Poor?
Joseph J. Sabia* and Richard V. Burkhauser
Southern Economic Journal 2010, 76(3), 592–623

"We estimate that average employment elasticities greater (in absolute
value) than 0.86 will cause net monthly
earnings losses to the set of low-skilled workers who are affected by
this proposed minimum
wage legislation. We conclude that further increases in the minimum
wage will do little to
reduce poverty and are a poor substitute for further expansions in the
federal Earned Income
Tax Credit (EITC) program as a mechanism for reducing poverty.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

That will get your foot in the door. It won't keep your butt in the
seat unless you can actually DO THE WORK. It won't make people take your
book seriously -- although it might well give you a better shot at being
published. Fame isn't transferable in any but the most fleeting sense.

[David Friedman]

In article
<f4098335-8092-4975...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 4, 6:59�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > and at most you're regurgitating stuff you heard in class
> >
> > Actually, he isn't. He is trying to make it up for himself.
> >
> > He will not have taken any class where the professor or textbook made
> > either the claim he is making or the argument he is offering for it.
>
>
> Milton Friedman observed: �The
> real tragedy of minimum wage laws is that
> they are supported by well-meaning groups
> who want to reduce poverty. But the people
> who are hurt most by higher minimums are

> the most poverty stricken.�

Which supports the claim that the minimum wage law hurts unskilled
workers. Your claim, however, is that it must hurt them, that as a
matter of economic theory the decrease in employment must outweigh the
increase in wages. That is the claim I have been disputing.

The final quote makes it explicit that it depends on the employment
elasticities. Your claim is that we know in advance that the elasticity
must be large enough (absolute value) so that net income goes down.

So you have not a single example of an economist supporting your
claim--that the minimum wage has to reduce the earnings of those it
affects. All you have are economists who think that, in some particular
economy at some particular time, it has that effect--which I have never
denied.

[David Friedman]

In article
<918a138b-9753-45bc...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 4, 4:30�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nothing in economic theory tells us what the shape of the production
> > function is, or of the demand function. Marginal physical product might
> > go up to $6/hour with a small reduction in the input of unskilled labor,
> > it might take a large reduction. Price of the output might rise enough
> > to get MVP up to $6/hour with a small reduction in quantity supplied or
> > might take a large reduction.
>
>
> You've already said all this. You have yet to establish your
> hypothesis in the real world. "*IF* demand is sufficiently inelastic
> then..." Well, IS it or not? You take your argument halfway and stop
> before the hard part.

What hard part? I have made no claim about how elastic the demand for
low wage labor is in the U.S. at the moment. You have been claiming that
it must be sufficiently elastic, in any economy at any time, as a matter
of economic theory, so that a minimum wage decreases earnings.

...

> You want to discuss economics, you need to finish your argument. IS
> demand for low quality workers in the US an inelastic as you claim?

I have made no such claim.

You appear to have realized that you cannot support the claim you have
been making for years, and so have decided to pretend that the argument
is about what the effect of a minimum wage in the U.S. at present is,
when you know that is not what the argument is or was about.

...

[David Friedman]

In article <ddfr-97E19A.1...@news.giganews.com>,

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> > You've already said all this. You have yet to establish your
> > hypothesis in the real world. "*IF* demand is sufficiently inelastic
> > then..." Well, IS it or not? You take your argument halfway and stop
> > before the hard part.
>
> What hard part? I have made no claim about how elastic the demand for
> low wage labor is in the U.S. at the moment. You have been claiming that
> it must be sufficiently elastic, in any economy at any time, as a matter
> of economic theory, so that a minimum wage decreases earnings.

Just to fill in a little history on this, in the implausible hope of
persuading Shawn that he has just moved the goal posts and asked me to
defend a position I have never argued for, instead of his defending the
position he has repeatedly argued for. A quick google group search finds:

(Me)

I'm not claiming that we have a reason to expect a minimum wage to raise
the total earnings of low wage labor, merely that it could, so I don't
need a reason to expect such a situation is true--merely the lack of a
reason to be sure it isn't.

Aug 8 2008, responding to Shawn on alt.fan.cecil-adams (which is where I
think this argument started)

(Shawn quoting me and responding)
> If I were assuming that the curve is inelastic (I assume your
> "elastic" is a typo), I would be claiming that a minimum wage *would*
> raise the revenue of low income workers. I'm not. I'm claiming that it
> *could* raise the revenue of low income workers--because the demand
> curve could be inelastic.

Which you keep claiming, but never ever prove.

(same date and group)

And, on May 4th of this year, here, Shawn wrote:

"But, let us get back to the actual case- You are arguing that a
minimum wage can increase the total earnings of poor people in
equilibrium."

Which makes it clear that as of two days ago he knew what my claim was.
Note the word "can."

Same date, same newsgroup, Shawn wrote:

"David has claimed that because there is no organic micro limitation on
the (in)elasticity of demand, that it is possible for a min wage to
increase total earmings. I have shown him the macro limitation. He
doesn't understand it."

Again, two days ago he knew what my claim was, today he has suddenly
changed it.

And, at a not totally irrelvant tangent, I note Shawn writing:

"In micro ends can be loose all over the place, the rest of the economy
absorbs them. In macro there are no loose ends. That makes some things
work differently. The forces of an economy of size 100X are not
described by taking X and multiplying by 100. "

Which means he does not understand the difference between micro and
macro, which is not the size of the market being analyzed. The world
wheat market is a microeconomics problem. Unemployment in Orford, N.H.
is a macro problem.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <5a0b7207-1d55-411f...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

He's been paid money to teach, multiple times, by different institutions.
A famous father doesn't get you that.

--
David Goldfarb |"Obviously proud of knowing a word I didn't know,
goldf...@gmail.com |Horace carefully repeated, 'Meretricious!'.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |Whereupon I replied, 'And a happy new year to you.'"
| -- Isaac Asimov

[Gerry Quinn]

In article <6029o8pa8uonhceve...@4ax.com>,
jbe...@invalid.net.invalid says...

> All you really have to do is to stop granting unusual privileges to
> organizations called "political parties".

I'm not sure that has any effect. Parties exist not because of unusual
privileges but because of the nature of parliaments creates coalitions.

- Gerry Quinn

[Will in New Haven]

On May 6, 6:13 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <918a138b-9753-45bc-b50e-07857f929...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

>  Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 4:30 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Nothing in economic theory tells us what the shape of the production
> > > function is, or of the demand function. Marginal physical product might
> > > go up to $6/hour with a small reduction in the input of unskilled labor,
> > > it might take a large reduction. Price of the output might rise enough
> > > to get MVP up to $6/hour with a small reduction in quantity supplied or
> > > might take a large reduction.
>
> > You've already said all this.  You have yet to establish your
> > hypothesis in the real world.  "*IF* demand is sufficiently inelastic
> > then..."  Well, IS it or not?  You take your argument halfway and stop
> > before the hard part.
>
> What hard part? I have made no claim about how elastic the demand for
> low wage labor is in the U.S. at the moment. You have been claiming that
> it must be sufficiently elastic, in any economy at any time, as a matter
> of economic theory, so that a minimum wage decreases earnings.

Obviously you are correct that there would be times and places where
raising the minimum wage would not cost the unskilled jobs and actual
earnings. So you are correct in your argument with Shawn. However, I
think it is true for most periods in most economies that raising the
minimum wage is at best a break-even matter.

This is very much like the idea that lowering tax rates could help the
economy enough to actually increase revenues. This, despite being
called "voodoo economics" and similar terms, is obviously true. _If_
taxes are high enough then lowering them would have this result.
However, the key question is, is this a situation where lowering the
rate would help? I don't think the U.S. is right now in a position
where lowering the tax rate would help revenues, although it might
break even, but it is clear that there _is_ such a point.

--
Will in New Haven

[David Friedman]

In article
<a85018c1-493c-4a71...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Obviously you are correct that there would be times and places where
> raising the minimum wage would not cost the unskilled jobs and actual
> earnings. So you are correct in your argument with Shawn. However, I
> think it is true for most periods in most economies that raising the
> minimum wage is at best a break-even matter.

In terms of economic efficiency, raising the minimum wage is a
loss--that is to say, gains to the gainers are less than loss to the
losers, if both are measured in dollar terms (not a flow of money, but
the dollar equivalent of values and disvalues to those affected).

I think it quite likely that it is also a loss to current minimum wage
workers. My point to Shaun is that that depends on the elasticity of
demand, and need not always be true.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 6, 3:27 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>

wrote:

> > > You've already said all this.  You have yet to establish your
> > > hypothesis in the real world.  "*IF* demand is sufficiently inelastic
> > > then..."  Well, IS it or not?  You take your argument halfway and stop
> > > before the hard part.
>
> > What hard part? I have made no claim about how elastic the demand for
> > low wage labor is in the U.S. at the moment. You have been claiming that
> > it must be sufficiently elastic, in any economy at any time, as a matter
> > of economic theory, so that a minimum wage decreases earnings.
>
> Just to fill in a little history on this, in the implausible hope of
> persuading Shawn that he has just moved the goal posts and asked me to
> defend a position I have never argued for, instead of his defending the
> position he has repeatedly argued for. A quick google group search finds:

David. There is more to economics than undergraduate price theory. I
explained the why's and wherefore's in my first post. That you didn't
pay any attention is not MY problem. Don't claim I never justified my
position. As for moving the goalposts, since you were obviously
incapable of understanding simple macro analysis, I expressed the
argument in terms you COULD understand.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 6, 4:27 pm, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:

> >> >I passed the (econ) comps. He didn't.
>
> >> He's been paid money to teach. You haven't.
>
> >He has a famous father, I don't.
>
> He's been paid money to teach, multiple times, by different institutions.
> A famous father doesn't get you that.

Sure it does. We live in a celebrity culture. What university
wouldn't be delighted to say it had Milton Friedman's son teaching
economics, even if he isn't actually trained in the field?

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 7, 10:02 am, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This is very much like the idea that lowering tax rates could help the
> economy enough to actually increase revenues. This, despite being
> called "voodoo economics" and similar terms, is obviously true. _If_
> taxes are high enough then lowering them would have this result.
> However, the key question is, is this a situation where lowering the
> rate would help? I don't think the U.S. is right now in a position
> where lowering the tax rate would help revenues, although it might
> break even, but it is clear that there _is_ such a point.

Technically know as the region to the right of the peak of the Laffer
curve. But we are talking marginal tax rates on the order of 70% to
see that. Or you could tax inefficient things (like savings/
investment as opposed to income or consumption) and see it
immediately.

Technically, though it requires degenerate circumstances, you can
sometimes increase economic efficiency by RAISING taxes. If you have
an inefficient regime such as taxing only savings/investment and
increasing taxes by expanding that to a general income tax.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 7, 10:45 am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> In terms of economic efficiency, raising the minimum wage is a
> loss--that is to say, gains to the gainers are less than loss to the
> losers, if both are measured in dollar terms (not a flow of money, but
> the dollar equivalent of values and disvalues to those affected).
>
> I think it quite likely that it is also a loss to current minimum wage
> workers. My point to Shaun is that that depends on the elasticity of
> demand, and need not always be true.

Gee, David, it's like you are suddenly BACKTRACKING. Come all the way
around already and admit I was perfectly correct from the beginning.
I mean, damn, I can shove your fathers quote down your throat ad
infinitum now...

The conditions that would require and not plausible in the real
world. Never has been.

It's like I actually LEARNED SOMETHING by taking all those economics
courses huh? Public policy anlysis specialty and a macro specialty
gives my insights into macro economic effects that your trivial "price
theory, blah, blah, blah, PRICE THEORY..." ad nauseum doesn't. Micro
has loose ends David, Macro doesn't.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 6, 3:09 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> > > He will not have taken any class where the professor or textbook made
> > > either the claim he is making or the argument he is offering for it.
>
> > Milton Friedman observed: The
> > real tragedy of minimum wage laws is that
> > they are supported by well-meaning groups
> > who want to reduce poverty. But the people
> > who are hurt most by higher minimums are
> > the most poverty stricken.
>
> Which supports the claim that the minimum wage law hurts unskilled
> workers.


"He will not have taken any class where the professor or textbook made
either the claim he is making or the argument he is offering for it."

Well, you father did...

> Your claim, however, is that it must hurt them, that as a
> matter of economic theory the decrease in employment must outweigh the
> increase in wages. That is the claim I have been disputing.

Less to go around...

> The final quote makes it explicit that it depends on the employment
> elasticities.

Gee, David, way to notice the INCREDIBLY FUCKING OBVIOUS...

Are you going to write a post on how 1+1=2 now?

> Your claim is that we know in advance that the elasticity
> must be large enough (absolute value) so that net income goes down.

Less to go around David... It has to come from someone's pocket. And
nothing requires that any industry hire any min wage workers or buy
from them at all. THEY aren't made worse off and everyone has to even
out in equilibrium.

Distribute the loss evenly (most plausible case as the forces move
through the entire economy) and the total for min wage workers falls
as well. For your scenario to happen the loss MUST be distributed
unevenly, to the specific detriment of everyone else. Not plausible.
QED.

You are repeatedly and continually bringing up the failure of price
theory over and over again to describe this situation. The problem is
YOUR lack of macro analysis tools. "Well, IF elasticity is thus and
so..." I am trying to explain to you that elasticity will NOT be thus
and so. There is more to economics than simple price theory.

> So you have not a single example of an economist supporting your
> claim--that the minimum wage has to reduce the earnings of those it
> affects.

Well, there is that quote from YOUR FATHER...

[David Friedman]

In article
<d8f35d41-bc1e-4808...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 6, 3:09�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > > He will not have taken any class where the professor or textbook made
> > > > either the claim he is making or the argument he is offering for it.
> >
> > > Milton Friedman observed: The
> > > real tragedy of minimum wage laws is that
> > > they are supported by well-meaning groups
> > > who want to reduce poverty. But the people
> > > who are hurt most by higher minimums are
> > > the most poverty stricken.
> >
> > Which supports the claim that the minimum wage law hurts unskilled
> > workers.
>
>
> "He will not have taken any class where the professor or textbook made
> either the claim he is making or the argument he is offering for it."
>
> Well, you father did...

No. Your claim isn't merely that the minimum wage law does hurt low
skill workers but that it must. That isn't supported by the quote.

> > Your claim, however, is that it must hurt them, that as a
> > matter of economic theory the decrease in employment must outweigh the
> > increase in wages. That is the claim I have been disputing.

> Less to go around...

Make up your mind. If your claim is that it must hurt them, then quoting
people saying it does hurt them does not support the claim. If your
claim is that it must hurt them, you need an argument, and saying that
there is less to go around doesn't tell us who gets it--whether the net
loss is or is not combined with a transfer to low wage workers.

> > The final quote makes it explicit that it depends on the employment
> > elasticities.

> Gee, David, way to notice the INCREDIBLY FUCKING OBVIOUS...

> Are you going to write a post on how 1+1=2 now?

Only if you spend five years denying it, as you have spent five years
denying that your claim depends on what the employment elasticity is.

> > Your claim is that we know in advance that the elasticity
> > must be large enough (absolute value) so that net income goes down.

> Less to go around David... It has to come from someone's pocket. And
> nothing requires that any industry hire any min wage workers or buy
> from them at all. THEY aren't made worse off and everyone has to even
> out in equilibrium.
>
> Distribute the loss evenly (most plausible case as the forces move
> through the entire economy) and the total for min wage workers falls
> as well. For your scenario to happen the loss MUST be distributed
> unevenly, to the specific detriment of everyone else. Not plausible.
> QED.

"Not plausible" isn't a QED. Since the law has specifically raised the
wage of the minimum wage workers--those still employed--there is no
reason to believe that the loss is distributed evenly.

> You are repeatedly and continually bringing up the failure of price
> theory over and over again to describe this situation. The problem is
> YOUR lack of macro analysis tools. "Well, IF elasticity is thus and
> so..." I am trying to explain to you that elasticity will NOT be thus
> and so. There is more to economics than simple price theory.

That's true, but you need to understand price theory to do much of
anything else, and you, unfortunately, don't.

> > So you have not a single example of an economist supporting your
> > claim--that the minimum wage has to reduce the earnings of those it
> > affects.
>
>
> Well, there is that quote from YOUR FATHER...

Not supporting your claim.

It occurs to me that anyone who is still, for some reason, watching this
exchange may wonder why I spend so much time pointing out the error of
someone who is, politically speaking, on my side, and generally arguing
for conclusions--in this case that having or raising the minimum wage is
a bad idea--that I agree with.

The answer, in case it isn't obvious, is that his arguments make people
less likely to believe the conclusion, not more�he is, unintentionally,
subverting the position he tries to defend.

As it happens, economics provides quite a lot of arguments for
pro-market policies of the sort both Shawn and I favor. Lots of people
who oppose such policies, online and elsewhere, want to believe that
those arguments are all fudged up by people who support the conclusions,
since otherwise they have to face the fact that the academics who know
most about the subject believe the policies they favor have much less
attractive consequences than their supporters believe.

Shawn makes it easier for them to view the arguments as special pleading
and reject them because his arguments are, in large part, fudged
up--hand waving in support of conclusions that he cannot actually
defend.

As a bit of evidence that it isn't true, in the specific case of minimum
wages, I will point out that not only do I believe that increasing the
minimum wage reduces employment of low wage workers, Paul Krugman and
Christina Romer believe it too. Romer, who was chairman of Obama Council
of Economic Advisors, opposed Obama's recent proposal to raise the
minimum wage. Krugman supported it, but he is on record in the past as
holding that most economists think minimum wage laws increase the
unemployment of low wage workers, as pretty clearly implying that he
thinks so too, and that the argument for the minimum wage depends on
that effect being small enough to be outweighed by other and desirable
effects.

[David Friedman]

In article
<ffdab308-0134-4a8f...@oy9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 7, 10:45�am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In terms of economic efficiency, raising the minimum wage is a
> > loss--that is to say, gains to the gainers are less than loss to the
> > losers, if both are measured in dollar terms (not a flow of money, but
> > the dollar equivalent of values and disvalues to those affected).
> >
> > I think it quite likely that it is also a loss to current minimum wage
> > workers. My point to Shaun is that that depends on the elasticity of
> > demand, and need not always be true.
>
>
> Gee, David, it's like you are suddenly BACKTRACKING.

You are delusional. I have quoted exchanges between us all the way back
to five years ago in which I held the position I just described and you
were claiming that the minimum wage had to reduce the income of low wage
workers.

If you believe the opposite--that you were claiming only that the
minimum wage in the U.S. in practice reduces the warnings of low wage
workers and I was denying it, you should be able to show quotes from us
saying that--you can use search engines too.

> Come all the way
> around already and admit I was perfectly correct from the beginning.
> I mean, damn, I can shove your fathers quote down your throat ad
> infinitum now...

You can quote my father holding the same position I have held throughout
this argument as many times as you like. But you cannot quote him
defending the position you have held, and it looks as though you are
backing away from it, although not willing to actually come out and say
so.

> The conditions that would require and not plausible in the real
> world. Never has been.

It is not plausible that in any economy the demand for any category of
labor could be inelastic? Do you have some argument to support that
claim?

> It's like I actually LEARNED SOMETHING by taking all those economics
> courses huh? Public policy anlysis specialty and a macro specialty
> gives my insights into macro economic effects that your trivial "price
> theory, blah, blah, blah, PRICE THEORY..." ad nauseum doesn't. Micro
> has loose ends David, Macro doesn't.

More evidence that you did not learn much. Price theory is a well worked
out and internally consistent theory, although it isn't a perfect
description of the real world for a variety of familiar reasons.

I like to describe a course in macro as a tour of either a cemetery or a
construction site. It's an attempt to describe disequilibrium, which is
a harder problem and one to which there is no adequate solution as yet.

Perhaps you are confusing macroeconomics with general equilibrium
theory? They are not the same thing.

[Dan Goodman]

For example, in the early US, coalitions whose goals included fighting
the scourge of political parties.





--
Dan Goodman

[David Friedman]

In article
<b2df4eae-b1f9-447f...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>,

All of the universities that didn't offer me positions, perhaps? I can't
remember being the subject of a bidding war. You might think for a
moment about how the journal submission process works. Referees don't
generally know who the author of an article is.

You might also try to imagine the economics profession as it was when I
entered the market. It wasn't that much earlier that a fellow
undergraduate at Harvard, who had no idea who I was, told me that he
couldn't take an econ course at Chicago because he would burst out
laughing. That pretty clearly reflected the picture he had been given in
his introductory econ course.

But I am wasting my time. It is essential to your self-esteem that you
believe yourself to be a competent economist. Until I started responding
to you, you could defend that illusion on the basis that nobody who
disagreed with you knew enough economics to criticize your posts. Once I
came in, you had to somehow persuade yourself, in defiance of the
evidence, that your claims to expertise were better than mine.

[David Friedman]

In article
<9c894c9d-afca-4169...@oj8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

You snipped the quotes. Do you agree that:

1. Throughout this argument, my claim has been not that a minimum wage
law does make low skill workers on net better off but only that it is
possible that it could, that there is no basis in economic theory to
claim it could not.

2. Throughout this argument, your claim has been that it is impossible,
that on the basis of economic theory one can show that a minimum wage
law always must reduce the total earnings of the workers subject to it.

Yes or no.

[Gerry Quinn]

In article <aKadnXBFtpEswxTM...@iphouse.net>,
dsg...@iphouse.com says...

There are still politicians who claim not to be politicians, too.

- Gerry Quinn

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 7, 12:54 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> > > > Milton Friedman observed: The
> > > > real tragedy of minimum wage laws is that
> > > > they are supported by well-meaning groups
> > > > who want to reduce poverty. But the people
> > > > who are hurt most by higher minimums are
> > > > the most poverty stricken.
>
> > > Which supports the claim that the minimum wage law hurts unskilled
> > > workers.
>
> > "He will not have taken any class where the professor or textbook made
> > either the claim he is making or the argument he is offering for it."
>
> > Well, you father did...
>
> No. Your claim isn't merely that the minimum wage law does hurt low
> skill workers but that it must. That isn't supported by the quote.

"...But the people who are hurt most by higher minimums are the most
poverty stricken."

> > > Your claim, however, is that it must hurt them, that as a
> > > matter of economic theory the decrease in employment must outweigh the
> > > increase in wages. That is the claim I have been disputing.
> > Less to go around...
>
> Make up your mind. If your claim is that it must hurt them, then quoting
> people saying it does hurt them does not support the claim. If your
> claim is that it must hurt them, you need an argument, and saying that
> there is less to go around doesn't tell us who gets it--whether the net
> loss is or is not combined with a transfer to low wage workers.

Where is this supposed transfer coming from? You can't selectively
make some industries less profitable than others, and not all
indistries use the same amount of minimum wage workers. Once the
forces sort themselves out everything has to be in equilibrium.
McDonald's (free refills!) and Le Chateau Maison (glass of tap water-
$5) can't have different expected profit rates.

You think McDonalds can blythely 'just raise their prices'? If they
could do that they already would have done that, and pocketed the
increased profits. Sure, McDs and Wendy's and Burger King are all in
the same boat vis a vis each other and a cost increse could be passed
on without changing their relative positions. But they also compete
with Boston Market (mmm... meatloaf) and Applebee's and a chain of
others then ends with Le Chateau Maison, whose busboys make more than
a McDs manager (and are probably better educated and tri-lingual to
boot).

> > > The final quote makes it explicit that it depends on the employment
> > > elasticities.
> > Gee, David, way to notice the INCREDIBLY FUCKING OBVIOUS...
> > Are you going to write a post on how 1+1=2 now?
>
> Only if you spend five years denying it, as you have spent five years
> denying that your claim depends on what the employment elasticity is.

David... it's greater than one. I explained why multiple times. Is
you knowledge of economics really THAT limited?

> > Distribute the loss evenly (most plausible case as the forces move
> > through the entire economy) and the total for min wage workers falls
> > as well.  For your scenario to happen the loss MUST be distributed
> > unevenly, to the specific detriment of everyone else.  Not plausible.
> > QED.
>
> "Not plausible" isn't a QED. Since the law has specifically raised the
> wage of the minimum wage workers--those still employed--there is no
> reason to believe that the loss is distributed evenly.

Sigh... Macro equilibrium David. You can't have some industries less
(or more) profitable than others. You have made minimum wage using
industries less profitable than those that don't. Investment leaves
them and goes elsewhere until the imbalance is rectified. Investment
leaving a minimum wage industry means fewer minimum wage workers being
employed OVER AND ABOVE the direct undergraduate price theory
effect.

> > You are repeatedly and continually bringing up the failure of price
> > theory over and over again to describe this situation.  The problem is
> > YOUR lack of macro analysis tools.  "Well, IF elasticity is thus and
> > so..."  I am trying to explain to you that elasticity will NOT be thus
> > and so.  There is more to economics than simple price theory.
>
> That's true, but you need to understand price theory to do much of
> anything else, and you, unfortunately, don't.

I passed the comps, you didn't. My mastery of micro is well
established. More importantly, I have a great deal of training in
macro analysis, and I don't see that you have ANY.


And I snipped David's foray into personal attacks.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 7, 1:03 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> > The conditions that would require and not plausible in the real
> > world.  Never has been.
>
> It is not plausible that in any economy the demand for any category of
> labor could be inelastic? Do you have some argument to support that
> claim?

Do you have some argument to support a claim that demand for this
category of labor could be inelastic? Remember, ANY worker can
substitute for those at the bottom. That doesn't hold at other
levels. Raw labor? Everyone has the same. Human capital? Everyone
else has more. What is there to monopolize?

> More evidence that you did not learn much. Price theory is a well worked
> out and internally consistent theory, although it isn't a perfect
> description of the real world for a variety of familiar reasons.

You don't know macro at all, do you? You keep harping on price theory
because you have no other tools to bring to bear.

No wonder...

I'm wasting my time trying to explain the macro forces to you, aren't
I?

If price theory were all there was, you would be correct. There is
more to economcis than price theory though.