Re: bush tax cut and small businesses
Robert Vienneau
Franklin <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <415c57ff$0$27688$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> anon...@online-pokerguide.com says...
> > God next you fucking morons will tell me raising the minimum wage .25
> > cents will put small businesses out of business since it will raise
> > their
> > yearly expenses by 10,000$ or so... newsflash..
> You are really not very intelligent are you? The huge impact of raising
> minimum wage is the elimination of entry level jobs which negatively
> impacts the very people you claim you are trying to help.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
"I was delighted to find in a dictionary the word MUMPSIMUS,
which means stubborn persistence in an error that has been
exposed."
-- Joan Robinson
I am afraid "Ben Franklin" has no understanding of economics
whatsoever. The supposed "huge impact" he thinks will happen
has no basis in theory or in empirical data. David Card and Alan
Krueger's work showed the lack of empirical basis.
I show the theoretical mistake here. I have written up the
model in the appendix in this long post:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
This long post assumes a willingness to follow the types of arguments
typical of academic economics.
2.0 DATA ON TECHNOLOGY
Consider a very simple vertically-integrated firm that produces a
single consumption good, corn, from inputs of labor, iron, and (seed)
corn. All production processes in this example require a year to
complete. All production processes exhibit Constant Returns to Scale.
Two production processes are known for producing corn. These processes
require the following inputs to be available at the beginning of the
year for each bushel corn produced and available at the end of the
year:
TABLE 1: INPUTS REQUIRED PER TON CORN PRODUCED
Process A Process B
1 Person-Year 1 Person-Year
2 Tons Iron 1/2 Tons Iron
2/5 Bushels Corn 3/5 Bushels Corn
Apparently, inputs of iron and corn can be traded off in producing
corn outputs.
Iron is also produced by this firm. Two processes are known for
producing iron:
TABLE 2: INPUTS REQUIRED PER TON IRON PRODUCED
Process C Process D
1 Person-Year 275/464 Person-Years
1/10 Tons Iron 113/232 Tons Iron
1/40 Bushels Corn 0 Bushels Corn
Inputs of corn and iron can be traded off in producing iron. The
process that uses less iron and more corn, however, also requires
a greater quantity of labor input.
2.1 PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS
The data above allow for the specification of two well-behaved
production functions, one for corn and the other for iron. For
illustration, I outline how to construct the production function
for corn.
Let L be the person-years of labor, Q1 be tons iron, and Q2 be
bushels corn available for inputs for corn-production during the
production period (a year). Let X1 be the bushels corn produced
with Process A, and X2 be the bushels corn produced with Process B.
The production function for corn is the solution of an optimization
problem in which as much corn as possible is produced from the
given inputs. Accordingly, the production function for corn is
found as the solution to the Linear Program in Display 1:
Max X = X1 + X2
X1 + X2 <= L
2*X1 + (1/2)*X2 <= Q1 (1)
(2/5)*X1 + (3/5)*X2 <= Q2
X1 >= 0, X2 >= 0
Let f(L, Q1, Q2) be the solution of this LP, that is, the production
function for corn. (This production function is not Leontief.) The
production functions constructed in this manner exhibit properties
typically assumed in neoclassical economics. In particular, they
exhibit Constant Returns to Scale, and the marginal product, for
each input, is a non-increasing step function. The production
functions are differentiable almost everywhere.
The point of this example, that sometimes a vertically integrated
firm will want to hire more labor per unit output at higher wages,
is compatible with the existence of many more processes for producing
each commodity. As more processes are used to construct the production
functions, the closer they come to smooth, continuously-differentiable
production functions. The point of this example seems to be compatible
with smooth production functions. It also does not depend on the
circular nature of production in the example, in which corn is used
to produce more corn.
2.2 TECHNIQUES
A technique consists of a process for producing iron and a process
for producing corn. Thus, there are four techniques in this example.
They are defined in Table 3.
TABLE 3: TECHNIQUES AND PROCESSES
Technique Processes
Alpha A, C
Beta A, D
Gamma B, C
Delta B, D
3.0 QUANTITY FLOWS
I want to consider a couple of different levels at which this
firm can operate the processes comprising the techniques. First,
suppose Process A is used to produce 1 41/49 Bushels corn, and
Process C is used to produce 4 4/49 Tons iron. The quantity flows
shown in Table 4 result.
TABLE 4: THE ALPHA TECHNIQUE PRODUCING CORN NET
INPUTS Process C Process A
Labor 4 4/49 Person-Years 1 41/49 Person-Years
Iron 20/49 Tons Iron 3 33/49 Tons Iron
Corn 5/49 Bushels Corn 36/49 Bushels Corn
OUTPUTS 4 4/49 Tons Iron 1 41/49 Bushels Corn
LABOR-INTENSITY: 5 45/49 Person-Years Per Bushel
When the firm operates these processes in parallel, it requires
a total of 41/49 Bushels corn as input. The output of the
corn-producing process can replace this input, leaving a net
output of one Bushel corn. Notice that the total inputs of
iron are 20/49 + 3 33/49 = 4 4/49 Tons iron, which is exactly
replaced by the output of Process C. So Table 4 shows a technique
in which 5 45/49 Person-Years labor are used to produce a net
output of one Bushel corn. The firm, when operating this technique
can produce any desired output of corn by scaling both processes
equally.
Table 5 shows the application of the same sort of arithmetic to
the Beta technique. The labor-intensity of the Beta technique is
listed.
TABLE 5: THE BETA TECHNIQUE PRODUCING CORN NET
INPUTS Process D Process A
Labor 3 304/357 Person-Years 1 2/3 Person-Years
Iron 3 59/357 Tons Iron 3 1/3 Tons Iron
Corn 0 Bushels Corn 2/3 Bushel Corn
OUTPUTS 6 178/357 Tons Iron 1 2/3 Bushel Corn
LABOR-INTENSITY: 5 185/357 Person-Years Per Bushel
Neither the Gamma nor the Delta technique are profit-maximizing
for the prices considered below.
+------------------------------------------+
| THE FIRM |
| |
| Inventory <--------------------------+ |
| | | |
Labor | | Steel+Corn+Labor -> Steel -->+ |
Market | \|/ /|\ /|\ |
------->+-------------+ | | Corn
(wage | \|/ | | Market
given) | Steel+Corn+Labor -> Corn --->+------->
| | (price
+------------------------------------------+ given)
FIGURE 1: A VERTICALLY INTEGRATED FIRM
4.0 PRICES
Which technique will the firm adopt, if any? The answer
depends, in this analysis, on which is most profitable. So one
has to consider prices. I assume throughout that inputs of iron,
corn, and labor are charged at the start of the year. Corn is
the numeraire; its price is unity throughout. Two different
levels of wages are considered.
4.1 PRICES WITH LOW WAGE
Accordingly, assume wages are initially 3/2780 Bushels per
Person-Year. By assumption, the firm neither buys nor sells iron on
the market. The firm produces iron solely for its own use. Still,
the firm must enter a price of iron on its books. I assume an
initial price of 55/1112 Bushels per Ton.
Table 6 shows accounting with these prices. The column labeled
"cost" shows the cost of the inputs needed to produce one unit
output, a bushel corn or a ton iron, depending on the process.
Accounting profits for a unit output are the difference between
the price of a unit output and this cost. The rate of (accounting)
profits, shown in the last column, is the ratio of accounting
profits to the cost. The rate of profits is independent of
the scale at which each process is operated.
TABLE 6: COSTS, WAGE 3/2780 BUSHELS PER PERSON-YEAR,
PRICE OF IRON 55/1112 BUSHELS PER TON
INDUSTRY PROCESS COST PROFITS
Corn A 2*(55/1112) + (2/5)*1
+ 1*(3/2780) = 1/2 100%
Corn B (1/2)*(55/1112) + (3/5)*1
+ 1*(3/2780) = 6959/11120 60%
Iron C (1/10)*(55/1112) + (1/40)*1
+ 1*(3/2780) = 69/2224 59%
Iron D (113/232)*(55/1112) + 0
+ (275/464)*(3/2780) = 55/2224 100%
These prices are compatible with the use of the Beta technique
to produce a net output of corn. The Beta technique specifies that
Process A be used to produce corn and process D be used to produce
iron. Notice that Process B is more expensive than Process A, and
that process C is more expensive than Process D. These prices do
not provide signals to the firm that processes outside the Beta
technique should be adopted. The vertically-integrated firm is
making a rate of profit of 100% in producing corn with the Beta
technique. The same rate of profits are earned in producing corn
and in reproducing the used-up iron by an iron-producing process.
4.2 ONE SET OF PRICES WITH HIGHER WAGE
Suppose this firm faces a wage more than 20 times higher, namely
109/4040 Bushels per Person-Year. Consider what happens if the firm
doesn't revalue the price of iron on its books. Table 7 shows this
case. Since labor enters into each process, the rate of profits
has declined for all processes. The ratio of labor to the costs of
the other inputs is not invariant across processes. Thus, the
rate of profits has declined more in some processes than in
others. Notice especially, than the rate of profits is no longer
the same in the processes, A and D, that comprise the Beta
technique.
TABLE 7: COSTS, WAGE 109/4040 BUSHELS PER PERSON-YEAR,
PRICE OF IRON 55/1112 BUSHELS PER TON
INDUSTRY PROCESS COST PROFITS
Corn A 2*(55/1112) + (2/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.5259 90.1%
Corn B (1/2)*(55/1112) + (3/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.6517 53.4%
Iron C (1/10)*(55/1112) + (1/40)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.05693 -13.1%
Iron D (113/232)*(55/1112) + 0
+ (275/464)*(109/4040) = 0.04008 23.4%
This accounting data does not reveal the firm's rate of return
in operating the Beta technique. The firm cannot be simultaneously
making both 23% and 90% in operating that technique. Furthermore,
this data provides a signal to the firm to withdraw from iron
production and make only corn. So this data says that something
must change.
4.3 ANOTHER SET OF PRICES
Perhaps all that is needed is to re-evaluate iron on the
firm's books. Higher wages have made iron more valuable. Table
8 shows costs and the rate of profits when iron is
evaluated at an accounting price of 0.106 Bushels per Ton.
TABLE 8: COSTS, WAGE 109/4040 BUSHELS PER PERSON-YEAR,
PRICE OF IRON 0.10569123726 BUSHELS PER TON
INDUSTRY PROCESS COST PROFITS
Corn A 2*(0.106) + (2/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.6384 56.65%
Corn B (1/2)*(0.106) + (3/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.6798 47.10%
Iron C (1/10)*(0.106) + (1/40)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.06255 68.97%
Iron D (113/232)*(0.106) + 0
+ (275/464)*(109/4040) = 0.06747 56.65%
This revaluation of iron reveals that the firm makes a rate
of profits of 57% in operating the Beta technique. The firm makes
the same rate of profits in producing corn and in producing its
input of iron. But the manager of the iron-producing process would
soon notice that the cost of operating process C is cheaper.
4.4 FINAL EQUILIBRIUM PRICES
So the firm would ultimately switch to using process C
to produce iron. The price of iron the firm would enter on its
books would fall somewhat. Table 9 shows the accounting with a
price of iron of 10/101 Bushels per Ton. The firm has adopted
the cheapest process for producing iron, and the rate of profits
is the same in both corn-production and iron-production. The
accounting for this vertically-integrated firm is internally
consistent.
TABLE 9: COSTS, WAGE 109/4040 BUSHELS PER PERSON-YEAR,
PRICE OF IRON 10/101 BUSHELS PER TON
INDUSTRY PROCESS COST PROFITS
Corn A 2*(10/101) + (2/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 5/8 60%
Corn B (1/2)*(10/101) + (3/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 2553/4040 58%
Iron C (1/10)*(10/101) + (1/40)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 25/404 60%
Iron D (113/232)*(10/101) + 0
+ (275/464)*(109/4040) = 24,075/374,912
54%
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Table 10 summarizes these calculations. The ultimate result of
a higher wage is the adoption of a more labor-intensive technique.
If this firm continues to produce the same level of net output
and maximizes profits, its managers will want to employ more workers
at the higher of the two wages considered.
TABLE 10: PROFIT-MAXIMIZING FIRM ADOPTS MORE LABOR-INTENSIVE
TECHNIQUE AT HIGHER WAGE
LABOR-INTENSITY OF
WAGE CORN-PRODUCING TECHNIQUE
3/2780 Bushels Per Person-Year 5 185/357 Person-Years Per Bushel
109/4040 Bushels Per Person-Year 5 45/49 Person-Years Per Bushel
So much for the theory that wages and employment are determined
by the interaction of well-behaved supply and demand curves on the
labor market.
APPENDIX A: A FORMAL MODEL
Let
Xa = Bushels corn produced (gross) by process A
Xb = Bushels corn produced by process B
Xc = Tons iron produced by process C
Xd = Tons iron produced by process D
p = the accounting price of iron (corn is numeraire)
w = wage
r = rate of (accounting) profits
Q1 = Tons iron in firm's inventory at start of period
Q2 = Bushels corn in firm's inventory at start of period
Consider a firm attempting to maximize the value of the stock in its
possession at the end of the year:
Given p, w, Q1, and Q2
Choose Xa, Xb, Xc, and Xd
To Maximize Xa + Xb + p Xc + p Xd
+ p Q1 + Q2 - ( ( w + 2 p + (2/5) ) Xa
+ ( w + (1/2) p + (3/5) ) Xb
+ ( w + (1/10) p + (1/40) ) Xc
+ ( (275/464) w + (113/232) p ) Xd )
Such that
(w + 2 p + (2/5)) Xa
+ (w + (1/2) p + (3/5)) Xb
+ (w + (1/10) p + (1/40)) Xc
+ ((275/464) w + (113/232) p) Xd <= Q1 p + Q2
Xa, Xb, Xc, Xd >= 0
The amount of financial capital the firm has at the start of the
production cycle is given by the value of the initial inventory. This
given financial capital provides the constraint on how much corn and
iron can be produced. In a model in which future prices are foreseen,
the value of leftover inventory at the end of the period is the
difference between the value of the initial inventory and the amount
of that value consumed in production. The firm maximizes the sum of
the value of newly produced corn and iron and the value of leftover
inventory. Embedded in these equations is the assumption that the
relative price of iron is the same at the end of a production cycle
as at the beginning.
Note that initial value of the inventory, (p Q1 + Q2), is a constant
in the above LP. There is no need to include a constant term in the
objective function. Thus, the profit-maximizing firm solves the
following program:
Given p, w, Q1, and Q2
Choose Xa, Xb, Xc, and Xd
To Maximize (1 - w - 2 p - (2/5)) Xa
+ (1 - w - (1/2) p - (3/5)) Xb
+ (p - w - (1/10) p - (1/40)) Xc
+ (p - (275/464) w - (113/232) p) Xd
Such that
(w + 2 p + (2/5)) Xa
+ (w + (1/2) p + (3/5)) Xb
+ (w + (1/10) p + (1/40)) Xc
+ ((275/464) w + (113/232) p) Xd <= Q1 p + Q2
Xa, Xb, Xc, Xd >= 0
The dual Linear Program is:
Given p, w, Q1, and Q2
Choose r
To Minimize (Q1 p + Q2) r
Such That
(w + 2 p + (2/5)) r >= 1 - w - 2 p - (2/5)
(w + (1/2) p + (3/5)) r >= 1 - w - (1/2) p - (3/5)
(w + (1/10) p + (1/40)) r >= p - w - (1/10) p - (1/40)
((275/464) w + (113/232) p) r >= p - (275/464) w - (113/232) p
r >= 0
Or:
Given p, w, Q1, and Q2
Choose r
To Minimize (Q1 p + Q2) r
Such That
(w + 2 p + (2/5))(1 + r) >= 1
(w + (1/2) p + (3/5))(1 + r) >= 1
(w + (1/10) p + (1/40))(1 + r) >= p
((275/464) w + (113/232) p)(1 + r) >= p
r >= 0
If a constraint in the dual is met with inequality in the solution, the
corresponding process in the primal will be operated at a level of zero.
For firms to continue production unaltered from period to period, both
corn and iron must be produced each period. For corn to be produced,
either the first or the second constraint in the dual must be met with
equality. Likewise, for iron to be produced, the third or the fourth
constraint in the dual must be met with equality. Hence, for the
analyzed firms to be in equilibrium, the vertically-integrated industry
must be on the so-called factor-price frontier for that industry.
Nothing guarantees that the firms will be able to sell their output
at any given location on the factor-price frontier. Whether prices that
allow firms to be in equilibrium are realized is a question that is
not addressed by this formal model.
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
da pickle
"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
news:rvien-B69BC0....@news.dreamscape.com...
> In article <MPG.1bc7a6d6b...@digital-bear.dyndns.org>, Ben
> Franklin <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <415c57ff$0$27688$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> > anon...@online-pokerguide.com says...
> > > God next you fucking morons will tell me raising the minimum wage .25
> > > cents will put small businesses out of business since it will raise
> > > their
> > > yearly expenses by 10,000$ or so... newsflash..
>
> > You are really not very intelligent are you? The huge impact of raising
> > minimum wage is the elimination of entry level jobs which negatively
> > impacts the very people you claim you are trying to help.
>
> 1.0 INTRODUCTION
>
> "I was delighted to find in a dictionary the word MUMPSIMUS,
> which means stubborn persistence in an error that has been
> exposed."
> -- Joan Robinson
>
> I am afraid "Ben Franklin" has no understanding of economics
> whatsoever. The supposed "huge impact" he thinks will happen
> has no basis in theory or in empirical data. David Card and Alan
> Krueger's work showed the lack of empirical basis.
<snip the "stuff">
If you know anything about the arguments for and against the "minimum wage"
... you would not make such statements, much less attempt to confuse even
yourself with so many "figures."
There are many arguments "for" and "against" the minimum wage, but there is
plenty of "basis" in theory and empirical data to support the "against"
side. (You already know that the Card and Krueger "work" cannot be
replicated and has been discredited.) For a slightly different view, you
might review this: (I quote only a small part.)
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
Proponents have been able to muddle the debate by pointing to a study done
by two Princeton economists, David Card and Alan Krueger. These economists
claimed to find that raising the minimum wage does not lower employment. [1]
In one paper, they succeeded in casting doubt on 200 years of economic
research and theory. Economists took their challenge seriously and attempted
to recreate their results. It could not be done. Economists who attempted to
replicate their work demonstrated conclusively that raising the minimum wage
destroys jobs. [2]
Even after the Card and Krueger study was fully discredited by economic
science, it is still being used by proponents of higher minimum wages to
support an increase. Why must they rely on discredited research to support
their call for raising the minimum wage? Because they recognize that
Americans do not support proposals that destroy jobs. Proponents often like
to show survey results that say more than eighty percent of Americans
support a higher minimum wage. Yet, the same survey shows less than half
surveyed, 46 percent, support raising the minimum wage if it "might reduce
the number of jobs available for workers with limited skills."[3] Clearly,
if Americans were informed of the true effects of raising the minimum wage,
support would rapidly erode.
Robert Vienneau
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> news:rvien-B69BC0....@news.dreamscape.com...
> > In article <MPG.1bc7a6d6b...@digital-bear.dyndns.org>, Ben
> > Franklin <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > The huge impact of
> > > raising
> > > minimum wage is the elimination of entry level jobs which negatively
> > > impacts the very people you claim you are trying to help.
> > 1.0 INTRODUCTION
> >
> > "I was delighted to find in a dictionary the word MUMPSIMUS,
> > which means stubborn persistence in an error that has been
> > exposed."
> > -- Joan Robinson
> >
> > I am afraid "Ben Franklin" has no understanding of economics
> > whatsoever. The supposed "huge impact" he thinks will happen
> > has no basis in theory or in empirical data. David Card and Alan
> > Krueger's work showed the lack of empirical basis.
> <snip the "stuff">
>
> If you know anything about the arguments for and against the "minimum
> wage"
> ... you would not make such statements, much less attempt to confuse even
> yourself with so many "figures."
Nope. The above is just anti-intellectual, that is, pro-stupidity.
> There are many arguments "for" and "against" the minimum wage, but there
> is
> plenty of "basis" in theory and empirical data to support the "against"
> side.
Nope.
> (You already know that the Card and Krueger "work" cannot be
> replicated and has been discredited.)
Nope. I know no such thing.
> For a slightly different view, you
> might review this: (I quote only a small part.)
>
> http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
> Proponents have been able to muddle the debate by pointing to a study
> done
> by two Princeton economists, David Card and Alan Krueger. These
> economists
> claimed to find that raising the minimum wage does not lower employment.
> [1]
> In one paper, they succeeded in casting doubt on 200 years of economic
> research and theory. Economists took their challenge seriously and
> attempted
> to recreate their results. It could not be done. Economists who attempted
> to
> replicate their work demonstrated conclusively that raising the minimum
> wage
> destroys jobs. [2]
The above is bullshit; certainly the part about "200 years" is. Card
and Krueger did not only report the results of various natural
experiments. They also reported the results of a meta-analysis. And
they found the more data that was collected and the more studies
that were done, the less evidence there was that minimum wages lower
employment. As far as I know, nobody has been able to demonstrate
that their meta-analysis was not sound.
> Even after the Card and Krueger study was fully discredited by
> economic
> science, it is still being used by proponents of higher minimum wages to
> support an increase. Why must they rely on discredited research to
> support
> their call for raising the minimum wage?
The above is just lies.
Anyway, my main point was the supposed employment-decreasing
effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation. My long
post analyzed a numerical example. An explanation of that analysis
is here:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
For another argument that that supposed effect lacks theoretical
foundation, see:
<http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0111/white.pdf>
To understand this reference, it helps to know that "labour market
flexibility" is code for eliminating or lowering minimum wages,
opposing unions, etc.
jcpickels is just bluffing.
ro...@telus.net
I think I can guess who was really confused by the figures...
>There are many arguments "for" and "against" the minimum wage, but there is
>plenty of "basis" in theory and empirical data to support the "against"
>side. (You already know that the Card and Krueger "work" cannot be
>replicated and has been discredited.) For a slightly different view, you
>might review this: (I quote only a small part.)
>
>http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
Predictably enough, this silly little bit of propaganda relies almost
exclusively on "papers" from corporate-funded right-wing "think"
tanks. It also claims, ludicrously, that the one (1) more or less
respectable paper cited, about employment in one (1) industry in one
(1) state, "conclusively discredited" Card and Krueger, which is just
an absurd, outrageous lie.
-- Roy L
Ben Franklin
rv...@see.sig.com says...
> Anyway, my main point was the supposed employment-decreasing
> effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation.
>
Are you really saying that all things equal, that an increase in price
does not lower demand? Some economist you are. LOL
da pickle
I find it fascinating that people might make a simple premise ...
"Arbitrarily raise and set the cost of a particular labor." ... and conclude
that this event will have no discernible effect on prices or employment.
da pickle
news:MPG.1bc9e94d...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...
I wish he would say that again ... "the SUPPOSED employment-decreasing
effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation." And one must add, the
"arbitrary" raising of the cost of a specific labor ... ... say that again.
I wonder why, if the raising of the minimum wage has no discernible effect
on darned near everything, we don't just raise the minimum wage to a million
dollars an hour! That would be great for just about everyone.
William Coleman
news:MPG.1bc9e94d...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...
Ben, you are way out of your depth here. A change in price has no effect on
demand. Demand is a function specifying the quantity demanded at various
price points.
All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
demanded. However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
equal. An increase in minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of
low-income workers, who have a high marginal propensity to consume. So they
spend the extra money almost immediately, increasing consumer demand, which
is the primary driving force of economic expansion. Much of this spending
will occur at fast food outlets and convenience stores, who frequently
employ minimum wage workers. These employers will find their business
increased, thus their profits increased, and are unlikely to lay off
workers.
That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market cannot be
analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is much more
complicated than that.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
news:0uWdndFC9bs...@www.bayou.com...
Pickle, you are in way over your head here. Your assertion, and the
assertion of your source, that the work of Card and Krueger has been
discredited, is absolute bullshit. It has not been discredited, it is still
being debated. As I stated in a post earlier in this thread,
"If you would bother to investigate empirical research and studies, rather
than spouting your ignorant economic theories, you would realize that the
actual data suggests that either there is no effect at all, or that the
effect on employment of raising the minimum wage is so weak that it is very
difficult to measure."
The state of affairs, as of 2001, is that the severest critics of Card and
Krueger only claim that employment does not rise as a result of an increase
in the minimum wage. Card and Krueger included this in their original
findings. Of course, other economists are still looking for new data and
statistical methodology to discredit Card and Krueger. The fact that the
debate still continues 12 years later is strong evidence that, as I said,
there is either no effect at all, or that the effect on employment of
raising the minimum wage is so weak that it is very difficult to measure.
If the effect were strong, the effect would be easy to measure, and Card and
Krueger would have been discredited long ago. Here is an article from the
Economist summarizing the situation in 2001.
http://www.economist.co.uk/finance/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=494922&CFID=1195679&CFTOKEN=1291260
William Coleman (ramashiva)
sinister
No one is claiming that.
The question is what effect on employment will a *particular* increase in
the minimum wage have?
Card and Krueger did indeed show that in one particular case, there was no
effect.
>
>
da pickle
news:8l_7d.1913$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Ben Franklin" <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bc9e94d...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...
> > In article <rvien-20D2F8....@news.dreamscape.com>,
> > rv...@see.sig.com says...
> > > Anyway, my main point was the supposed employment-decreasing
> > > effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation.
> > >
> >
> > Are you really saying that all things equal, that an increase in price
> > does not lower demand? Some economist you are. LOL
>
> Ben, you are way out of your depth here. A change in price has no effect
on
> demand. Demand is a function specifying the quantity demanded at various
> price points.
A change in price does indeed have an effect on demand. "Demand" is the
quantity demanded at various prices. Increase price and "demand" will drop
... (we are being very simplistic here). (There are a lot of "assumptions"
in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion here.
We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William, just
does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that an
increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price ...
or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)
> All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
> demanded.
This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.
> However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
> equal.
Of course all things are never equal ... it is a hypothetical. To
complicate the question does not defeat the general premise that an
arbitrary increase in the cost of labor will have a negative effect on
employment and prices.
> An increase in minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of
> low-income workers, who have a high marginal propensity to consume. So
they
> spend the extra money almost immediately, increasing consumer demand,
which
> is the primary driving force of economic expansion. Much of this spending
> will occur at fast food outlets and convenience stores, who frequently
> employ minimum wage workers. These employers will find their business
> increased, thus their profits increased, and are unlikely to lay off
> workers.
Why not increase the minimum wage even more? And even more ... why stop at
all? These guys will just spend it all and increase the economy. You
really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One Lesson."
Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.
> That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market cannot be
> analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is much
more
> complicated than that.
Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying that
the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."
da pickle
The "work" of Card and Krueger flies in the face of two hundred years of
economic theory. It is "debated" by folks like you. You will never be
convinced of anything that disagrees with your own thoughts, William. No
one that thinks as highly of himself as you can be "wrong." And I mean that
in the kindest and gentlest way. No disrespect intended. Sorry to have
even brought it up. Excuse me.
da pickle
news:2H_7d.2443$pw4.296@trnddc01...
> > I find it fascinating that people might make a simple premise ...
> > "Arbitrarily raise and set the cost of a particular labor." ... and
> > conclude
> > that this event will have no discernible effect on prices or employment.
>
> No one is claiming that.
But indeed they are.
> The question is what effect on employment will a *particular* increase in
> the minimum wage have?
Any "minimum wage" will have an effect on employment and prices. Any
"particular" increase in the minimum wage will have a negative effect on
emplyment and prices.
> Card and Krueger did indeed show that in one particular case, there was no
> effect.
If you believe that, then you are simply in error. They did indeed
postulate that, but their "work" is not repeated or verified. It is also
not particularly important ... except to those that wish to use this one
reference (since there are no others) to support a premise that is simply
incorrect. (If you can find a source that says that UFO's are real and
being "held" at Area 51 ... are you going to accept that as your "final
answer?")
William Coleman
> "William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8l_7d.1913$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Ben Franklin" <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1bc9e94d...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...
> > > In article <rvien-20D2F8....@news.dreamscape.com>,
> > > rv...@see.sig.com says...
> > > > Anyway, my main point was the supposed employment-decreasing
> > > > effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you really saying that all things equal, that an increase in price
> > > does not lower demand? Some economist you are. LOL
> >
> > Ben, you are way out of your depth here. A change in price has no
effect
> on
> > demand. Demand is a function specifying the quantity demanded at
various
> > price points.
>
>
> A change in price does indeed have an effect on demand.
No. I already explained this.
> "Demand" is the
> quantity demanded at various prices.
No. Demand is a function showing the quantity demanded at various price
points. Do you understand the difference between a function and a variable?
The demand curve is a graph showing that the variable quantity demanded is a
function of the variable price. It is not correct to refer to the quantity
demanded as demand. It is correct to refer to the function as demand. When
you talk about demand increasing or decreasing, you are talking about the
demand curve shifting to the right or to the left. You are NOT talking
about the quantity demanded increasing or decreasing. The fact that you use
basic terminology incorrectly shows you have never had any formal academic
training in economics.
> Increase price and "demand" will drop
> ... (we are being very simplistic here)
Simplistic and wrong. Changes in price have no effect on demand, only
quantity demanded.
. (There are a lot of "assumptions"
> in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion here.
> We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William,
just
> does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that an
> increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price ...
> or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)
Everything I said makes perfect sense, but you are too much of an economic
illiterate to understand what I am saying.
> > All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
> > demanded.
>
>
> This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.
No, it is not. Please juxtapose the two contradictory statements. You
can't, because there are no contradictory statements.
> > However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
> > equal.
>
>
> Of course all things are never equal ... it is a hypothetical. To
> complicate the question does not defeat the general premise that an
> arbitrary increase in the cost of labor will have a negative effect on
> employment and prices.
Yes, everything being equal. You concede things are never equal. That is
why simple diagrams of supply and demand curves cannot be used to analyze
the effect on employment of increasing minimum wage.
> > An increase in minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of
> > low-income workers, who have a high marginal propensity to consume. So
> they
> > spend the extra money almost immediately, increasing consumer demand,
> which
> > is the primary driving force of economic expansion. Much of this
spending
> > will occur at fast food outlets and convenience stores, who frequently
> > employ minimum wage workers. These employers will find their business
> > increased, thus their profits increased, and are unlikely to lay off
> > workers.
>
>
> Why not increase the minimum wage even more? And even more ... why stop
at
> all? These guys will just spend it all and increase the economy.
We are talking about small, incremental increases in the minimum wage.
Gradual increases of the minimum wage, introduced over a long period of time
are beneficial to the economy. The argument I have just made shows that
there is a feedback loop causing an increase in minimum wage to increase
employment. That is offset by the fact that an increase in the price of
labor will tend to decrease the quantity of labor demanded. These are
contradictory tendencies, do you understand that? There is no way to
conclude a priori which of these tendencies will be stronger. Only
empirical studies can tell us that. The empirical studies by Card and
Krueger suggest that the net effect of the two tendencies is a wash.
> You
> really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One Lesson."
> Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.
No. I do not need a simple economics book. You are the economic
illiterate, not me. All you conservatives think you are economic geniuses,
when you subscribe to simplistic economic theories that do not apply to the
real world. Your inability to use basic economic terminology correctly is
revealing. I have the coursework equivalent of an MBA. I have taken
several graduate courses in economics, and several graduate courses in
accounting. Please tell me your academic background in economics and
accounting.
> > That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market cannot
be
> > analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is much
> more
> > complicated than that.
>
>
> Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying that
> the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
> demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."
Simple and wrong. As I have tried to explain, the labor market is too
complex, involving feedback loops with the larger economy, to be analyzed
with simple diagrams of supply and demand curves. That is what your whole
argument is based on. Your argument is simplistic and wrong. Actual
empirical data shows that your theories about minimum wage do not apply to
the real world. That is the point of the empirical studies of Card and
Krueger.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
> "William Coleman"
>
> The "work" of Card and Krueger flies in the face of two hundred years of
> economic theory.
Yes, 200 years of economic theory turned out to be wrong.
> It is "debated" by folks like you.
No, it is debated by serious economists who disagree with Card and Krueger.
You are trying to suggest that Card and Krueger are only taken seriously by
liberals. Nothing could be further than the truth.
> You will never be
> convinced of anything that disagrees with your own thoughts, William.
LMFAO! You are the one who dismisses empirical data which suggests that one
of your cherished economic theories is wrong. I am always open to new data
that shows that one of my ideas or theories is incorrect.
> No
> one that thinks as highly of himself as you can be "wrong."
Of course I can be wrong. If you knew my intellectual history, you would
know that, based on new evidence or arguments, I have changed my mind many
times about many different things. That is why I know so much now, because
I am constantly testing my theories against the data of reality.
> And I mean that
> in the kindest and gentlest way. No disrespect intended. Sorry to have
> even brought it up. Excuse me.
As I tried to explain to you, you are way out of your depth getting involved
in a complex economic discussion. You are especially out of your depth
getting involved in an economic debate with me, since economics has been a
special area of interest and study for me for many years. That is the
primary reason I became a liberal. I realized all Republicans, including
their economic experts, are economic illiterates who do not understand how
the economy actually works.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
>
da pickle
You are just "wrong," William. I know what a demand curve is. That is not
the way you were using the word. I know what a variable quantity is. I
know the difference between a function and a variable. It is correct to
refer to "demand curve" as "demand curve." It is a function. The graph is
a graph. The function defines the graph, it is not the graph. I "am"
talking about the quantity demanded increasing or decreasing. The curve
sometimes shifts (right or left may or may not be the "direction" used to
describe the effect). I have plenty of formal academic training in
economics. You do not seem to want to do anything other than obfuscate.
You are very good at that.
> > Increase price and "demand" will drop
> > ... (we are being very simplistic here)
>
> Simplistic and wrong. Changes in price have no effect on demand, only
> quantity demanded.
You are making a distinction without merit. Changes in price affect
"demand."
> . (There are a lot of "assumptions"
> > in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion
here.
> > We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William,
> just
> > does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that an
> > increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price
...
> > or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)
>
> Everything I said makes perfect sense, but you are too much of an economic
> illiterate to understand what I am saying.
Sorry to disappoint you, William, but what you say in this instance makes no
sense whatsoever and is internally inconsistent. This is not like the
"good" William.
> > > All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
> > > demanded.
> >
> >
> > This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.
>
> No, it is not. Please juxtapose the two contradictory statements. You
> can't, because there are no contradictory statements.
No need to "juxtapose" ... you already did that. They are still
contradictory.
> > > However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
> > > equal.
> >
> >
> > Of course all things are never equal ... it is a hypothetical. To
> > complicate the question does not defeat the general premise that an
> > arbitrary increase in the cost of labor will have a negative effect on
> > employment and prices.
>
> Yes, everything being equal. You concede things are never equal. That is
> why simple diagrams of supply and demand curves cannot be used to analyze
> the effect on employment of increasing minimum wage.
Well, well ... interesting point. Inapposite, but interesting.
Figures lie and ... oh well, there is nothing one can do to correct those
who will not see.
> > You
> > really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One
Lesson."
> > Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.
>
> No. I do not need a simple economics book. You are the economic
> illiterate, not me. All you conservatives think you are economic
geniuses,
> when you subscribe to simplistic economic theories that do not apply to
the
> real world. Your inability to use basic economic terminology correctly is
> revealing. I have the coursework equivalent of an MBA. I have taken
> several graduate courses in economics, and several graduate courses in
> accounting. Please tell me your academic background in economics and
> accounting.
I have an MBA ... I actually finished my degee. You really should read
Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.
> > > That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market cannot
> be
> > > analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is
much
> > more
> > > complicated than that.
> >
> >
> > Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying
that
> > the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
> > demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."
>
> Simple and wrong. As I have tried to explain, the labor market is too
> complex, involving feedback loops with the larger economy, to be analyzed
> with simple diagrams of supply and demand curves. That is what your whole
> argument is based on. Your argument is simplistic and wrong. Actual
> empirical data shows that your theories about minimum wage do not apply to
> the real world. That is the point of the empirical studies of Card and
> Krueger.
If you wish to "believe" Card and Krueger and "disbelieve" Hazlett and the
thousands of economists that believe him, have at it, William. You seem to
be floundering on this one, William. But your commas seem to be well
placed.
da pickle
> Of course I can be wrong. If you knew my intellectual history, you would
> know that, based on new evidence or arguments, I have changed my mind many
> times about many different things. That is why I know so much now,
because
> I am constantly testing my theories against the data of reality.
This is one of those times, William, when you must "change your mind." Good
luck.
William Coleman
No I am not. You incorrectly refer to "demand", when you mean "quantity
demanded". The two terms are not interchangeable. Demand is a function.
Quantity demanded is the dependent variable of that function.
> I know what a demand curve is. That is not
> the way you were using the word. I know what a variable quantity is. I
> know the difference between a function and a variable. It is correct to
> refer to "demand curve" as "demand curve." It is a function. The graph
is
> a graph. The function defines the graph, it is not the graph.
Did I say it was? The demand curve is a graphical representation of the
demand function.
> I "am"
> talking about the quantity demanded increasing or decreasing.
Yes, but you incorrectly say demand increases or decreases. Increases and
decreases in demand correspond to the demand curve shifting right and left.
A change in quantity demanded is represented by moving along a static demand
curve.
> The curve
> sometimes shifts (right or left may or may not be the "direction" used to
> describe the effect). I have plenty of formal academic training in
> economics. You do not seem to want to do anything other than obfuscate.
> You are very good at that.
>
>
> > > Increase price and "demand" will drop
> > > ... (we are being very simplistic here)
> >
> > Simplistic and wrong. Changes in price have no effect on demand, only
> > quantity demanded.
>
>
> You are making a distinction without merit. Changes in price affect
> "demand."
No. I have explained it many times, and you still make the same mistake.
Changes in price affect quantity demanded. Changes in price do not change
the demand function. You still do not get that demand = function, quantity
demanded = variable. It is not a distinction without merit. It is precise
use of economic terminology.
> > . (There are a lot of "assumptions"
> > > in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion
> here.
> > > We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William,
> > just
> > > does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that
an
> > > increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price
> ...
> > > or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)
> >
> > Everything I said makes perfect sense, but you are too much of an
economic
> > illiterate to understand what I am saying.
>
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, William, but what you say in this instance makes
no
> sense whatsoever and is internally inconsistent.
There is nothing internally inconsistent in what I am saying. An assertion
of inconsistency is not proof. I have asked you to juxtapose inconsistent
statements I have made. You refuse to do so. You are trying to blow smoke
up my ass.
This is not like the
> "good" William.
>
>
> > > > All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
> > > > demanded.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.
> >
> > No, it is not. Please juxtapose the two contradictory statements. You
> > can't, because there are no contradictory statements.
>
>
> No need to "juxtapose" ... you already did that. They are still
> contradictory.
WHAT IS CONTRADICTORY??? Please specify statement A = quote and statement B
= quote. Then explain why A and B are contradictory. Your logical thinking
ability is very weak. I ask you to juxtapose two contradictory statements,
and you say I have already done that. WHERE HAVE I DONE THAT? WHAT
STATEMENTS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
You are the one who will not see that the empirical evidence contradicts
your simplistic economic theory about minimum wage.
> > > You
> > > really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One
> Lesson."
> > > Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.
> >
> > No. I do not need a simple economics book. You are the economic
> > illiterate, not me. All you conservatives think you are economic
> geniuses,
> > when you subscribe to simplistic economic theories that do not apply to
> the
> > real world. Your inability to use basic economic terminology correctly
is
> > revealing. I have the coursework equivalent of an MBA. I have taken
> > several graduate courses in economics, and several graduate courses in
> > accounting. Please tell me your academic background in economics and
> > accounting.
>
>
> I have an MBA ... I actually finished my degee. You really should read
> Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.
Obviously you slept through all your economics courses. Stop patronizing me
by telling me I need to read an economic primer.
> > > > That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market
cannot
> > be
> > > > analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is
> much
> > > more
> > > > complicated than that.
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying
> that
> > > the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
> > > demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."
> >
> > Simple and wrong. As I have tried to explain, the labor market is too
> > complex, involving feedback loops with the larger economy, to be
analyzed
> > with simple diagrams of supply and demand curves. That is what your
whole
> > argument is based on. Your argument is simplistic and wrong. Actual
> > empirical data shows that your theories about minimum wage do not apply
to
> > the real world. That is the point of the empirical studies of Card and
> > Krueger.
>
>
> If you wish to "believe" Card and Krueger and "disbelieve" Hazlett and the
> thousands of economists that believe him, have at it, William.
I am not believing anything. I am looking at the empirical data. You
choose to believe discredited economic theories which are contradicted by
real world economic data. You are the one who is the true believer, not me.
> You seem to
> be floundering on this one, William. But your commas seem to be well
> placed.
LOL. I am floundering? Nice attempt at trash talking. You are floundering
seriously. You claim that Card and Krueger's studies have been discredited.
I have shown, using an article from the Economist, that that is total
bullshit. You are thus revealed as not knowing what you are talking about
on the state of research on this issue. Despite repeated explanations by
me, you continue to use economic terminology incorrectly, confusing "demand"
with "quantity demanded". You continue to claim that I have contradicted
myself, yet you refuse to point to specific contradictory statements I have
made. I have explained to you how raising the minimum wage creates a
feedback loop which tends to increase employment, thus offsetting the
supply-demand induced tendency for employment to decrease. You have done
nothing whatsoever to dispute or refute this argument.
All in all, you are getting your panties pulled down in this debate. Don't
expect this situation to change, since you blindly accept doctrinaire
Republican economic theory, rather than evaluating empirical evidence.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ro...@telus.net
Yes, it was. William has been precise and accurate in his
terminology. You have not.
>I have plenty of formal academic training in
>economics.
I do not believe you.
>> > Increase price and "demand" will drop
>> > ... (we are being very simplistic here)
>>
>> Simplistic and wrong. Changes in price have no effect on demand, only
>> quantity demanded.
>
>You are making a distinction without merit. Changes in price affect
>"demand."
As William has explained, you are obviously in way over your head.
>> . (There are a lot of "assumptions"
>> > in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion
>here.
>> > We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William,
>> just
>> > does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that an
>> > increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price
>...
>> > or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)
>>
>> Everything I said makes perfect sense, but you are too much of an economic
>> illiterate to understand what I am saying.
>
>Sorry to disappoint you, William, but what you say in this instance makes no
>sense whatsoever and is internally inconsistent.
Garbage.
>This is not like the "good" William.
But that is definitely like the bad pickle.
>> > > All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
>> > > demanded.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.
>>
>> No, it is not. Please juxtapose the two contradictory statements. You
>> can't, because there are no contradictory statements.
>
>No need to "juxtapose" ... you already did that. They are still
>contradictory.
They are not. You are flat wrong. In fact, because you have already
been corrected on this point, you are now one of the lying liars Al
Franken exposed so hilariously.
>> > > However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
>> > > equal.
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course all things are never equal ... it is a hypothetical. To
>> > complicate the question does not defeat the general premise that an
>> > arbitrary increase in the cost of labor will have a negative effect on
>> > employment and prices.
>>
>> Yes, everything being equal. You concede things are never equal. That is
>> why simple diagrams of supply and demand curves cannot be used to analyze
>> the effect on employment of increasing minimum wage.
>
>Well, well ... interesting point. Inapposite, but interesting.
ROTFL!! You don't even realize when you have been shelled.
Talk about not seeing, where is the real-world evidence to support
your theory? Blank out.
>> > You
>> > really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One
>Lesson."
>> > Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.
>>
>> No. I do not need a simple economics book. You are the economic
>> illiterate, not me. All you conservatives think you are economic
>geniuses,
>> when you subscribe to simplistic economic theories that do not apply to
>the
>> real world. Your inability to use basic economic terminology correctly is
>> revealing. I have the coursework equivalent of an MBA. I have taken
>> several graduate courses in economics, and several graduate courses in
>> accounting. Please tell me your academic background in economics and
>> accounting.
>
>I have an MBA ... I actually finished my degee.
But you took no economics?
>You really should read
>Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.
I have it, and it is a decent primer on some economic subjects, but
this is way beyond that level.
>> > > That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market cannot
>> be
>> > > analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is
>much
>> > more
>> > > complicated than that.
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying
>that
>> > the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
>> > demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."
>>
>> Simple and wrong. As I have tried to explain, the labor market is too
>> complex, involving feedback loops with the larger economy, to be analyzed
>> with simple diagrams of supply and demand curves. That is what your whole
>> argument is based on. Your argument is simplistic and wrong. Actual
>> empirical data shows that your theories about minimum wage do not apply to
>> the real world. That is the point of the empirical studies of Card and
>> Krueger.
>
>If you wish to "believe" Card and Krueger and "disbelieve" Hazlett and the
>thousands of economists that believe him, have at it, William. You seem to
>be floundering on this one, William.
??? ROTFL!! He has been shelling you, moron. Wake up and smell the
coffee.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>"sinister" <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:2H_7d.2443$pw4.296@trnddc01...
>>
>> "da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ovSdnQOKy59...@www.bayou.com...
>
>> > I find it fascinating that people might make a simple premise ...
>> > "Arbitrarily raise and set the cost of a particular labor." ... and
>> > conclude
>> > that this event will have no discernible effect on prices or employment.
>>
>> No one is claiming that.
>
>But indeed they are.
Liar.
>> The question is what effect on employment will a *particular* increase in
>> the minimum wage have?
>
>Any "minimum wage" will have an effect on employment and prices. Any
>"particular" increase in the minimum wage will have a negative effect on
>emplyment and prices.
That claim is supported by neither theory nor data.
>> Card and Krueger did indeed show that in one particular case, there was no
>> effect.
>
>If you believe that, then you are simply in error.
False.
>They did indeed
>postulate that, but their "work" is not repeated or verified. It is also
>not particularly important ... except to those that wish to use this one
>reference (since there are no others) to support a premise that is simply
>incorrect.
It is very important, because it shows that _your_ premise is
incorrect.
-- Roy L
Ben Franklin
rama...@earthlink.net says...
> > Are you really saying that all things equal, that an increase in price
> > does not lower demand? Some economist you are. LOL
>
> Ben, you are way out of your depth here. A change in price has no effect on
> demand. Demand is a function specifying the quantity demanded at various
> price points.
>
Jesus Coleman, you are really slipping. You say price has no effect and
they offer a description predicated on price points? Talk about out of
your depth, you are not even in the same game.
Ben Franklin
rama...@earthlink.net says...
> LMFAO! You are the one who dismisses empirical data which suggests that one
> of your cherished economic theories is wrong. I am always open to new data
> that shows that one of my ideas or theories is incorrect.
>
that, an idiot.
William Coleman
No, I am not in the same game as you. Like Pickle, you are confusing
demand, which is a function, with "quantity demanded", which is a variable.
You say "demand" when you really mean "quantity demanded". This confusion
is typical of economic illiterates like you and Pickle. Please read the
subthread between me and Pickle for details. I have already explained it to
him.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
Huh??? How do you propose to prove or disprove a theory? Obviously, you
have no understanding whatsoever of the scientific method. First of all, if
you read what you quoted, I did not say anything about proving a theory. I
twice mentioned using empirical evidence to disprove a theory. So you have
already constructed a strawman argument in your response.
A theory is disproved when empirical evidence is repeatedly produced which
shows that the predictions of a theory do not correspond to objective
reality. That is the situation with the theory that an increase of the
minimum wage results in a decrease in employment.
On the other hand, a theory can never be conclusively proved by empirical
evidence. But each time empirical evidence is produced which corresponds to
what the theory predicts, confidence in the theory is strengthened. I have
tried to explain to you that you are way beyond your depth in getting
involved in this discussion. Haven't you ever heard the saying that a man
has got to know his limitations? You obviously don't know yours.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
da pickle
> >You really should read
> >Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.
>
> I have it, and it is a decent primer on some economic subjects, but
> this is way beyond that level.
You could not have read Henry Hazlett's book and believe that "this" is "way
beyond that level." Your "responses" are not up to the level of "trolling
for William" that he would admire.
da pickle
> WHAT IS CONTRADICTORY??? Please specify statement A = quote and statement
B
> = quote. Then explain why A and B are contradictory. Your logical
thinking
> ability is very weak. I ask you to juxtapose two contradictory
statements,
> and you say I have already done that. WHERE HAVE I DONE THAT? WHAT
> STATEMENTS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
When you start shouting ... you lose. Game, set and match!
da pickle
It is a sad thing when the troll has to retire back under the bridge.
da pickle
da pickle
Old news. You just suffered a bad beat, William. This too will pass.
There will be another game. Talking to the other rail birds who do not care
about your defeat will not make you feel better nor raise your image with
them.
Ben Franklin
rama...@earthlink.net says...
> > Jesus Coleman, you are really slipping. You say price has no effect and
> > they offer a description predicated on price points? Talk about out of
> > your depth, you are not even in the same game.
>
> No, I am not in the same game as you.
>
At least you admit it.
William Coleman
Uhh, no. You have repeatedly stated that I made contradictory statements.
I have repeatedly asked you to tell me specifically which statements I made
that are contradictory. You have repeatedly refused to specify which
statements you are talking about. It's game, set, match, alright, but you
lose conclusively. In the process you have also been shown to be a liar.
You know I never made any contradictory statements. When I called you on
it, you continued to make your false assertion, without backing up your
false assertion with facts.
I notice when you lose an argument badly, you declare victory and walk away.
You lost the argument about contradictory statements conclusively. You also
lost the overall argument about the effect on employment on an increase in
minimum wage. No doubt you will declare yourself the victor. If you do,
you are delusional. Go back and reread the subthread. You got your ass
kicked badly, Pickle. Deal with it.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
I notice when you lose an argument badly you invoke the word "troll" and
walk away. You right-wing nutcases seem to believe in the magical efficacy
of certain words like "troll" and "tinfoil hat". You seem to think that,
just by invoking these words, you have refuted the arguments that you had no
answer for.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
> "William Coleman"
>
> It is a sad thing when the troll has to retire back under the bridge.
I notice when you lose an argument badly you invoke the word "troll" and
walk away. You right-wing nutcases seem to believe in the magical efficacy
of certain words like "troll" and "tinfoil hat". You seem to think that,
just by invoking these words, you have refuted the arguments that you had no
answer for.
You and Ben Franklin both got your asses kicked badly in this subthread, and
you know it. Here is my brief summary of the debate. Please tell me what
part of this assessment you disagree with.
LOL. I am floundering? Nice attempt at trash talking. You are floundering
seriously. You claim that Card and Krueger's studies have been discredited.
I have shown, using an article from the Economist, that that is total
bullshit. You are thus revealed as not knowing what you are talking about
on the state of research on this issue. Despite repeated explanations by
me, you continue to use economic terminology incorrectly, confusing "demand"
with "quantity demanded". You continue to claim that I have contradicted
myself, yet you refuse to point to specific contradictory statements I have
made. I have explained to you how raising the minimum wage creates a
feedback loop which tends to increase employment, thus offsetting the
supply-demand induced tendency for employment to decrease. You have done
nothing whatsoever to dispute or refute this argument.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
LMFAO! Pickle, you are pathetic. You got your ass badly kicked in this
debate, and you know it. Roy was just pointing out the obvious to you.
I am officially rescinding your membership in the Ramashiva Club of
Reasonable Republicans. Your performance in this debate has been
disgraceful, especially your repeated refusal to point out what statements I
have made which are contradictory. This refusal reveals you not only to be
a dishonest debater, but an outright liar. As far as I am concerned, you
are now just another right-wing nutcase. Care to try for moronic brownshirt
fuck status?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
Huh??? You are totally delusional, Pickle. You and Ben Franklin got your
asses totally kicked in this debate, and you both know it. Neither of you
have refuted or rebutted any of my arguments or points. Meanwhile, I have
pulled down both your panties.
I notice when you lose a debate badly, you declare victory and walk away.
That is fine with me. You think you have won this debate? Fine. Let's
leave it there and let the readers of the thread decide who won the debate.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
da pickle
Still shouting, I see. To believe that one has won is insufficient to
actually win. When you speak about that which you know
just-not-quite-enough, William, you get all flustered and start shouting ...
I do not need to reread what you wrote. You reread it. Your comments are
not only wrong, they are also internally inconsistent. No matter how you
shout, the reality is there for those to see, if they wish. Sorry, there is
no "victory" is pointing out that others have erred ... but, to call someone
a "liar" because they point out your errors certainly seems hysterical.
da pickle
It is not the "word" that makes a troll a troll, William ... it is the troll
that makes a troll a troll. Back under the bridge until you read a book on
economics. (BTW, I misspelled Haslitt's name. I did not have a copy of his
book at home when I posted. I am at the office now and realized my mistake.
Sorry. At least I can admit when I am wrong.)
da pickle
> "da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:I9GdneZyyu0...@www.bayou.com...
> > "William Coleman"
> >
> > It is a sad thing when the troll has to retire back under the bridge.
>
> I notice when you lose an argument badly you invoke the word "troll" and
> walk away. You right-wing nutcases seem to believe in the magical
efficacy
> of certain words like "troll" and "tinfoil hat". You seem to think that,
> just by invoking these words, you have refuted the arguments that you had
no
> answer for.
>
> You and Ben Franklin both got your asses kicked badly in this subthread,
and
> you know it. Here is my brief summary of the debate. Please tell me what
> part of this assessment you disagree with.
<snip the repetition>
Somehow you have it in your head that if you repeat what you have said
before that it will begin to make sense. It will not. Clicking your heels
together three times while saying, "There's no place like home" might work
... give it a try.
da pickle
The hysteria is building, William. I never claimed to be a Republican,
reasonable or otherwise. I have always been a registered democrat. You can
go back and reread the thread from the beginning and you will see the
glaring juxtaposition you seek. I know you can, because you are a smart
guy.
da pickle
news:ar23m0lcg7rlqe9kv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:29:10 GMT, "William Coleman"
> <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >You and Ben Franklin got your asses totally kicked in this debate, and
you
> >both know it.
> >
>
> demanded as synonyms. It's a common thing to do, to name your
> dependent variable the same as your function. It's done all the time
> by all kinds of people, in and outside of economics.
What an interesting name ... "socialism is a mental disease" ...
William has not seen such sites as:
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el96-29.html
or even the quite simple explanations available at:
http://www.bized.ac.uk/stafsup/options/notes/econ207.htm#Heading81
Yet, William was having so much fun ... it is a shame to pull the plug.
>
>
>
> --
> "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
> percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
> forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson
Ben Franklin
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, rama...@earthlink.net
says...
> In the process you have also been shown to be a liar.
>
I have? Sorry but the only one who has lied in this thread is
you.
Ben Franklin
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, rama...@earthlink.net
says...
> You right-wing nutcases seem to believe in the magical efficacy
> of certain words like "troll" and "tinfoil hat".
>
Well, as they say.... if the shoe fits...
Ben Franklin
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, rama...@earthlink.net
says...
> Huh??? You are totally delusional, Pickle. You and Ben Franklin got your
> asses totally kicked in this debate, and you both know it.
>
Still trying Coleman? The game was over several posts ago and
you lost. LOL
William Coleman
> In article <Asf8d.2490$UP1.923
> @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, rama...@earthlink.net
> says...
> > In the process you have also been shown to be a liar.
> >
>
> I have?
Are you ever going to get a clue, Ben? Three times you have mistakenly
thought you were talking to me when you were talking to someone else. Now
you think I am talking to you when I am talking to Pickle. Please go back
and reread my post. I am clearly talking to Pickle, not you.
> Sorry but the only one who has lied in this thread is
> you.
Oh, really? And what would that lie be? Unless you can point to a false
statement I have knowingly made, you need to retract that statement.
Otherwise, you are also a liar.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(no spam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff-dnSxUVq7...@www.bayou.com...
LMFAO! You continue to patronize me by suggesting that I read an economic
primer. I have pulled your panties down in this thread and exposed you for
the economic illiterate that you are.
> (BTW, I misspelled Haslitt's name. I did not have a copy of his
> book at home when I posted. I am at the office now and realized my
mistake.
> Sorry. At least I can admit when I am wrong.)
LMFAO! You admitted a spelling mistake, big deal. I have proven you wrong
on several points and you refuse to admit it. I have clearly explained to
you that you incorrectly use "demand" when you should use "quantity
demanded". I have clearly shown you are wrong when you claim the work of
Card and Krueger has been discredited. I have challenged you to produce the
statements I made which you claim are inconsistent. You won't admit you are
wrong on any of these points.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
> "William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%Cf8d.2493$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:I9GdneZyyu0...@www.bayou.com...
> > > "William Coleman"
> > >
> > > It is a sad thing when the troll has to retire back under the bridge.
> >
> > I notice when you lose an argument badly you invoke the word "troll" and
> > walk away. You right-wing nutcases seem to believe in the magical
> efficacy
> > of certain words like "troll" and "tinfoil hat". You seem to think
that,
> > just by invoking these words, you have refuted the arguments that you
had
> no
> > answer for.
> >
> > You and Ben Franklin both got your asses kicked badly in this subthread,
> and
> > you know it. Here is my brief summary of the debate. Please tell me
what
> > part of this assessment you disagree with.
>
> <snip the repetition>
Of course, snip the repetition. Don't remind the readers of how you have
failed to address my key points and arguments.
> Somehow you have it in your head that if you repeat what you have said
> before that it will begin to make sense.
Somehow I have in in my head if I reiterate my unanswered points and
arguments, you might address them.
> It will not. Clicking your heels
> together three times while saying, "There's no place like home" might work
> ... give it a try.
Uhh, you are the one resorting to verbal obfuscation. I have answered every
point and argument you have made in this thread. You have not reciprocated.
You have lost the argument conclusively and you know it. Now you are
resorting to rhetorical handwaving in the hopes of creating a smokescreen to
conceal your crushing defeat in this debate. You are done, Pickle. If I
had a fork, I would stick it in you.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
> "William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:THf8d.2498$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:hamdne1zdrF...@www.bayou.com...
> > > <ro...@telus.net>
> > >
> > > Say "something" and you might get a "response" worthy of the comments.
> >
> > LMFAO! Pickle, you are pathetic. You got your ass badly kicked in this
> > debate, and you know it. Roy was just pointing out the obvious to you.
> >
> > I am officially rescinding your membership in the Ramashiva Club of
> > Reasonable Republicans. Your performance in this debate has been
> > disgraceful, especially your repeated refusal to point out what
statements
> I
> > have made which are contradictory. This refusal reveals you not only to
> be
> > a dishonest debater, but an outright liar. As far as I am concerned,
you
> > are now just another right-wing nutcase. Care to try for moronic
> brownshirt
> > fuck status?
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> The hysteria is building, William.
I am sure you are getting hysterical, Pickle. I have caught you in a
bald-faced lie. It's black and white. There is no wiggle room. You cannot
bullshit your way out of this. You are a liar, and I have proved it.
> I never claimed to be a Republican,
> reasonable or otherwise. I have always been a registered democrat. You
can
> go back and reread the thread from the beginning and you will see the
> glaring juxtaposition you seek.
LMFAO! Do you realize what a laughingstock you have become, Pickle? How
many times have I asked you to point out the inconsistent statements you
claim I made? How many times have you refused to do so? I have caught you
in a lie and you know it. Either point out the inconsistent statements, or
admit you are a liar and shut the fuck up.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Robert Vienneau
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
> <ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:4160978d...@news.telus.net...
> > On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:15:22 -0500, "da pickle"
> > <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
> > >You really should read
> > >Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.
> > I have it, and it is a decent primer on some economic subjects, but
> > this is way beyond that level.
> You could not have read Henry Hazlett's book and believe that "this" is
> "way
> beyond that level."
Roy happens to be correct. Here's what Paul Samuelson has to say
about my theoretical point:
One cannot match a proof like that of Equation (5) by finding a
valid proof for the stationary state conjecture
d(C/L)/di <= 0. (6)
Why not? Because, as the next section will illustrate with numerical
examples, such a conjecture is simply not true! ...
...Austrian novices and Nassau Senior's readers trumpet (in my
paraphrase): 'Time itself is productive. Roundaboutness can be
substituted for labor. The price of time is the interest rate.
Aristotle, the Bible, the Koran, and St. Thomas Aquinas are
wrong: competitive interest rate is not exploitation. The
capitalist gets and needs to get the reward of positive interest
rate. And to assuage him for his pains of (a) *waiting* to
consume and (b) *abstaining* from eroding his capital by
consuming more now rather than replacing the capital already in
existence, he is properly being given part of the extra social
product that *his* activity makes possible. It is a good bargain
for the laborer: his wage product is fructified by what the
capitalist provides *as the real wage rate always rises when
thrift and accumulation succeed in lowering the interest rate*.'
But suppose time itself is not productive. Suppose the technical
choices were between seven of labor two periods back and ten of
labor three periods back. Incautious writings of Bohm's
contemporaries declare, Humpty Dumpty-like: that is impossible;
it contradicts a valid (a priori?) law of returns that more
time means more product for the same total labor; read Jevons,
read Bohm.
This is not cogent argumentation, as Hayek understands (1941,
p. 60). In a timeless world more labor on the same acreage of
land does usually raise output. But too much L/A can come to
to lower Q. However, under free competition, no equilibrium
will occur in a rent-collecting market in which firms will pay
a positive wage to hire workers who lower their production. All
Bohm needs to say is this: If ten of labor three periods back
does indeed bring less product now than seven of labor two
periods back does, then at a positive market interest rate,
the latter will surely be out-competed by the former and never
be used.
However, this defense does not validate an inverse (i, C/L)
tradeoff in Equation (6) above. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand
does ensure Equation (5) above but cares nought for Equation (6).
This is why books entitled Economics in One Lesson must evoke
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
from us the advice: 'Go back for the second lesson.'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-- Paul Samuelson, "A Modern Post-Mortem on Bohm's Capital
Theory: Its Vital Normative Flaw Shared By Pre-Sraffian
Mainstream Capital Theory". Journal of the History of
Economic Though. V. 23, N. 3. 2001.
I'll explain Samuelson's notation. i is the interest rate. In
the simple model under discussion, a lower interest rate is
associated with a higher real wage. C/L is consumption per
person-year. Samuelson is saying a lower interest rate is not
necessarily associated with higher consumption per worker, that
is, a less labor-intensive (L/C) technique.
In other words, a higher wage may be associated with a switch
to a more labor-intensive technique. In other words, as I
have proven, cost-minimizing firms may want to hire more
workers at a higher wage, given the available technology,
perfect competition, and the level of output. (I am not
relying on the income effects William Coleman brings up.)
My argument is elaborated here:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
Here's a comment on this sort of argument:
<http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0111/white.pdf>
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
William Coleman
Go ahead and trash talk all you want. You lost the debate badly, and most
of the readers of this thread will see that clearly.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ro...@telus.net
Still lying, I see.
>To believe that one has won is insufficient to
>actually win. When you speak about that which you know
>just-not-quite-enough, William, you get all flustered and start shouting ...
>I do not need to reread what you wrote. You reread it. Your comments are
>not only wrong, they are also internally inconsistent. No matter how you
>shout, the reality is there for those to see, if they wish.
Right. And they can all see William shelled you, while you disgraced
yourself.
-- Roy L
William Coleman
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:ar23m0lcg7rlqe9kv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:29:10 GMT, "William Coleman"
> <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
you
> >both know it.
> >
>
> demanded as synonyms. It's a common thing to do, to name your
> dependent variable the same as your function. It's done all the time
> by all kinds of people, in and outside of economics.
In some contexts it is OK to use the two words interchangeably. In other
contexts, it is not. Precise speakers never use the two words
interchangeably.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Robert Vienneau
<jcpickels@(no spam)hotmail.com> wrote:
> William has not seen such sites as:
> http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el96-29.html
Card and Krueger did not only report the results of various natural
experiments. They also reported the results of a meta-analysis. And
they found the more data that was collected and the more studies
that were done, the less evidence there was that minimum wages lower
employment. As far as I know, nobody has been able to demonstrate
that their meta-analysis was not sound.
The author of the above site, Robert Valletta, does not say
anything critical about Card and Krueger's meta-analysis.
So many arguments destroying the orthodox objection to minimum
wages remain unaddressed in this thread. In fact, all of them,
as far as I can see. Yet silly people like "jcpickels" and
"Ben Franklin" expect us to believe their ace-high is a
straight.
William Coleman
news:zpCdnTyh7Ol...@www.bayou.com...
Uhh, you have repeatedly claimed that you won this debate. You are
delusional
> When you speak about that which you know
> just-not-quite-enough, William, you get all flustered and start shouting
...
I know just not quite enough??? LOL. You are too funny. Your economic
illiteracy is on display in this thread. I think you are lying when you say
you have an MBA. Maybe you do. I asked you specifically how many graduate
courses in economics and how many graduate courses in accounting you had
taken. You failed to answer that question. Care to answer it now? If you
do have an MBA, I suspect that your coursework was heavy in marketing,
management, and business law. I suspect you took the bare minimum in
quantitative subjects like economics, accounting, statistics, and finance.
> I do not need to reread what you wrote. You reread it. Your comments are
> not only wrong, they are also internally inconsistent.
Uhh, saying my comments are wrong doesn't make them wrong. You have left
many of my points and arguments unanswered. Everyone who reads the thread
sees that. Again you claim there is internal inconsistency. Once again you
ignore my challenge to point out what is inconsistent. You have nothing.
You are a liar for stating that I had made inconsistent statements. You
repeatedly refuse to point out the actual inconsistencies. You are a joke.
> No matter how you
> shout, the reality is there for those to see, if they wish.
That is correct. You claim you won. I claim I won. Let the readers
decide.
> Sorry, there is
> no "victory" is pointing out that others have erred ...
There certainly is. I have pointed out several errors you have made. You
have not pointed out a single error by me.
> but, to call someone
> a "liar" because they point out your errors certainly seems hysterical.
Again, no. You have not pointed out any errors. You have falsely claimed
that I made inconsistent statements. I have repeatedly asked you to point
out the inconsistencies. You refuse to do so, but reiterate that I have
made inconsistent statements. That makes you a liar multiple times.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ro...@telus.net
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:4160978d...@news.telus.net...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:15:22 -0500, "da pickle"
>> <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >You really should read
>> >Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.
>>
>> I have it, and it is a decent primer on some economic subjects, but
>> this is way beyond that level.
>
>You could not have read Henry Hazlett's book and believe that "this" is "way
>beyond that level."
?? I'm starting to wonder if _you_ have read Hazlitt's book. His
whole point in that book is that good economics looks beyond
first-order effects to second and third and higher order effects. The
simple shift along the demand curve resulting from increasing the
minimum wage is most definitely not the end of the story. It could
have many other effects, such as shifting consumption patterns in
favor of higher total employment, a transfer of economic rents from
landowners to workers resulting in higher employment, etc.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>It is not the "word" that makes a troll a troll, William ... it is the troll
>that makes a troll a troll. Back under the bridge until you read a book on
>economics. (BTW, I misspelled Haslitt's name. I did not have a copy of his
>book at home when I posted. I am at the office now and realized my mistake.
>Sorry. At least I can admit when I am wrong.)
????? ROTFL!!!! It's "Hazlitt" with a "z." And I didn't have to
look at my copy.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
spam)hotmail.com> wrote:
>You can
>go back and reread the thread from the beginning and you will see the
>glaring juxtaposition you seek.
Nope. I've been reading the thread, and the contradiction you claim
he uttered exists only in what you are no doubt pleased to call your
"mind."
-- Roy L
William Coleman
news:T8Cdna7uZLy...@www.bayou.com...
> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:ar23m0lcg7rlqe9kv...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:29:10 GMT, "William Coleman"
> > <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >You and Ben Franklin got your asses totally kicked in this debate, and
> you
> > >both know it.
> > >
> >
> > Everyone with half a neuron knows it's ok to treat demand and quantity
> > demanded as synonyms. It's a common thing to do, to name your
> > dependent variable the same as your function. It's done all the time
> > by all kinds of people, in and outside of economics.
>
>
> What an interesting name ... "socialism is a mental disease" ...
>
> William has not seen such sites as:
> http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el96-29.html
LMFAO! Did you bother to read this article, Pickle? I doubt it, since it
is far beyond your limited and mistaken understanding of economics. If you
had actually read the article, you would realize that it confirms what I
have been saying. Here is the conclusion.
"As for the employment effects of the new minimum wage, it is likely that
they will be sufficiently small as to be difficult or impossible to observe.
First, although the impending minimum wage increase is large (21 percent),
in historical terms the new minimum wage will not be high relative to
average wages in the economy. Second, despite disagreement over the exact
employment effects of the minimum wage, evidence suggests that this effect
always has been relatively small in the aggregate and that it may have
declined over time. Whether the economy stays strong or weakens, any
disemployment effects arising from the minimum wage will be difficult to
disentangle from the prevailing employment trends. Ironically, the impact of
the minimum wage increase may not be clear enough to help us measure the
effects of the decision."
Now compare what I said earlier in the thread.
"If you would bother to investigate empirical research and studies, rather
than spouting your ignorant economic theories, you would realize that the
actual data suggests that either there is no effect at all, or that the
effect on employment of raising the minimum wage is so weak that it is very
difficult to measure."
LOL. You link to an article to refute me, and the article confirms what I
have been saying. To use your terminology, you are floundering, Pickle.
Also, notice the date of the article, 1996. Notice the date of the article
from the Economist, 2001. You falsely stated that the work of Card and
Krueger had been discredited. The Economist article gives the lie to that
claim.
> or even the quite simple explanations available at:
> http://www.bized.ac.uk/stafsup/options/notes/econ207.htm#Heading81
Once again, you revert to simple supply-demand diagrams. I have tried to
explain to you that the labor market is too complex to be analyzed with
simple supply-demand diagrams.
> Yet, William was having so much fun ... it is a shame to pull the plug.
Too funny, Pickle. You think you have pulled the plug on me, when all you
have done is make an even greater fool of yourself. You link to an article
which is clearly over your head, and the article confirms what I have been
saying in this thread.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "William Coleman"
> <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Everyone with half a neuron knows it's ok to treat demand and quantity
> >> demanded as synonyms. It's a common thing to do, to name your
> >> dependent variable the same as your function. It's done all the time
> >> by all kinds of people, in and outside of economics.
> >
> >In some contexts it is OK to use the two words interchangeably. In other
> >contexts, it is not. Precise speakers never use the two words
> >interchangeably.
> >
>
> y=y(x). If it's good enough for math, it's good enough for any
> discipline that depends on it.
That does not change the fact that y is the dependent variable, and y(x) is
a function. In the context of this thread, the statement that demand
increases most emphatically does not mean that the quantity demanded
increases. Demand increases = demand curve shifts to the right. If the
supply curve is not vertical at that point, quantity demanded will also
increase, and a new equilibrium is established. If the supply curve is
vertical, indicating that no more supply is available in the short term,
then demand has increased, the price increases, but quantity demanded stays
the same.
When analysts say that the high price of oil is due to increased demand,
they do not mean that total oil consumption,the quantity demanded, has
increased. They mean that the demand curve has shifted to the right,
indicating that oil consumers are willing to buy an increased quantity of
oil at any given price. In the current oil market, there are essentially no
additional available supplies of oil available in the short term. That
means that the supply curve is vertical or nearly vertical. That means the
price elasticity of supply is zero or near zero. That means that an
increase of demand, a shift of the demand curve to the right, results in an
increased price, with little or no change in total consumption of oil.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Ben Franklin
rama...@earthlink.net says...
> Oh, really? And what would that lie be? Unless you can point to a false
> statement I have knowingly made, you need to retract that statement.
> Otherwise, you are also a liar.
>
When you called pickle a liar.
William Coleman
Uhh, no. Pickle has repeatedly stated that I made inconsistent statements
in this thread. That is false, and he knows it. He refuses to point out
the statements he claims are inconsistent. Until he does so, the only
reasonable conclusion is that he is a liar.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Ben Franklin
> > > Oh, really? And what would that lie be? Unless you can point to a false
> > > statement I have knowingly made, you need to retract that statement.
> > > Otherwise, you are also a liar.
> > >
> >
> > When you called pickle a liar.
>
> Uhh, no. Pickle has repeatedly stated that I made inconsistent statements
> in this thread. That is false, and he knows it. He refuses to point out
> the statements he claims are inconsistent. Until he does so, the only
> reasonable conclusion is that he is a liar.
>
Either you are a liar or you are irrational. You conclusion is plain
ridiculous.
William Coleman
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:30:17 GMT, "William Coleman"
> <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >That does not change the fact that y is the dependent variable, and y(x)
is
> >a function.
> >
>
> value of y at x.
Actually, yes. You are wrong. What I stated is correct. y is the
dependent variable. x is the independent variable. y(x) is the function.
Yes, y(x) is the value of y at x. That is what it means to say y is a
function of x. For every value of x within the domain of y(x), there is a
unique value of y.
I adopted your notation, which is confusing. Normally, one wouldn't write y
= y(x). One would choose some other letter, such as f, and write y = f(x).
Now is it clear to you that y is the dependent variable, x is the
independent variable, and f(x) is the function?
If not, please do not bother me any more about this. Please print out these
posts and take them to a mathematics teacher, who will tell you I am
correct.
You have now unsuccessfully tried to pick two nits with me. Please don't
waste any more of my time or yours.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:13:14 GMT, "William Coleman"
> <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Actually, no, y(x) is not a function. The function is y. y(x) is the
> >> value of y at x.
> >
> >Actually, yes. You are wrong. What I stated is correct.
> >
>
LMFAO! I am a former mathematics professor. I'm sure I need to go back to
school.
> >y is the dependent variable. x is the independent variable. y(x) is the
function.
> >
>
> Nope. In y(x), y is the function. y(x) is not a function, is the value
> of the function y at x.
Nope. You are wrong. Keep saying you are right all you want. You are
still wrong. You are conveniently omitting what you originally wrote. You
said that, in the equation y = y(x), y is the function. That is wrong. y
is the dependent variable. y(x) is the function. Yes, y(x) is the value of
the function at x. That is the one part you have right. Now, you are just
discussing y(x), having been shown to be wrong in your original assertion.
Yes, if we are only considering y(x), it is correct to say that y is a
function. That is not what we are talking about. You were talking about y
in the equation y = y(x).
> >I adopted your notation, which is confusing. Normally, one wouldn't
write y
> >= y(x).
> >
>
> That kind of notation is used all the time in applied math, especially
> physics and engineering. It might be confusing to you, though, but
> that is a problem you have.
>
> >
> >If not, please do not bother me any more about this.
> >
>
> You were so quick at correcting others. I thought you would appreciate
> being corrected as quickly. I guess your ego doesn't like that. In any
> case, I don't give a shit whether I am bothering you or not.
Of course you don't. You are a rude asshole. Please stop pissing on my leg
and telling me it is raining.
> >Please print out these posts and take them to a mathematics teacher,
> >who will tell you I am correct.
> >
>
> What an ignorant, petulant and arrogant little brat you are!
Oh, please. You are not even close to being qualified to have a
mathematical discussion with me. You have made that amply clear in this
thread.
> From http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Function.html
>
> "Generally speaking, the symbol f refers to the function itself, while
> f(x) refers to the value taken by the function when evaluated at a
> point x. However, especially in more introductory texts, the notation
> f(x) is commonly used to refer to the function f itself (as opposed to
> the value of the function evaluated at x)."
Exactly. I understand that f(x) is the value of the function f at point x.
In the equation y = f(x), are you still going to insist that y is the
function? f(x), or more precisely f, is the function. y is the dependent
variable. Notice your source states that f(x) is commonly used to refer to
the function f. The usage is common, but imprecise.
> This allows me to conclude that your knowledge of math comes from
> "introductory texts", which doesn't surprise me, by the way.
Oh, really. How do you conclude that? Your source says f(x) is commonly
used to refer to the function f itself. It qualifies this statement with
"especially in more introductory texts". It does not say "only in more
introductory texts". The usage is also common in advanced texts. You have
just shown that you are incapable of elementary deductive reasoning. And
you are going to correct me on a point of elementary mathematics?
I don't know why I am bothering to reply to you. Anyone with a screen name
like "Socialism is a Mental Disease" is obviously a knuckle-dragging cretin.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Ben Franklin
says...
> >> Actually, no, y(x) is not a function. The function is y. y(x) is the
> >> value of y at x.
> >
> >Actually, yes. You are wrong. What I stated is correct.
> >
>
>
The thing with Coleman is that he is always wrong. When confronted he
first tries to obfuscate what he said and what is in fact correct. If
you press him and continue to point out his error he then proceeds to
call you stupid. If that doesn't work he then moves onto shouting (ALL
CAPS) and even more vitriol laden ad hominems. He then declares himself
correct and uses his 200 posts of verbal sewage as proof. LOL.
Robert Vienneau
Here is David Friedman agreeing with me that Hazlitt's description
of a labor demand curve is not sensible:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=ddfr-13029...@129.210.78
.3
That is, Hazlitt, in another book, shows that he doesn't understand
the neoclassical (supply-and-demand) theory of wages and employment.
If there were an argument under discussion in this thread - one
side doesn't know how to recognize or construct one - Hazlitt would
not be able to address it past a certain level.
da pickle
Got me again, Roy ... I follow a misspelling with a typo. You should read
it, however, because if you read it earlier, you apparently did not get much
from it. (Do you have the newest edition? There were some additions that
are helpful.)
da pickle
news:rvien-2C1EDA....@news.dreamscape.com...
> In article <acednUdNPLG...@www.bayou.com>, "da pickle"
> <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:4160978d...@news.telus.net...
>
> > > On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:15:22 -0500, "da pickle"
> > > <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >You really should read
> > > >Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.
>
> > > I have it, and it is a decent primer on some economic subjects, but
> > > this is way beyond that level.
>
> > You could not have read Henry Hazlett's book and believe that "this" is
> > "way
> > beyond that level."
>
> Roy happens to be correct. Here's what Paul Samuelson has to say
> about my theoretical point:
<snip> (Roy is not correct, nor are you.)
> In other words, a higher wage may be associated with a switch
> to a more labor-intensive technique. In other words, as I
> have proven, cost-minimizing firms may want to hire more
> workers at a higher wage, given the available technology,
> perfect competition, and the level of output. (I am not
> relying on the income effects William Coleman brings up.)
A discussion of the hiring of higher wage earners who are more productive
does not "follow" from a mandated "minimum wage."
You obviously do not understand what you are reading and pasting. Higher
productivity is not a guarantee that comes with higher wages. An
"artificial" wage (like all "price controls") floor is not a "good" thing in
anyone's equations. It is only a misunderstood "fix" to satisfy the desire
of social engineers to improve the lot of the poor.
da pickle
> Roy happens to be correct. Here's what Paul Samuelson has to say
> about my theoretical point:
We are talking about "minimum wage." Here is what Paul Samuelson has to say
about the minimum wage.
"In answer to the usual leftish defense of the minimum wage as a boon to the
urban poor, liberal MIT economist Paul Samuelson once asked, 'What good does
it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2 an hour if the
fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?'
The problem isn't raising the minimum wage; the problem is, and always has
been, the minimum wage itself."
Read more at:
http://www.davidrhenderson.com/articles/1098_minimumwageplus.html
da pickle
It certainly does say that. One of the main themes is looking at long term
effects and getting beyond what you "think" is going to happen to what is
actually happening to not only those that you intend to "help" but also to
those that might get "hurt." I have already quoted (for Robert) what the
very liberal Paul Samuelson has to say about the minimum wage. The minimum
wage is a loser, Roy. It is exactly the sort of "myth" that Hazlitt would
guard against.
In answer to the usual leftish defense of the minimum wage as a boon to the
urban poor, liberal MIT economist Paul Samuelson once asked, 'What good does
it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2 an hour if the
fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?'
The problem isn't raising the minimum wage; the problem is, and always has
been, the minimum wage itself.
http://www.davidrhenderson.com/articles/1098_minimumwageplus.html
da pickle
> "da pickle" <jcpickels@(no spam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BaWdnTN-l_u...@www.bayou.com...> > news:%Cf8d.2493$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...> > > news:I9GdneZyyu0...@www.bayou.com...
> > > > "William Coleman"
> > > >
> > > > It is a sad thing when the troll has to retire back under the
bridge.
> > >
> > > I notice when you lose an argument badly you invoke the word "troll"
and
> > > walk away. You right-wing nutcases seem to believe in the magical
> > efficacy
> > > of certain words like "troll" and "tinfoil hat". You seem to think
> that,
> > > just by invoking these words, you have refuted the arguments that you
> had
> > no
> > > answer for.
> > >
subthread,
> > and
> > > you know it. Here is my brief summary of the debate. Please tell me
> what
> > > part of this assessment you disagree with.
> >
> > <snip the repetition>
>
> Of course, snip the repetition. Don't remind the readers of how you have
> failed to address my key points and arguments.
>
> > Somehow you have it in your head that if you repeat what you have said
> > before that it will begin to make sense.
>
> Somehow I have in in my head if I reiterate my unanswered points and
> arguments, you might address them.
>
> > It will not. Clicking your heels
> > together three times while saying, "There's no place like home" might
work
> > ... give it a try.
>
> Uhh, you are the one resorting to verbal obfuscation. I have answered
every
> point and argument you have made in this thread. You have not
reciprocated.
> You have lost the argument conclusively and you know it. Now you are
> resorting to rhetorical handwaving in the hopes of creating a smokescreen
to
> conceal your crushing defeat in this debate. You are done, Pickle. If I
> had a fork, I would stick it in you.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
When you run out of "points," William, you rant. It is interesting to watch
you leave troll-mode and enter pout-mode. Actually, it is sort of funny.
The usually method of dealing with trolls is to ignore them. That is always
the best practice. But you are too smart to act like a troll all the time.
Sometimes you start or enter a thread with a valid and reasonable comment.
You seem to get bored with this "reasonable" talk quickly and go into
"sophisticated" troll-mode and bend the edges of reason until your comments
are just gobbledygook. This last one, however, was very interesting in that
you seem to believe that you have a valid point that is not being addressed.
That is funny, William. It really is.
da pickle
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:4161bea0...@news.telus.net...
Which contradiction is that, Roy?
da pickle
> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:i2h3m095dbo75f69d...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "William Coleman"
> > <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Everyone with half a neuron knows it's ok to treat demand and
quantity
> > >> demanded as synonyms. It's a common thing to do, to name your
> > >> dependent variable the same as your function. It's done all the time
> > >> by all kinds of people, in and outside of economics.
> > >
> > >In some contexts it is OK to use the two words interchangeably. In
other
> > >contexts, it is not. Precise speakers never use the two words
> > >interchangeably.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, puleaze, it's done in math textbooks all the time in stuff like
> > y=y(x). If it's good enough for math, it's good enough for any
> > discipline that depends on it.
> When analysts say that the high price of oil is due to increased demand,
> they do not mean that total oil consumption,the quantity demanded, has
> increased.
One more time, William, you demonstrate that you just don't "get it."
The IEA said in its monthly oil market report that demand for oil was
running at 82.2 million barrels a day, 750,000 more than previously thought.
Demand growth this year is running at its fastest level in 24 years, the
Paris-based organisation said.
Brent crude futures edged up nine cents to $41.37 as traders digested the
news.
US light sweet crude futures, which briefly touched a 21-year record of
$45.04 on Tuesday, rose 15 cents to $44.67.
Price pressure
Analysts attribute the surge in demand to a surge in consumption triggered
by the US economic recovery and China's economic boom. ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3554462.stm
da pickle
> > In article <GLf8d.2500$UP1.2081
> > @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, rama...@earthlink.net
> > says...
> > > Huh??? You are totally delusional, Pickle. You and Ben Franklin got
> your
> > > asses totally kicked in this debate, and you both know it.
> > >
> >
> > you lost. LOL
>
> Go ahead and trash talk all you want. You lost the debate badly, and most
> of the readers of this thread will see that clearly.
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Readers read and get to decide for themselves, William. The best hand
always wins the pot at showdown.
William Coleman
Uhh, no, Pickle. That would be you. I have not run out of points, I am
still waiting for you to answer the points I have made. I have twice
summarized these points, but you have ignored them. I am also still waiting
for you to show me the contradictory statements you falsely claim I made.
You are the one who is now ranting, as you know you have lost the actual
argument.
> It is interesting to watch
> you leave troll-mode and enter pout-mode. Actually, it is sort of funny.
I haven't been in troll mode or pout mode in this thread.
> The usually method of dealing with trolls is to ignore them. That is
always
> the best practice. But you are too smart to act like a troll all the
time.
> Sometimes you start or enter a thread with a valid and reasonable comment.
> You seem to get bored with this "reasonable" talk quickly and go into
> "sophisticated" troll-mode and bend the edges of reason until your
comments
> are just gobbledygook.
Pickle, you have lost the debate, and you know it. You are just flailing
around now, hoping that your rhetorical handwaving will create a smokescreen
to obscure the fact that you got your ass kicked. Characterizing my posts
as gobbledygook does not rebut my arguments. The readers of the thread know
that you have not rebutted my arguments in any way.
> This last one, however, was very interesting in that
> you seem to believe that you have a valid point that is not being
addressed.
I know I have valid points that you have not addressed. You claim I made
contradictory statements, but refuse to point those out. The empirical data
of Card and Krueger show there is no employment effect of raising the
minimum wage. You claim Card and Krueger have been discredited. I have
shown conclusively that is bullshit. You provided a link which you claim
refuted me. The link confirmed what I have been saying -- that the
employment effect of raising the minimum wage is either non-existent, or it
is so small that it is difficult or impossible to measure. I have explained
how raising the minimum wage creates an income effect resulting in a
feedback loop tending to increase employment. You haven't addressed that
issue.
> That is funny, William. It really is.
Yes, it is amusing that you have conclusively lost the debate, yet refuse to
admit it. You have zero intellectual honesty. It is amusing that, after
being repeatedly challenged, you still refuse to point out the contradictory
statements you claim you have made. It is amusing that, rather than
replying to my unanswered arguments, you produce a rant accusing me of being
a troll and posting gobbledygook.
Go ahead and rant and trash talk all you want, Pickle. Everybody reading
the thread knows you lost the argument badly. Your refusal to admit that is
just one more example of your intellectual dishonesty.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
The contradiction you claim exists between two statements I made, you
disingenuous dork. Too funny, Pickle. You have been caught lying when you
claimed I had made inconsistent statements. You refuse to specify which
statements you are talking about. You are a liar, pure and simple.
Everyone who reads this thread knows it.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
> In article <gv04m05bdq0ori56d...@4ax.com>, root@localhost.
> says...
> > >> Actually, no, y(x) is not a function. The function is y. y(x) is the
> > >> value of y at x.
> > >
> > >Actually, yes. You are wrong. What I stated is correct.
> > >
> >
> > You need to go back to school, then, to get it right.
> >
>
> The thing with Coleman is that he is always wrong.
Yeah, right. I am always wrong. I have shown you to be wrong in every
interchange of posts we have had.
> When confronted he
> first tries to obfuscate what he said and what is in fact correct.
You are engaged in classic projection. This describes your behavior to a T.
> If
> you press him and continue to point out his error he then proceeds to
> call you stupid.
Again, you are describing your behavior perfectly.
> If that doesn't work he then moves onto shouting (ALL
> CAPS) and even more vitriol laden ad hominems. He then declares himself
> correct and uses his 200 posts of verbal sewage as proof. LOL.
Amazing how you just do not realize how you are projecting your own
inadequacies onto me. Having lost every argument you have had with me, you
now think you can change the result with rhetorical handwaving.
William Coleman (ramahshiva)
Igor
> A discussion of the hiring of higher wage earners who are more productive
> does not "follow" from a mandated "minimum wage."
>
> You obviously do not understand what you are reading and pasting. Higher
> productivity is not a guarantee that comes with higher wages. An
> "artificial" wage (like all "price controls") floor is not a "good" thing in
> anyone's equations. It is only a misunderstood "fix" to satisfy the desire
> of social engineers to improve the lot of the poor.
>
Vienneau understands what he is reading. What he does not tell you is
this is a special case that is much different from the assumptions of a
labor demand curve generally used. It is not a smooth differentiable
labor demand curve economist are used to. It involves a
nondifferentiable function that has switch points due to wages. It is
purely theoretical and there is absolutely zero evidence that any
industry would operate under these assumptions.
It has been a while since I looked at what Veinneau writes. He is
completely unintelligible. He turns a bunch of equations down with no
explanation of the process or even what the equations fully mean then
writes QED.
If you want an intelligible distillation of Vienneau's argument see
Avi J. Cohen and G.C. Harcourt "Retrospectives: Whatever happened to the
Cambridge Capital Theory Controversy", The Journal of Economic
Perspectives Volume 17 No. 1 Winter 2003.
Unlike Vienneau the authors explain this argument clearly and correctly.
They also discuss if the arguments matter today. This article shows the
price Wicksell effect and Samuelson's model of capital switching. Figure
2 shows how capital switches and implies how labor demand would not be a
smooth function. He does not go as far as to apply this to a model of
labor but the figure shows where Vienneau's idea comes from.
The problem Rob has is that he only reads Post-Keynesians who believe
they are following Robinson. As Cohen and Harcourt point out the English
camp has some suffered from a lack of empirical evidence. The
Post-Keynesians and the Cambridge group spent a lot of time on models
but little to no time testing them. The Americans have rejected the
Cambridgians precisely because they have never proved things such as
Wicksel effects. This group thought empirically proving the model was
beside the point. American economist want to see empirical proof before
something is accepted not just a model.
American economist have pursued empirical proof of the neoclassical
assumptions that the Cambridgians reject. The Neo-Classical model has
been a fruitful endeavor for empirical work. They realize price Wicksel
effects are possible yet that relative scarcity is empirically dominate
even if price Wicksel effects exist (Cohen and Harcourt 2003). The
authors also note that Solow's justification has always been that the
model gives good empirical results. So the Cambridgians care mainly
concerned about pure theory and not the empirical evidence to support
the model. The Neo-Classical followers believe if it gets good estimates
it is a good model. It is more important for matters of analysis to have
a tractable model that can be estimated.
The argument between the two is simply continuity versus discontituity.
There has never been a consequences on the significance of results.
(Cohen and Harcourt 2003).
I think Rob and others interested in his post should read the article to
get a clear view of both sides of the debate. It also explains why
Americans have paid little attention to arguments such as the one's Rob
tends to post. The school is thought is completely different. We believe
that you should empirically prove that it exist before you say it
confuscates the model. The Cambridgians say make sure the model is
perfectly theoritically clear before you test it. In order to get Rob's
results you have to believe that functions are discontinous. The
discontinuity makes these models extermely hard to estimate and
therefore hard to prove. That is why Americans typically reject these
arguments the empirical proof is scant at best. Since Rob is a believer
in this school he hangs closely to Card and Kreuger because it is the
one piece of evidence that may say he is right. That is why he ignores
all the literature afterward saying Card and Kreuger got it wrong.
The debate is not for naught in America however. The debate did lead to
General Equilibrium analysis as a response to Samuelson's parables.
William Coleman
> "William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Z9k8d.2694$UP1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> > news:i2h3m095dbo75f69d...@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "William Coleman"
> > > <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Everyone with half a neuron knows it's ok to treat demand and
> quantity
> > > >> demanded as synonyms. It's a common thing to do, to name your
> > > >> dependent variable the same as your function. It's done all the
time
> > > >> by all kinds of people, in and outside of economics.
> > > >
> > > >In some contexts it is OK to use the two words interchangeably. In
> other
> > > >contexts, it is not. Precise speakers never use the two words
> > > >interchangeably.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, puleaze, it's done in math textbooks all the time in stuff like
> > > y=y(x). If it's good enough for math, it's good enough for any
> > > discipline that depends on it.
>
>
>
> > When analysts say that the high price of oil is due to increased demand,
> > they do not mean that total oil consumption,the quantity demanded, has
> > increased.
>
> One more time, William, you demonstrate that you just don't "get it."
Wrong again, Pickle. As usual, you snip my post and quote me out of
context. All your post demonstrates is that "demand" is frequently
incorrectly used as a synonym for "quantity demanded". Here is what I said
in the sentence following your snip -- "They mean that the demand curve has
shifted to the right, indicating that oil consumers are willing to buy an
increased quantity of oil at any given price." I stand by that statement.
It is not correct to say prices are higher because more oil is being
consumed. The underlying cause is that the demand curve has shifted to the
right. That is what it means to say demand has increased. When the demand
curve shifts to the right, both the price and quantity demanded increase.
The fundamental cause is the rightward shift of the demand curve. Both the
increase in price and increase in quantity demanded are dependent effects.
It is fundamentally wrong to then turn around and say the increase in
quantity demanded is the cause of the price increase.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
> "William Coleman"
>
> > Of course I can be wrong. If you knew my intellectual history, you
would
> > know that, based on new evidence or arguments, I have changed my mind
many
> > times about many different things. That is why I know so much now,
> because
> > I am constantly testing my theories against the data of reality.
>
> This is one of those times, William, when you must "change your mind."
Good
> luck.
You are 100% correct, Pickle. I used to think you were rational,
intelligent, and well-educated. I also thought you had intellectual
integrity. Now I realize you are a liar and have zero intellectual
integrity. I also realize that you are irrational, stupid, and poorly
educated, at least in economics.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
> "Robert Vienneau"
>
> > Roy happens to be correct. Here's what Paul Samuelson has to say
> > about my theoretical point:
Excuse me, Pickle. Why do you always do these rude snips? Because you
don't want to deal with what you have snipped. Why don't you go back and
reply again to Robert's post, and reply to the Samuelson quote that you
snipped? You are one dishonest motherfucker.
> We are talking about "minimum wage." Here is what Paul Samuelson has to
say
> about the minimum wage.
>
> "In answer to the usual leftish defense of the minimum wage as a boon to
the
> urban poor, liberal MIT economist Paul Samuelson once asked, 'What good
does
> it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2 an hour if
the
> fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a
job?'
> The problem isn't raising the minimum wage; the problem is, and always has
> been, the minimum wage itself."
When did Samuelson offer this opinion? It was probably before 1995, when
Card and Krueger published their book. You are trying to refute empirical
facts with opinion. Samuelson was merely giving the view of classical
economics, which is contradicted by the actual facts. When theory is
contradicted by facts, the theory must change.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
This is advice you need to apply to yourself, Pickle. You should apply it
to your views on minimum wage, which are contradicted by the empirical
evidence. You should also apply it to supply-side economics, which
mistakenly predicts that tax cuts will create sufficient economic stimulus
to grow out of the resulting deficits. Didn't work under Reagan. Hasn't
worked under Bush.
> to not only those that you intend to "help" but also to
> those that might get "hurt." I have already quoted (for Robert) what the
> very liberal Paul Samuelson has to say about the minimum wage. The
minimum
> wage is a loser, Roy. It is exactly the sort of "myth" that Hazlitt would
> guard against.
No, the myth is that raising the minimum wage reduces employment. The
empirical data clearly show otherwise.
> In answer to the usual leftish defense of the minimum wage as a boon to
the
> urban poor, liberal MIT economist Paul Samuelson once asked, 'What good
does
> it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2 an hour if
the
> fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a
job?'
> The problem isn't raising the minimum wage; the problem is, and always has
> been, the minimum wage itself.
When did Samuelson offer this opinion? It was probably before 1995, when
William Coleman
That's right, Pickle. I am holding four aces. You are holding a busted
flush draw. You are trying to substitute trash talk for arguments.
By the way, I just noticed that my replies to you are being cross-posted to
sci.econ. At what point in the debate did you start this? You really
should have mentioned that you had done this, Pickle. I just now noticed
that my replies are being cross-posted.
Any readers at sci.econ, I encourage you to read the original thread on
rec.gambling.poker, as I am sure Pickle has somehow manipulated the
cross-posting to prevent all my posts in this thread being seen. Only my
replies to Pickle are being cross-posted, and I have also replied to other
posters in this thread.
Why did you start this cross-posting, Pickle? Did you think you would get
some support from the readers of sci.econ? How is that working out for you?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> da pickle wrote:
> > A discussion of the hiring of higher wage earners who are more
> > productive
> > does not "follow" from a mandated "minimum wage."
> > You obviously do not understand what you are reading and pasting.
> > Higher
> > productivity is not a guarantee that comes with higher wages. An
> > "artificial" wage (like all "price controls") floor is not a "good"
> > thing in
> > anyone's equations. It is only a misunderstood "fix" to satisfy the
> > desire
> > of social engineers to improve the lot of the poor.
The above is ignorant bullshit, which I may explain elsewhere.
> Vienneau understands what he is reading. What he does not tell you is
> this is a special case that is much different from the assumptions of a
> labor demand curve generally used.
I don't say such because the truth of the above statement is quite
questionable. Neoclassical theory is supposed to apply quite generally,
to models in which capital goods are use in production and in models
in which they are not, to models with discrete descriptions of
technology and to models with "smooth" descriptions. If the conclusions
that are generally thought to be conclusions of neoclassical
economics - for example, the erronenous beliefs that minimum wages
above "the" market-clearing wage lead to less employment - were
conclusions of neoclassical theory and if neoclassical theory
were logically valid, one could not create numeric examples
conforming to neoclassical assumptions without those conclusions. I
can and have created such examples. So some others in this thread have
made a logical mistake.
> It is not a smooth differentiable
> labor demand curve economist are used to.
Paul Samuelson, for example, says that the existence of, for
example, capital-reversing does not depend on discrete technologies
and non-differentiable production functions. I think he is
correct on this point.
> It involves a
> nondifferentiable function that has switch points due to wages. It is
> purely theoretical and there is absolutely zero evidence that any
> industry would operate under these assumptions.
Incorrect. My favorite way of modeling production is very close
to a method widely used in empirical work. I refer to Leontief
input-output analysis.
I know of no reason why technology could not be such that either
reswithing or capital-reversing is possible. Nobody has ever
presented a valid argument otherwise that I know of.
> It has been a while since I looked at what Veinneau writes. He is
> completely unintelligible. He turns a bunch of equations down with no
> explanation of the process or even what the equations fully mean then
> writes QED.
Mr. Weatherby is illiterate, as is clear from his posts. So I don't
take any offense at being told he finds my posts unintelligible.
On the other hand, one of my essays has been provisionly accepted,
assuming I address reviewer comments. The comments, although
useful, are not extensive.
> If you want an intelligible distillation of Vienneau's argument see
> Avi J. Cohen and G.C. Harcourt "Retrospectives: Whatever happened to the
> Cambridge Capital Theory Controversy", The Journal of Economic
> Perspectives Volume 17 No. 1 Winter 2003.
I also think the above article is worth reading.
> Unlike Vienneau the authors explain this argument clearly and correctly.
Notice that Mr. Weatherby does not say where he finds anything in
the following unclear or incorrect:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
He is just babbling bullshit.
> They also discuss if the arguments matter today.
And their conclusion is generally that they do. According to
Cohen and Harcourt, the American economists did not settle the
significance of the debate; they just stopped addressing the
Anglo-Italians, partly because some of the leading Anglo-Italians
died. Some are still around, and there is another generation or two.
> This article shows the
> price Wicksell effect and Samuelson's model of capital switching. Figure
> 2 shows how capital switches and implies how labor demand would not be a
> smooth function.
Since capital does not switch, Figure 2 does not show such. I doubt
Mr. Weatherby can find anywhere where Cohen and Harcourt use the
phrase "capital switching".
> He does not go as far as to apply this to a model of
> labor but the figure shows where Vienneau's idea comes from.
For once, a statement that I can agree with.
> The problem Rob has is that he only reads Post-Keynesians who believe
> they are following Robinson.
The above is simply an ignorant ad hominem. Robinson's methodological
point is different than my usual points in my numeric examples.
And Mr. Weatherby simply cannot know what I read or do not read.
> As Cohen and Harcourt point out the English
> camp has some suffered from a lack of empirical evidence. The
> Post-Keynesians and the Cambridge group spent a lot of time on models
> but little to no time testing them. The Americans have rejected the
> Cambridgians precisely because they have never proved things such as
> Wicksel effects. This group thought empirically proving the model was
> beside the point. American economist want to see empirical proof before
> something is accepted not just a model.
It is true that the Anglo-Italians do not think that empirical
evidence can settle questions of logical validity. It is true
that certain American economists, who I do not think understand
the theory, complain about a lack of empirical evidence.
> American economist have pursued empirical proof of the neoclassical
> assumptions that the Cambridgians reject. The Neo-Classical model has
> been a fruitful endeavor for empirical work.
One can only wonder what Mr. Weatherby is referring to as "the
Neo-Classical model". As a matter of fact, Franklin Fisher's
simulation results and Anwar Shaikh's "humbug production function"
paper show that much supposedly empirical and practical work
with Solovian growth theory, and perhaps with new growth theory,
doesn't provide any valid reason to accept the work's conclusions.
The theory, perhaps, hasn't passed any potentially falsifying
tests.
> They realize price Wicksel
> effects are possible yet that relative scarcity is empirically dominate
> even if price Wicksel effects exist (Cohen and Harcourt 2003).
I think it misleading to cite Cohen and Harcourt to support Mr.
Weatherby's view. Cohen and Harcourt are merely saying that that is
what certain American economists think.
> The
> authors also note that Solow's justification has always been that the
> model gives good empirical results. So the Cambridgians care mainly
> concerned about pure theory and not the empirical evidence to support
> the model.
Untrue and a non sequitur. If I demonstrate your theory is logically
untenable, that does not imply that I don't think having a
theory, in some sense, that works well empirically is unimportant.
> The Neo-Classical followers believe if it gets good estimates
> it is a good model. It is more important for matters of analysis to have
> a tractable model that can be estimated.
Some think both coherence and empirical results matter. If a
model is logically invalid - because, say, its conclusions do
not follow from its assumptions - one might find it hard to
understand the point of using it empirically.
> The argument between the two is simply continuity versus discontituity.
As I noted, the above claim is simple incorrect.
> There has never been a consequences on the significance of results.
> (Cohen and Harcourt 2003).
What Mr. Weatherby means to say is that there has never been a
consensus about significance of the results.
There is no question about the validity, except by certain
ignoramouses on Usenet, of certain numeric examples.
> I think Rob and others interested in his post should read the article to
> get a clear view of both sides of the debate.
I already have some time ago.
> It also explains why
> Americans have paid little attention to arguments such as the one's Rob
> tends to post. The school is thought is completely different. We believe
> that you should empirically prove that it exist before you say it
> confuscates the model. The Cambridgians say make sure the model is
> perfectly theoritically clear before you test it. In order to get Rob's
> results you have to believe that functions are discontinous.
Nope.
> The
> discontinuity makes these models extermely hard to estimate and
> therefore hard to prove. That is why Americans typically reject these
> arguments the empirical proof is scant at best. Since Rob is a believer
> in this school he hangs closely to Card and Kreuger because it is the
> one piece of evidence that may say he is right.
Nope. Consider:
Albin, P. S. (1975). "Reswitching: An Empirical Observation",
Kyklos. V. 28, p. 149-153.
Han, Z. and Schefold, B. (2003). "An Empirical Investigation
of Paradoxes (Reswitching and Reverse Capital Deepening) in
Capital Theory. September. (On the web somewhere.)
Ozanne, A. (1996). "Do Supply Curves Slope Up? The Empirical
Relevance of the Sraffian Critique of Neoclassical Production
Economics", Cambridge Journal of Economics. V. 20, p. 749-
762.
Prince, R. and Rosser, J. B., Jr. (1985). "Some Implications of
Delayed Environmental Costs for Benefit Cost Analysis: A
Study of Reswitching in the Western Coal Lands", Growth
and Change. V. 16, p. 18-25.
Zambelli, S. (2004). "The 40% Neoclassical Aggregate Theory of
Production", Cambridge Journal of Economics. V. 28, Iss. 1, p.
99-120, January.
> That is why he ignores
> all the literature afterward saying Card and Kreuger got it wrong.
I think there's been quite a number of bought-and-paid for hacks.
> The debate is not for naught in America however. The debate did lead to
> General Equilibrium analysis as a response to Samuelson's parables.
The last sentence is badly phrased. But let it pass. Samuelson's
parables are know to be generally false.
Igor
> When did Samuelson offer this opinion? It was probably before 1995, when
> Card and Krueger published their book. You are trying to refute empirical
> facts with opinion. Samuelson was merely giving the view of classical
> economics, which is contradicted by the actual facts. When theory is
> contradicted by facts, the theory must change.
>
Kard and Kreuger is not the only study on the minimum wage conducted
since 1995. There is no need for opinion to refute Card and Kreuger this
is tons of empirical evidence to do it. The actual paper was published
long before 1995. It was just reprinted in a book with permission of the
original journal it was published in. Card and Kreuger alone does not
refute the facts because they are many studies showing where they went
wrong and getting counter results. These were published after Card and
Kreuger.
da pickle
Robert ... I just realized that this is all being cross posted to sci.econ.
I wondered where you guys came from. I reviewed the posts above and I see
that the first one that is cross posted seems to have been by Roy on October
3 ... I repost it below ... I do not intend to continue to cross post to
sci.econ in any future post on this subject. This must have disrupted the
group "sci.econ" to simply "appear" in the middle of this thread in
rec.gambling.poker. I do not have sufficient expertise to engage a bunch of
"real" economists in this sort of discussion. I can hold my own with poker
players, but you guys are way beyond our little discussion. I do appreciate
your contributions, however. (even if I am not sure I understand all of it).
Thanks for your input.
This is the first post that I see that was cross posted. There were many
posts before this one, however, so there is not much continuity.
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:15:22 -0500, "da pickle"
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>"William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:Kh%7d.1971$M05....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:67KdnWARJvn...@www.bayou.com...
>> > "William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:8l_7d.1913$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > > "Ben Franklin" <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:MPG.1bc9e94d...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...
>> > > > In article <rvien-20D2F8....@news.dreamscape.com>,
>> > > > rv...@see.sig.com says...
>> > > > > Anyway, my main point was the supposed employment-decreasing
>> > > > > effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Are you really saying that all things equal, that an increase in
>price
>> > > > does not lower demand? Some economist you are. LOL
>> > >
>> > > Ben, you are way out of your depth here. A change in price has no
>> effect
>> > on
>> > > demand. Demand is a function specifying the quantity demanded at
>> various
>> > > price points.
>> >
>> >
>> > A change in price does indeed have an effect on demand.
>>
>> No. I already explained this.
>>
>> > "Demand" is the
>> > quantity demanded at various prices.
>>
>> No. Demand is a function showing the quantity demanded at various price
>> points. Do you understand the difference between a function and a
>variable?
>> The demand curve is a graph showing that the variable quantity demanded
is
>a
>> function of the variable price. It is not correct to refer to the
>quantity
>> demanded as demand. It is correct to refer to the function as demand.
>When
>> you talk about demand increasing or decreasing, you are talking about the
>> demand curve shifting to the right or to the left. You are NOT talking
>> about the quantity demanded increasing or decreasing. The fact that you
>use
>> basic terminology incorrectly shows you have never had any formal
academic
>> training in economics.
>
>You are just "wrong," William. I know what a demand curve is. That is not
>the way you were using the word.
Yes, it was. William has been precise and accurate in his
terminology. You have not.
>I have plenty of formal academic training in
>economics.
I do not believe you.
>> > Increase price and "demand" will drop
>> > ... (we are being very simplistic here)
>>
>> Simplistic and wrong. Changes in price have no effect on demand, only
>> quantity demanded.
>
>You are making a distinction without merit. Changes in price affect
>"demand."
As William has explained, you are obviously in way over your head.
>> . (There are a lot of "assumptions"
>> > in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion
>here.
>> > We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William,
>> just
>> > does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that
an
>> > increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price
>...
>> > or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)
>>
>> Everything I said makes perfect sense, but you are too much of an
economic
>> illiterate to understand what I am saying.
>
>Sorry to disappoint you, William, but what you say in this instance makes
no
>sense whatsoever and is internally inconsistent.
Garbage.
>This is not like the "good" William.
But that is definitely like the bad pickle.
>> > > All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
>> > > demanded.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.
>>
>> No, it is not. Please juxtapose the two contradictory statements. You
>> can't, because there are no contradictory statements.
>
>No need to "juxtapose" ... you already did that. They are still
>contradictory.
They are not. You are flat wrong. In fact, because you have already
been corrected on this point, you are now one of the lying liars Al
Franken exposed so hilariously.
>> > > However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
>> > > equal.
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course all things are never equal ... it is a hypothetical. To
>> > complicate the question does not defeat the general premise that an
>> > arbitrary increase in the cost of labor will have a negative effect on
>> > employment and prices.
>>
>> Yes, everything being equal. You concede things are never equal. That
is
>> why simple diagrams of supply and demand curves cannot be used to analyze
>> the effect on employment of increasing minimum wage.
>
>Well, well ... interesting point. Inapposite, but interesting.
ROTFL!! You don't even realize when you have been shelled.
>> > > An increase in minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of
>> > > low-income workers, who have a high marginal propensity to consume.
>So
>> > they
>> > > spend the extra money almost immediately, increasing consumer demand,
>> > which
>> > > is the primary driving force of economic expansion. Much of this
>> spending
>> > > will occur at fast food outlets and convenience stores, who
frequently
>> > > employ minimum wage workers. These employers will find their
business
>> > > increased, thus their profits increased, and are unlikely to lay off
>> > > workers.
>> >
>> >
>> > Why not increase the minimum wage even more? And even more ... why
stop
>> at
>> > all? These guys will just spend it all and increase the economy.
>>
>> We are talking about small, incremental increases in the minimum wage.
>> Gradual increases of the minimum wage, introduced over a long period of
>time
>> are beneficial to the economy. The argument I have just made shows that
>> there is a feedback loop causing an increase in minimum wage to increase
>> employment. That is offset by the fact that an increase in the price of
>> labor will tend to decrease the quantity of labor demanded. These are
>> contradictory tendencies, do you understand that? There is no way to
>> conclude a priori which of these tendencies will be stronger. Only
>> empirical studies can tell us that. The empirical studies by Card and
>> Krueger suggest that the net effect of the two tendencies is a wash.
>
>Figures lie and ... oh well, there is nothing one can do to correct those
>who will not see.
Talk about not seeing, where is the real-world evidence to support
your theory? Blank out.
>> > You
>> > really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One
>Lesson."
>> > Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.
>>
>> No. I do not need a simple economics book. You are the economic
>> illiterate, not me. All you conservatives think you are economic
>geniuses,
>> when you subscribe to simplistic economic theories that do not apply to
>the
>> real world. Your inability to use basic economic terminology correctly
is
>> revealing. I have the coursework equivalent of an MBA. I have taken
>> several graduate courses in economics, and several graduate courses in
>> accounting. Please tell me your academic background in economics and
>> accounting.
>
>I have an MBA ... I actually finished my degee.
But you took no economics?
>You really should read
>Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.
I have it, and it is a decent primer on some economic subjects, but
this is way beyond that level.
>> > > That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market
cannot
>> be
>> > > analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is
>much
>> > more
>> > > complicated than that.
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying
>that
>> > the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
>> > demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."
>>
>> Simple and wrong. As I have tried to explain, the labor market is too
>> complex, involving feedback loops with the larger economy, to be analyzed
>> with simple diagrams of supply and demand curves. That is what your
whole
>> argument is based on. Your argument is simplistic and wrong. Actual
>> empirical data shows that your theories about minimum wage do not apply
to
>> the real world. That is the point of the empirical studies of Card and
>> Krueger.
>
>If you wish to "believe" Card and Krueger and "disbelieve" Hazlett and the
>thousands of economists that believe him, have at it, William. You seem to
>be floundering on this one, William.
??? ROTFL!! He has been shelling you, moron. Wake up and smell the
coffee.
-- Roy L
Igor
> In article <jjB8d.38596$N.3...@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Igor
> <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I also think the above article is worth reading.
>
>
>>Unlike Vienneau the authors explain this argument clearly and correctly.
>
>
> Notice that Mr. Weatherby does not say where he finds anything in
> the following unclear or incorrect:
>
> <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
>
> He is just babbling bullshit.
>
That you for the well thought out logical, clear, refreshing, and
intelligent argument. I will let readers decide that for themselves.
> The above is simply an ignorant ad hominem. Robinson's methodological
> point is different than my usual points in my numeric examples.
>
> And Mr. Weatherby simply cannot know what I read or do not read.
>
I know what you post about and the criticism such as in this post that
American economist are ignorant simply because they do not agree with
your view. It is a logical conclusion to believe that you do not read
ignorant work. You have posted on many ocassion your distate for
anything you term mainstream and have few if any references from any
referred journal that the majority of the field would be familar with.
>>They realize price Wicksel
>>effects are possible yet that relative scarcity is empirically dominate
>>even if price Wicksel effects exist (Cohen and Harcourt 2003).
>
>
> I think it misleading to cite Cohen and Harcourt to support Mr.
> Weatherby's view. Cohen and Harcourt are merely saying that that is
> what certain American economists think.
>
>
Where did I say these were my views this is Cohen and Harcourt's
assement of American economist's views. They do not clearly support or
not support the statement. They state this is the view of the
Neo-Classical theory. I cite them because it is a very similar to waht
Cohen and Harcourt wrote. It would be a statement you should agree with
because it is a statement of Neo-Classical economist view the debate.
The statement is positive not normative.
>>The
>>authors also note that Solow's justification has always been that the
>>model gives good empirical results. So the Cambridgians care mainly
>>concerned about pure theory and not the empirical evidence to support
>>the model.
>
>
> Untrue and a non sequitur. If I demonstrate your theory is logically
> untenable, that does not imply that I don't think having a
> theory, in some sense, that works well empirically is unimportant.
>
You can have your opinion but this again is Cohen and Harcourt's
statement of Solow's view. Again read the article you will see I just
paraphrased what was said which is why I cite them. I agree with Cohen
and Harcourt in the end both sides are a matter of belief and opinion.
You can not test if it is more important a model be a good predictor or
theoritically consistent. This is opinion and not testable.
>>There has never been a consequences on the significance of results.
>>(Cohen and Harcourt 2003).
>
>
> What Mr. Weatherby means to say is that there has never been a
> consensus about significance of the results.
>
uggh spell check. I must have hit replace too quickly. I should have
learned by now not to rely on these silly tools.
>>I think Rob and others interested in his post should read the article to
>>get a clear view of both sides of the debate.
>
>
> I already have some time ago.
>
Sometime ago? Did you see the working paper? The Winter 2003 addition
was sent out a little less than one year ago.
>
>>It also explains why
>>Americans have paid little attention to arguments such as the one's Rob
>>tends to post. The school is thought is completely different. We believe
>>that you should empirically prove that it exist before you say it
>>confuscates the model. The Cambridgians say make sure the model is
>>perfectly theoritically clear before you test it. In order to get Rob's
>>results you have to believe that functions are discontinous.
>
>
> Nope.
>
Again thanks for the refreshing, inteligent, and enlightening argument.
>>The debate is not for naught in America however. The debate did lead to
>>General Equilibrium analysis as a response to Samuelson's parables.
>
>
> The last sentence is badly phrased. But let it pass. Samuelson's
> parables are know to be generally false.
>
If you read Cohen and Harcourt you would that is exactly why General
Equilibrium analysis started. Did you read the whole article? The
authors state clearly that general equilibrium arose after the failure
of the parables. It was " motivated by Samuelson's quest, in his
surrogate production function to "provide some rationalization for the
validity of the simple J.B. Clark parables"" (Cohen and Harcourt 2003).
Again did you really read the article? Did you read all of it or just
the parts you previously agreed with?
If you read the article it states clearly that the lack of evidence on
either side has caused this to be a idelogical debate not a debate of
theory. As Cohen and Harcourt note "The intensity and passion of the
Cambridge Controversy was not generated by abstract technical questions
about Wicksel effects, but by strong ideological undercurrents like the
ethnical justification of returns to capital and fundemental
methodological questions about comparing deeply differing visions of
economics and the extent to which equilibrium is a useful tool of
economic analysis."
This is why I haven't responded to you in a long while. You are not
interested in the CCC for intellectual purposes you interested in making
political statements. To an economist will the minimum wage lower
employment is an equivalent statement to will a price control on pet
rocks create a shortage of pet rocks. They are questions of prediction
and if they are accurate to you the question on minimum wage is
political. You confuse the analysis with trying to offer an alternative
vision.
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "William Coleman"
><rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone with half a neuron knows it's ok to treat demand and quantity
>>> demanded as synonyms. It's a common thing to do, to name your
>>> dependent variable the same as your function. It's done all the time
>>> by all kinds of people, in and outside of economics.
>>
>>In some contexts it is OK to use the two words interchangeably. In other
>>contexts, it is not. Precise speakers never use the two words
>>interchangeably.
>
>Oh, puleaze, it's done in math textbooks all the time in stuff like
>y=y(x). If it's good enough for math, it's good enough for any
>discipline that depends on it.
I have never seen that in a math text here in Canada. Is it some kind
of parochial notation?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:13:14 GMT, "William Coleman"
><rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>I adopted your notation, which is confusing. Normally, one wouldn't write y
>>= y(x).
>
>That kind of notation is used all the time in applied math, especially
>physics and engineering. It might be confusing to you, though, but
>that is a problem you have.
Can you identify a textbook in which it is used?
>From http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Function.html
>
>"Generally speaking, the symbol f refers to the function itself, while
>f(x) refers to the value taken by the function when evaluated at a
>point x. However, especially in more introductory texts, the notation
>f(x) is commonly used to refer to the function f itself (as opposed to
>the value of the function evaluated at x)."
>
>This allows me to conclude that your knowledge of math comes from
>"introductory texts", which doesn't surprise me, by the way.
The above quote simply does not, in any way, support your claim that
y=y(x) is common usage.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>William Coleman wrote:
>
>> When did Samuelson offer this opinion? It was probably before 1995, when
>> Card and Krueger published their book. You are trying to refute empirical
>> facts with opinion. Samuelson was merely giving the view of classical
>> economics, which is contradicted by the actual facts. When theory is
>> contradicted by facts, the theory must change.
>>
>Kard and Kreuger is not the only study on the minimum wage conducted
>since 1995. There is no need for opinion to refute Card and Kreuger this
>is tons of empirical evidence to do it.
Where?
>The actual paper was published
>long before 1995. It was just reprinted in a book with permission of the
>original journal it was published in. Card and Kreuger alone does not
>refute the facts because they are many studies showing where they went
>wrong and getting counter results. These were published after Card and
>Kreuger.
Yet those who claim this seem strangely unable to cite any of them...
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Any readers at sci.econ, I encourage you to read the original thread on
>rec.gambling.poker, as I am sure Pickle has somehow manipulated the
>cross-posting to prevent all my posts in this thread being seen. Only my
>replies to Pickle are being cross-posted, and I have also replied to other
>posters in this thread.
I am posting from sci.econ, and have read all the posts in the thread
that have appeared here. FWIW, it is clear to me that pickle and
Franklin are economic illiterates, and you have demolished them
utterly.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>Which contradiction is that, Roy?
?? I have no idea. You claimed there was one, but have yet to
identify one, and I certainly haven't seen one.
Such a mystery.
To you, that is.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:4161bb59...@news.telus.net...
>> ?? I'm starting to wonder if _you_ have read Hazlitt's book. His
>> whole point in that book is that good economics looks beyond
>> first-order effects to second and third and higher order effects. The
>> simple shift along the demand curve resulting from increasing the
>> minimum wage is most definitely not the end of the story. It could
>> have many other effects, such as shifting consumption patterns in
>> favor of higher total employment, a transfer of economic rents from
>> landowners to workers resulting in higher employment, etc.
>
>It certainly does say that. One of the main themes is looking at long term
>effects and getting beyond what you "think" is going to happen to what is
>actually happening to not only those that you intend to "help" but also to
>those that might get "hurt." I have already quoted (for Robert) what the
>very liberal Paul Samuelson has to say about the minimum wage. The minimum
>wage is a loser, Roy.
And you know what? _I_agree_, it is a bad policy. But
_that_doesn't_mean_that_in_reality_it_creates_unemployment_.
>It is exactly the sort of "myth" that Hazlitt would
>guard against.
And in a cet.par. world, that would be the end of the story. But it's
not a cet.par. world.
Consider smoking. It's bad for you, I think we can all agree on that.
But you know what? If you are in danger of hypothermia, smoking a
cigarette could save your life by constricting the blood vessels in
your skin and conserving your core body heat. So
_in_some_situations_, smoking could be good for you. The idea, then,
would be to avoid getting into those situations.
>In answer to the usual leftish defense of the minimum wage as a boon to the
>urban poor, liberal MIT economist Paul Samuelson once asked, 'What good does
>it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2 an hour if the
>fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?'
Right. _If_ that is what keeps him from getting a job. But maybe the
fact that the minimum wage is $2 and not $3 is what keeps him from
getting a job. You don't know that, I don't know it, and neither does
Samuelson. That is very much the point.
IMO the lack of empirical evidence that minimum wages, union
monopolies, etc. significantly reduce employment may result from the
fact that although such measures may be inefficient, unreliable and
unfair, they do tend to socialize a considerable amount of economic
rent, and are therefore a net plus -- or at least not a significant
net minus -- for the economy. Inefficient, unreliable and unfair as
they are, they are not as inefficient and unfair as just giving the
rent to the idle rich.
Maybe we should think about trying to get the economy to a place where
such measures are not the only way to avoid the greater evil of
persistent, destructive and self-reinforcing injustice: warm up just a
bit, and maybe we wouldn't need the damn smokes just to stay alive.
-- Roy L
Robert Vienneau
In article <h2G8d.38931$N.1...@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Igor
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
> > In article <jjB8d.38596$N.3...@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Igor
> > <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> > I also think the above article is worth reading.
> >>Unlike Vienneau the authors explain this argument clearly and
> >>correctly.
> > Notice that Mr. Weatherby does not say where he finds anything in
> > the following unclear or incorrect:
> >
> > <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
> >
> > He is just babbling bullshit.
> That you for the well thought out logical, clear, refreshing, and
> intelligent argument. I will let readers decide that for themselves.
Mr. Weatherby is still babbling. He still doesn't say where he finds
anything unclear or incorrect.
And I have nothing to apologize for calling bullshit on bullshit.
[>>> The problem Rob has is that he only reads Post-Keynesians who ]
[>>> believe they are following Robinson. ]
> > The above is simply an ignorant ad hominem. Robinson's methodological
> > point is different than my usual points in my numeric examples.
> >
> > And Mr. Weatherby simply cannot know what I read or do not read.
> I know what you post about and the criticism such as in this post that
> American economist are ignorant simply because they do not agree with
> your view.
I don't say that. However, I do think the usage of the phrase
"capital switching" or "capital reswitching" is indicative of
somebody that does not understand the conclusions agreed to
by both sides on the Cambridge Capital Controversy. For that
matter, Blaug's survey, for some right wing organization as
I understand it, is weakened by the technical errors it
contains.
> It is a logical conclusion to believe that you do not read
> ignorant work.
No, it isn't.
> You have posted on many ocassion your distate for
> anything you term mainstream and have few if any references from any
> referred journal that the majority of the field would be familar with.
I don't care.
> >>They realize price Wicksel
> >>effects are possible yet that relative scarcity is empirically dominate
> >>even if price Wicksel effects exist (Cohen and Harcourt 2003).
> > I think it misleading to cite Cohen and Harcourt to support Mr.
> > Weatherby's view. Cohen and Harcourt are merely saying that that is
> > what certain American economists think.
> Where did I say these were my views
"They realize [p]".
"As Cohen and Harcourt point out the English camp has some suffered
from a lack of empirical evidence."
"The Neo-Classical model has been a fruitful endeavor for empirical
work."
> this is Cohen and Harcourt's
> assement of American economist's views. They do not clearly support or
> not support the statement. They state this is the view of the
> Neo-Classical theory. I cite them because it is a very similar to waht
> Cohen and Harcourt wrote. It would be a statement you should agree with
> because it is a statement of Neo-Classical economist view the debate.
> The statement is positive not normative.
But if Mr. Weatherby says he didn't mean to say that these views
were true, but only held by certain economists - I will not argue.
> >>The
> >>authors also note that Solow's justification has always been that the
> >>model gives good empirical results. So the Cambridgians care mainly
> >>concerned about pure theory and not the empirical evidence to support
> >>the model.
> > Untrue and a non sequitur. If I demonstrate your theory is logically
> > untenable, that does not imply that I don't think having a
> > theory, in some sense, that works well empirically is unimportant.
> You can have your opinion but this again is Cohen and Harcourt's
> statement of Solow's view.
I don't think Mr. Weatherby can cite a statement justifying the
assignment of the following view to Solow: "the Cambridgians care
mainly concerned about pure theory and not the empirical evidence to
support the model."
It is true no amount of empirical evidence can remove a logical
inconsistency. But that doesn't mean somebody pointing out a logical
problem is not on other days concerned with positive empirical
results.
> Again read the article you will see I just
> paraphrased what was said which is why I cite them. I agree with Cohen
> and Harcourt in the end both sides are a matter of belief and opinion.
> You can not test if it is more important a model be a good predictor or
> theoritically consistent. This is opinion and not testable.
I don't know that empirical fit and consistency are opposed. And
I don't read Cohen and Harcourt as saying that they are either.
> >>There has never been a consequences on the significance of results.
> >>(Cohen and Harcourt 2003).
> > What Mr. Weatherby means to say is that there has never been a
> > consensus about significance of the results.
> uggh spell check. I must have hit replace too quickly. I should have
> learned by now not to rely on these silly tools.
Mr. Weatherby's language is not any clearer in this post.
> >>I think Rob and others interested in his post should read the article
> >>to
> >>get a clear view of both sides of the debate.
> > I already have some time ago.
> Sometime ago? Did you see the working paper? The Winter 2003 addition
> was sent out a little less than one year ago.
A year is some time ago. I've been doing some work on the Cambridge
Capital Controversy and other stuff since that time. Besides Cohen
and Harcourt are mostly echoing stuff I know.
> >>It also explains why
> >>Americans have paid little attention to arguments such as the one's Rob
> >>tends to post. The school is thought is completely different. We
> >>believe
> >>that you should empirically prove that it exist before you say it
> >>confuscates the model. The Cambridgians say make sure the model is
> >>perfectly theoritically clear before you test it. In order to get Rob's
> >>results you have to believe that functions are discontinous.
> > Nope.
> Again thanks for the refreshing, inteligent, and enlightening argument.
Since Mr. Weatherby never addresses arguments very well, why should
I elaborate?
> >>The debate is not for naught in America however. The debate did lead to
> >>General Equilibrium analysis as a response to Samuelson's parables.
> > The last sentence is badly phrased. But let it pass. Samuelson's
> > parables are know[n] to be generally false.
> If you read Cohen and Harcourt you would that is exactly why General
> Equilibrium analysis started.
That's not what they say, and they would be wrong if they had said
that.
> Did you read the whole article?
Yes.
> The
> authors state clearly that general equilibrium arose after the failure
> of the parables.
No, they don't. The American school, for example, Frank Hahn (!),
used general equilibrium in the mid 1970s as an argument
against the Anglo-Italians. But they did not invent General
Equilibrium for this purpose. The work of Walras, Hicks' Value
and Capital, and the Arrow-Debreu model of intertemporal
equilibrium already existed. If you cannot see this, you really
have no idea of the history of economic theory.
Although Cohen and Harcourt don't go into it much, the Anglo-Italians
argue that Hicks Value and Capital, for example, was a response
to dimly perceived problems in capital theory. And that the
difficulties highlighted by reswitching and capital reversing
arise in another form in General Equilibrium models.
> It was " motivated by Samuelson's quest, in his
> surrogate production function to "provide some rationalization for the
> validity of the simple J.B. Clark parables"" (Cohen and Harcourt 2003).
> Again did you really read the article? Did you read all of it or just
> the parts you previously agreed with?
> If you read the article it states clearly that the lack of evidence on
> either side has caused this to be a idelogical debate not a debate of
> theory.
So what? I can see Harcourt's point - he's had this view long
before teaming up with Cohen. But I know that that view is debated.
> As Cohen and Harcourt note "The intensity and passion of the
> Cambridge Controversy was not generated by abstract technical questions
> about Wicksel effects, but by strong ideological undercurrents like the
> ethnical justification of returns to capital and fundemental
> methodological questions about comparing deeply differing visions of
> economics and the extent to which equilibrium is a useful tool of
> economic analysis."
I'm actually willing to lean somewhat against Harcourt's view on the
importance of ideology for some of the direct participants, such
as Solow and Samuelson.
> This is why I haven't responded to you in a long while. You are not
> interested in the CCC for intellectual purposes you interested in making
> political statements. To an economist will the minimum wage lower
> employment is an equivalent statement to will a price control on pet
> rocks create a shortage of pet rocks. They are questions of prediction
> and if they are accurate to you the question on minimum wage is
> political. You confuse the analysis with trying to offer an alternative
> vision.
Ad hominen. And typically illiterate, as usual.
Ben Franklin
rama...@earthlink.net says...
> Why did you start this cross-posting, Pickle? Did you think you would get
> some support from the readers of sci.econ? How is that working out for you?
>
What a moron, pickle did not do that. As was discussed in a previous
post Robert Vienneau did. It was the general belief that you do not
read any of the posts and instead quickly launch into ad hominems just
from the very presence of a refutation of your garbage. Now we know it
to be so.
da pickle
"sci.econ" ... I am not interested in sci.econ and you came into the
rec.gambling.poker group and broke into a thread. You appear to me to be a
troll. If you are not a troll, I leave it to the other interested members
of sci.econ to argue your silly comments. You certainly have a interesting
way with words, but you make mutually inconsistent statements and then say
you did not say what you just said. This is troll bait. I do not intend to
continue cross posting to sci.econ. I do not intend to keep responding to
you.
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:4163994c...@news.telus.net...
da pickle
You are definitely trying to get back into "reasonable" mode after slipping
from troll-mode to pout-mode and it just is not working. (Where did those
sci.econ guys come from. Even the troll that tried initially to support you
has admitted that he agrees that the minimum-wage-is-a-good-thing argument
is a loser. In fairness, he also trolls a little that it is deminimus ...
however, he does not support that conclusion because he "assumes" a minimum
wage that is significantly below prevailing wage.)
da pickle
news:75B8d.3476$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c56dnbCIUMZ...@www.bayou.com...
> >
> > <ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:4161bea0...@news.telus.net...
> > > On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:08:10 -0500, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(no
> > > spam)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >You can
> > > >go back and reread the thread from the beginning and you will see the
> > > >glaring juxtaposition you seek.
> > >
> > > Nope. I've been reading the thread, and the contradiction you claim
> > > he uttered exists only in what you are no doubt pleased to call your
> > > "mind."
> > >
> > > -- Roy L
> >
> >
> > Which contradiction is that, Roy?
>
> The contradiction you claim exists between two statements I made, you
> disingenuous dork. Too funny, Pickle. You have been caught lying when
you
> claimed I had made inconsistent statements. You refuse to specify which
> statements you are talking about. You are a liar, pure and simple.
> Everyone who reads this thread knows it.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Why does he "know" the contradiction and you do not, William? This Roy guy
is from sci.econ land. I am sure that he is well loved there. He seems to
be counter-trolling you in this thread from another group. What an
interesting dilemma for you. Being supported and then unsupported by a
troll from another world. The irony.
da pickle
> > "William Coleman"
> >
> > > Of course I can be wrong. If you knew my intellectual history, you
> would
> > > know that, based on new evidence or arguments, I have changed my mind
> many
> > > times about many different things. That is why I know so much now,
> > because
> > > I am constantly testing my theories against the data of reality.
> >
> > This is one of those times, William, when you must "change your mind."
> Good
> > luck.
>
> You are 100% correct, Pickle. I used to think you were rational,
> intelligent, and well-educated. I also thought you had intellectual
> integrity. Now I realize you are a liar and have zero intellectual
> integrity. I also realize that you are irrational, stupid, and poorly
> educated, at least in economics.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
It is not like you to change your mind (if you are in reasonable-mode) on
such limited information. The guys from sci.econ have slipped into this
thread here on rec.gambling.poker and got you all confused. Your theory
that demand is not effected by an arbitrary setting of any "wage" is a poor
theory. That under certain circumstances that one could define, a minimum
wage might have no effect on anything because the minimum is insignificant
compared to the labor market is not a refutation of the general comment that
(as a general proposition) an artificially set "minimum wage" is not a "good
thing."
da pickle
> "Ben Franklin" <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bcbe95e4...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...
> > In article <gv04m05bdq0ori56d...@4ax.com>, root@localhost.
> > says...
> > > >> Actually, no, y(x) is not a function. The function is y. y(x) is
the
> > > >> value of y at x.
> > > >
> > > >Actually, yes. You are wrong. What I stated is correct.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You need to go back to school, then, to get it right.
> > >
> >
> > The thing with Coleman is that he is always wrong.
>
> Yeah, right. I am always wrong. I have shown you to be wrong in every
> interchange of posts we have had.
Ben is not correct when he says you are "always wrong," William. You are
not correct when you say that you have shown him to be wrong in "every
interchange of posts" that the two of you have had. Both of you are
sometimes wrong and sometimes right ... sometimes, however, you (WIlliam) go
into troll-mode and you just go off on a rant. It is sometimes a faily
sophisticated rant, but a rant nonetheless. Seldom to you go into pout-mode
like you have here and started whining about people not responding to you.
That is pretty lame and beneath you. I am surprised you have not gotten so
bored with this thread that you just gave it up.
> > When confronted he
> > first tries to obfuscate what he said and what is in fact correct.
>
> You are engaged in classic projection. This describes your behavior to a
T.
This you-said-I-said ... you did it first sort of blather is also beheath
you, William.
> > If
> > you press him and continue to point out his error he then proceeds to
> > call you stupid.
>
> Again, you are describing your behavior perfectly.
You can do better than that, William.
> > If that doesn't work he then moves onto shouting (ALL
> > CAPS) and even more vitriol laden ad hominems. He then declares himself
> > correct and uses his 200 posts of verbal sewage as proof. LOL.
>
> Amazing how you just do not realize how you are projecting your own
> inadequacies onto me. Having lost every argument you have had with me,
you
> now think you can change the result with rhetorical handwaving.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramahshiva)
Just being repetitious is also not your normal pithy repartee. There seems
to be a quite different "william" easing into this thread. Something that
seems to come after reasonable-william becomes troll-william and then morphs
into pout-william and then this new character. We will need a new name for
this new william. Perhaps there should be a contest.
da pickle
> > > When analysts say that the high price of oil is due to increased
demand,
> > > they do not mean that total oil consumption,the quantity demanded, has
> > > increased.
> >
> > One more time, William, you demonstrate that you just don't "get it."
>
> Wrong again, Pickle. As usual, you snip my post and quote me out of
> context. All your post demonstrates is that "demand" is frequently
> incorrectly used as a synonym for "quantity demanded". Here is what I
said
> in the sentence following your snip -- "They mean that the demand curve
has
> shifted to the right, indicating that oil consumers are willing to buy an
> increased quantity of oil at any given price." I stand by that statement.
> It is not correct to say prices are higher because more oil is being
> consumed. The underlying cause is that the demand curve has shifted to
the
> right. That is what it means to say demand has increased. When the
demand
> curve shifts to the right, both the price and quantity demanded increase.
> The fundamental cause is the rightward shift of the demand curve. Both
the
> increase in price and increase in quantity demanded are dependent effects.
> It is fundamentally wrong to then turn around and say the increase in
> quantity demanded is the cause of the price increase.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Why do you continue to say these same things over and over, William. Prices
go up (under the very general circumstances of this discussion) when demand
increases with the same supply available. If you do not understand that
when "consumers" "ask for more" of a product "today" than they were "asking
for" "yesterday" it has no effect on prices the day after tomorrow, then
you just do not get it. (That the increased demand also has other effects,
like on the pressure for more supply, does not negate the general thought
that increased demand has a pressure effect on prices in the future.) All
of this is overly simplified if the discussion is carried beyond just the
most basic of thoughts. The real world is much more complex than this
discussion can approach but the general principles are clear. (You seem to
be hung up on the definition of the word "the" as opposed to the thought
that it might be an "a.")
da pickle
> > > > In article <GLf8d.2500$UP1.2081
> > > > @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, rama...@earthlink.net
> > > > says...
> > > > > Huh??? You are totally delusional, Pickle. You and Ben Franklin
> got
> > > your
> > > > > asses totally kicked in this debate, and you both know it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Still trying Coleman? The game was over several posts ago and
> > > > you lost. LOL
> > >
> > > Go ahead and trash talk all you want. You lost the debate badly, and
> most
> > > of the readers of this thread will see that clearly.
> > >
> > > William Coleman (ramashiva)
> >
> > Readers read and get to decide for themselves, William. The best hand
> > always wins the pot at showdown.
>
> That's right, Pickle. I am holding four aces. You are holding a busted
> flush draw. You are trying to substitute trash talk for arguments.
>
> By the way, I just noticed that my replies to you are being cross-posted
to
> sci.econ. At what point in the debate did you start this? You really
> should have mentioned that you had done this, Pickle. I just now noticed
> that my replies are being cross-posted.
>
> Any readers at sci.econ, I encourage you to read the original thread on
> rec.gambling.poker, as I am sure Pickle has somehow manipulated the
> cross-posting to prevent all my posts in this thread being seen. Only my
> replies to Pickle are being cross-posted, and I have also replied to other
> posters in this thread.
>
> Why did you start this cross-posting, Pickle? Did you think you would get
> some support from the readers of sci.econ? How is that working out for
you?
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Since I have already pointed out this fact and also named Roy L as the
person responsible for the cross posting .... and Roy L has suddenly
appeared as your "buddy" I am tempted to believe that maybe you are using a
sock puppet. This certainly would be yet a fourth incarnation of "william"
that must be dealt with. (When Roy L began the cross posting, all the
replies have been cross posted. Can you not even see that, William? That
is truly beneath you.)
Now changing the entire thread away from the "minimum wage" argument is much
more like you. It has been fun, but you are definitely in uber-troll mode
and perhaps the "ignore them and they will go away" is the best thought.
You may go into pout-mode next or you may go into cheering-myself-mode.
Either may be better than the flip-flopping that you demonstrate here.
Igor
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:52:16 GMT, Igor <jjwea...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>William Coleman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When did Samuelson offer this opinion? It was probably before 1995, when
>>>Card and Krueger published their book. You are trying to refute empirical
>>>facts with opinion. Samuelson was merely giving the view of classical
>>>economics, which is contradicted by the actual facts. When theory is
>>>contradicted by facts, the theory must change.
>>>
>>
>>Kard and Kreuger is not the only study on the minimum wage conducted
>>since 1995. There is no need for opinion to refute Card and Kreuger this
>>is tons of empirical evidence to do it.
>
>
> Where?
>
>
I will have to refind the references to post them. If you can get into
JSTOR.org it is a good place to start but you have to a subscription so
if you aren't affiliated with an institution to subscribes to the
service it will not help much. Most University librabies have a
searchable database called EnonLit that can be used if you really want
to learn more on the subject rather than spouting off.
It may take a little while for me to refind the references.
Unfortunately just a month or two ago when cleaning out my files, I
dumped the massive amount papers I collected when I had to take a
graduate level labor econometrics class back in 1998 or 1999. I dumped
these because, I have lost interest in the subject. The references do
exist. I think the first place to look would be the handbook of labor
economics. I believe this was published after 1995. I am almost certain
it cites Card and Kreuger and the work done after it. I plan to go to
the library on tomorrow if I have time I will pick it up and look up the
references. That is if I have time. I have to obtain several papers on a
subject much more important to what I am currently working so I will try
to take a look. No promises though. As much as I would like to like to
post as many counter references as possible to prove the point I do have
priorities and usenet is a low priority.
ro...@telus.net
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>"William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:VLC8d.3567$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> Why did you start this cross-posting, Pickle? Did you think you would get
>> some support from the readers of sci.econ? How is that working out for
>you?
>
>Since I have already pointed out this fact and also named Roy L as the
>person responsible for the cross posting
That claim is false. I do not read rgp and have _only_ responded to
posts in sci.econ. Until William mentioned it, I did not even notice
that the thread was crossposted in rgp (what this topic is doing
_there_ is anyone's guess).
>.... and Roy L has suddenly
>appeared as your "buddy"
I am truth's buddy.
>I am tempted to believe that maybe you are using a
>sock puppet.
I have had no contact with William Coleman.
>This certainly would be yet a fourth incarnation of "william"
>that must be dealt with. (When Roy L began the cross posting, all the
>replies have been cross posted. Can you not even see that, William? That
>is truly beneath you.)
I repeat, I did not initiate the crossposting, and have only responded
to posts that were already in sci.econ.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>In article <h2G8d.38931$N.1...@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Igor
><jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> To an economist will the minimum wage lower
>> employment is an equivalent statement to will a price control on pet
>> rocks create a shortage of pet rocks.
To _Igor_ those are equivalent statements. Economists know better.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>I am intentionally top posting this because it is being cross posted to
>"sci.econ" ... I am not interested in sci.econ and you came into the
>rec.gambling.poker group and broke into a thread.
That is false. I have never read rgp.
>You appear to me to be a
>troll. If you are not a troll, I leave it to the other interested members
>of sci.econ to argue your silly comments. You certainly have a interesting
>way with words, but you make mutually inconsistent statements and then say
>you did not say what you just said.
You are a liar.
>This is troll bait. I do not intend to
>continue cross posting to sci.econ. I do not intend to keep responding to
>you.
Very wise.
-- Roy L
da pickle
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 07:50:10 -0500, "da pickle"
> <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I am intentionally top posting this because it is being cross posted to
> >"sci.econ" ... I am not interested in sci.econ and you came into the
> >rec.gambling.poker group and broke into a thread.
>
> That is false. I have never read rgp.
I did not say that you "read" RGP, I said that you broke into a thread in
RGP. You are posting this very message in RGP. Please stop.
Robert Vienneau
from rec.gambling.poker to sci.econ:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Franklin <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <VLC8d.3567$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> rama...@earthlink.net says...
> > Why did you start this cross-posting, Pickle?
> What a moron, pickle did not do that. As was discussed in a previous
> post Robert Vienneau did....
---------------------------------------------------------
Not that "Ben Franklin" has any of the substance of the
economics correct. So if William Coleman must be a moron
because he incorrectly accused "jcpickels" of cross-posting,
what must this post addressed to Roy L. say about "jcpickels"
intelligence:
---------------------------------------------------------
In article <FbCdnb6B4YC...@www.bayou.com>, "da pickle"
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
> I am intentionally top posting this because it is being cross posted to
> "sci.econ" ... I am not interested in sci.econ and you came into the
> rec.gambling.poker group and broke into a thread. You appear to me to be
> a troll.
------------------------------------------------------------
And jcpickels continues to demonstrate his level of intelligence
with this post addressed to William Coleman:
----------------------------------------------------------------
In article <hu-dnRO0ONn...@www.bayou.com>, "da pickle"
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
> Since I have already pointed out this fact and also named Roy L as the
> person responsible for the cross posting .... and Roy L has suddenly
> appeared as your "buddy" I am tempted to believe that maybe you are using
> a
> sock puppet. This certainly would be yet a fourth incarnation of
> "william"
> that must be dealt with. (When Roy L began the cross posting, all the
> replies have been cross posted. Can you not even see that, William?
> That
> is truly beneath you.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
But since jcpickels thinks that somehow the supposed (but
unobservable) employment-decreasing effects of minimum wages
is not on topic for sci.econ, let me turn to more of a
meta-topic:
-------------------------------------------------------------
In article <LZydnblY2tX...@www.bayou.com>, "da pickle"
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
Actually, those who can read see that Roy is saying that "jcpickels"
has not shown any contradiction in William Coleman's statements. I
generally think Roy isn't too clear on certain points in economics - I
am surprised by several statements he has made supportive of me
recently. But in this case, Roy is, of course, correct. "jcpickels",
who seems to have a sufficient qualification to be soon parted from his
money, has not demonstrated any contradiction in William Coleman's
statements.
I think William Coleman is relying on an exploded economic theory.
But "jcpickels" has a much, much less idea of what the issues are.
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
Ben Franklin
> >I am tempted to believe that maybe you are using a
> >sock puppet.
>
> I have had no contact with William Coleman.
>
Admit it, you are Coleman.
da pickle
<snip>
> I repeat, I did not initiate the crossposting, and have only responded
> to posts that were already in sci.econ.
>
> -- Roy L
I do not know who started the cross posting. It seems to have been you, Roy
L. Perhaps William did it. Perhaps it is some plot hatched by gremlins. I
do not know from sci.econ. You can remove the rec.gambling.poker from your
posting header and it will all stop ... instantly.
da pickle
news:rvien-EF3DC7....@news.dreamscape.com...
> "Ben Franklin" correctly points out that I was the first to cross post
> from rec.gambling.poker to sci.econ:
Thank heavens that someone takes responsibility. There must have been a
cross post even higher than the one that I found. Mea culpa. Just stop.
Igor
For an economist it is exactly the same question. What is the effect on
the market when the government sets a minimum price for a good. In one
case it is labor which people care about. In the other it is pet rocks
which most people do not care about. Intellectually the questions are
identical. The same tools and identical analysis apply. Well at least
once demand curves and supply curves have been estimated. Politically
the questions differ greatly.
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Avi J. Cohen and G.C. Harcourt "Retrospectives: Whatever happened to the
> Cambridge Capital Theory Controversy", The Journal of Economic
> Perspectives Volume 17 No. 1 Winter 2003.
In case anybody cares, this article is available on-line at:
http://dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohen/Linked_Documents/JEP_Cohen_Harcourt.p
df
ro...@telus.net
spam)hotmail.com> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:416447f2...@news.telus.net...
>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 07:50:10 -0500, "da pickle"
>> <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I am intentionally top posting this because it is being cross posted to
>> >"sci.econ" ... I am not interested in sci.econ and you came into the
>> >rec.gambling.poker group and broke into a thread.
>>
>> That is false. I have never read rgp.
>
>I did not say that you "read" RGP, I said that you broke into a thread in
>RGP.
?? How could I, without reading rgp?
>You are posting this very message in RGP. Please stop.
Look at the title of this thread, and then tell me if it is more
appropriate to rgp or se.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>"Ben Franklin" correctly points out that I was the first to cross post
>from rec.gambling.poker to sci.econ:
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Ben Franklin <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <VLC8d.3567$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> rama...@earthlink.net says...
>
>> > Why did you start this cross-posting, Pickle?
>
>> What a moron, pickle did not do that. As was discussed in a previous
>> post Robert Vienneau did....
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
OK. So, the only question now is, why was this thread originally
started in rgp instead of se?
FTR, I am aware that your summary of the CCC and your critique of the
standard neoclassical line on return to capital are valid, and AFAIK I
have never taken issue with them. However, we part company when you
go from that to the idea that any return to capital "exploits" labor.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 04:03:24 -0400, Robert Vienneau
>> <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <h2G8d.38931$N.1...@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Igor
>>><jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>To an economist will the minimum wage lower
>>>>employment is an equivalent statement to will a price control on pet
>>>>rocks create a shortage of pet rocks.
>>
>> To _Igor_ those are equivalent statements. Economists know better.
>
>For an economist it is exactly the same question.
Nope. Only to a freshman.
>What is the effect on
>the market when the government sets a minimum price for a good. In one
>case it is labor which people care about. In the other it is pet rocks
>which most people do not care about. Intellectually the questions are
>identical.
No. The logic of the two questions is only similar for the first
order effects. Economists must think deeper than that.
>The same tools and identical analysis apply.
Nope. Only at the most superficial level.
>Well at least
>once demand curves and supply curves have been estimated.
And what of follow-on effects? Blank out.
-- Roy L
da pickle
I suppose it might be of interest to sci.econ ... that is fine ... it
started in RGP ... why it got to SE, I do not know. I have my suspicions.
I am not interested in what appears to be "your" newsgroup ... at least the
one you are reading this in ... not me. I am not interested in sci.econ.
Robert Vienneau
<jcpickels@(no spam)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I
> do not know from sci.econ. You can remove the rec.gambling.poker from
> your
> posting header and it will all stop ... instantly.
Nothing will stop you from demonstrating your stupidity on Usenet.
Here are 562 economists, including some "Nobel" laureates and
past presidents of the American Economic Association, who think
a raise in the minimum wage in the United States is a good idea:
<http://www.epinet.org/stmt/economistsminwage200410web.pdf>
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >>In article <h2G8d.38931$N.1...@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Igor
> >><jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>To an economist will the minimum wage lower
> >>>employment is an equivalent statement to will a price control on pet
> >>>rocks create a shortage of pet rocks.
> For an economist it is exactly the same question. What is the effect on
> the market when the government sets a minimum price for a good. In one
> case it is labor which people care about. In the other it is pet rocks
> which most people do not care about. Intellectually the questions are
> identical. The same tools and identical analysis apply. Well at least
> once demand curves and supply curves have been estimated.
The above is significantly question-begging.
It is also simply wrong. Equation A-28 in
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/Sraffa3.pdf>
is:
p A (1 + r) + a0 w = p
Wages (w) and the prices of consumer goods (some of the elements
of p) enter the equation differently.
Furthermore, there is William Coleman's point about when income
effects are important.
> Politically
> the questions differ greatly.
Mr. Weatherby is free to continue to insist that his refusal to
accept arithmetic is a matter of politics. I will not argue.
da pickle
> In article <wImdnQLLHqJ...@www.bayou.com>, "da pickle"
> <jcpickels@(no spam)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I
> > do not know from sci.econ. You can remove the rec.gambling.poker from
> > your
> > posting header and it will all stop ... instantly.
>
> Nothing will stop you from demonstrating your stupidity on Usenet.
>
>
>
> Here are 562 economists, including some "Nobel" laureates and
> past presidents of the American Economic Association, who think
> a raise in the minimum wage in the United States is a good idea:
That you can find 562 economists and thousands of regular people who "think"
that raising the minimum wage is a "good" thing is not surprising to me.
That you "think" that makes anyone who disagrees is stupid says much more
about you than those that disagree with you. You have your opinion and
there are people that agree with you. There are others that disagree. You
are not stupid (or maybe you are, I have no opinion as to that) but neither
are they. I am finished with you.
Igor
Mr. Vienneau misses the point here. I never said demand curves for a
final good and demand curves for labor are identical. I am quite aware
labor demands are derived from the demand for final goods. This does not
change the fact that the question is identical. It is a question of what
the effect of a price control is on the market. Yes the demand curves
are dervived differently. This does not mean that market works
fundemental differently.
Rob insist that the law of demand does not apply to labor. There is no
evidence to show this. Not even Card and Kreuger necessarily shows this.
The point that the demand curve is derived differently or perhaps
different properties does not change the fact a minimum wage is a price
floor. The analysis of the effect of a price control is identical under
both settings. The difference is how you estimate demand and supply.
Rob could have easily argued that the determinates of Labor supply are
different as well. It does not disprove the argument. Once the Demand
and Supply curves are derived and estimated the analysis of a price
control is the same.
Yes economic analysis does play a role in forming normative statements
about what SHOULD be done. It does not tell us what SHOULD be done. It
predicts the effect of what WAS done or what WILL be done. There are
many economist who support the minimum wage who will tell you an
employment lost exist. They argue it is small and they argue who it
hits. In this case mostly high schoolers and not people who support
families. A good percentage of minimum wage workers are high school and
college students not heads of householder. Even "minimum wage jobs" pay
moare than minimum wages to anyone who has worked there for some time.
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>Robert Vienneau *IS* stupid! Pretty much everyone on sci.econ knows
>that by now.
That is false. Even those on sci.econ who disagree with some or all
of what Mr. Vienneau says are generally intelligent enough to know
that he is not stupid.
However, you are obviously not that intelligent.
-- Roy L
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
> > In article <eK09d.1600$sY3...@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Igor
> > <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>>In article <h2G8d.38931$N.1...@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Igor
> >>>><jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>>>To an economist will the minimum wage lower
> >>>>>employment is an equivalent statement to will a price control on pet
> >>>>>rocks create a shortage of pet rocks.
> >>For an economist it is exactly the same question. What is the effect on
> >>the market when the government sets a minimum price for a good. In one
> >>case it is labor which people care about. In the other it is pet rocks
> >>which most people do not care about. Intellectually the questions are
> >>identical. The same tools and identical analysis apply. Well at least
> >>once demand curves and supply curves have been estimated.
> > The above is significantly question-begging.
> >
> > It is also simply wrong...
> >
> > p A (1 + r) + a0 w = p
> >
> > Wages (w) and the prices of consumer goods (some of the elements
> > of p) enter the equation differently.
> >
> > Furthermore, there is William Coleman's point about when income
> > effects are important.
> >>Politically
> >>the questions differ greatly.
> > Mr. Weatherby is free to continue to insist that his refusal to
> > accept arithmetic is a matter of politics. I will not argue.
> Mr. Vienneau misses the point here. I never said demand curves for a
> final good and demand curves for labor are identical. I am quite aware
> labor demands are derived from the demand for final goods. This does not
> change the fact that the question is identical. It is a question of what
> the effect of a price control is on the market. Yes the demand curves
> are dervived differently. This does not mean that market works
> fundemental differently.
The above is significantly question-begging. If Mr. Weatherby understood
Cohen and Harcourt (2003), he would know the applicability of supply
curves to consumer markets and the applicability of demand curves to
labor markets are in dispute. As Harcurt has said elsewhere:
"...price as an index of scarcity cannot be made coherent in the
supply-and-demand framework, which I think is the principal Sraffian
critique... you might as well give up neoclassical economics as a
conceptual illumination because the results aren't robust enough to
go through, though you can pretend that they do. All these one-sector
models pretend that there's a well-behaved demand curve for capital.
-- J. E. King, _Converstions with Post Keynesians_, St. Martin's
Press, 1995
(By the way, as for when I first read Cohen and Harcourt, look at
footnote 1 in:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/Sraffa3.pdf>
The date and time stamp on this file can be seen at:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/>
The file is dated 28-Aug-2004. I actually produced that PDF
file sometime before that.)
I know of no reason technology cannot be such that
capital-reversing and related effects are manifested in long-run
models with technology specified to match the technology in, say,
selected vertically integrated markets in the U.S. economy. Mr.
Weatherby, like all other economists, cannot even specify assumptions
on technology needed to rule out capital-reversing. So the
following seems to me to be a non sequitur:
> Rob insist that the law of demand does not apply to labor. There is no
> evidence to show this.
Nope. As empirical evidence of Sraffa effects and my favorite framework
consider:
Albin, P. S. (1975). "Reswitching: An Empirical Observation",
Kyklos. V. 28, p. 149-153.
Han, Z. and Schefold, B. (2003). "An Empirical Investigation
of Paradoxes (Reswitching and Reverse Capital Deepening) in
Capital Theory. September. (On the web somewhere.)
Ozanne, A. (1996). "Do Supply Curves Slope Up? The Empirical
Relevance of the Sraffian Critique of Neoclassical Production
Economics", Cambridge Journal of Economics. V. 20, p. 749-
762.
Prince, R. and Rosser, J. B., Jr. (1985). "Some Implications of
Delayed Environmental Costs for Benefit Cost Analysis: A
Study of Reswitching in the Western Coal Lands", Growth
and Change. V. 16, p. 18-25.
Zambelli, S. (2004). "The 40% Neoclassical Aggregate Theory of
Production", Cambridge Journal of Economics. V. 28, Iss. 1, p.
99-120, January.
I have pointed these references out to Mr. Weatherby before on this
thread. He deleted them with no comment. Now he is repeating his
error. This does not seem like honest behavior.
> Not even Card and Kreuger necessarily shows this.
> The point that the demand curve is derived differently or perhaps
> different properties does not change the fact a minimum wage is a price
> floor. The analysis of the effect of a price control is identical under
> both settings. The difference is how you estimate demand and supply.
Nope. Still question-begging.
I think the typical mainstream economist's dogma about the effects
of rent controls is balderdash. But I don't argue that because
models with rent in my favorite framework are considerably more
complex than the models I usually present here. That is, the
analysis of the effect of a price control is different for
different types of commodities.
> Rob could have easily argued that the determinates of Labor supply are
> different as well.
Nope. The utility-maximizing framework that models consumers trading
off goods and leisure also yields consumer demand.
> It does not disprove the argument. Once the Demand
> and Supply curves are derived and estimated the analysis of a price
> control is the same.
Still question-begging.
> Yes economic analysis does play a role in forming normative statements
> about what SHOULD be done. It does not tell us what SHOULD be done. It
> predicts the effect of what WAS done or what WILL be done.
The above is irrelevant to any point I've made. It is Mr. Weatherby
that is rejecting any discussion of substantial points and who is
holding on to an exploded economic theory, perhaps because of
political ideology.
> There are
> many economist who support the minimum wage who will tell you an
> employment lost exist. They argue it is small and they argue who it
> hits. In this case mostly high schoolers and not people who support
> families. A good percentage of minimum wage workers are high school and
> college students not heads of householder. Even "minimum wage jobs" pay
> moare than minimum wages to anyone who has worked there for some time.
I am aware that many mainstream economists often thought highly of
by their peers cling to exploded theory, whatever their politics. These
claims rely on a mistaken belief which way the effects must go,
whether they are large or small. Here is an economist who knows
that this belief is mistaken:
<http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0111/white.pdf>
Here's an argument about this point:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
(I've updated that file this morning.)
Cohen and Harcourt (2003) write:
"The fight was far from over because THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT ON
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ALL OF THESE RESULTS. The two sides used
different criteria to judge the agreed upon outcomes of the
controversy."
Perhaps Mr. Weatherby, like any specialist in growth theory
conforming to what should be good scholarly ethics, should learn
what the "agreed upon outcomes" are.
Igor
>>Not even Card and Kreuger necessarily shows this.
>>The point that the demand curve is derived differently or perhaps
>>different properties does not change the fact a minimum wage is a price
>>floor. The analysis of the effect of a price control is identical under
>>both settings. The difference is how you estimate demand and supply.
>
>
> Nope. Still question-begging.
>
> I think the typical mainstream economist's dogma about the effects
> of rent controls is balderdash. But I don't argue that because
> models with rent in my favorite framework are considerably more
> complex than the models I usually present here. That is, the
> analysis of the effect of a price control is different for
> different types of commodities.
>
A rent control is a price ceiling. You still don't understand what I am
saying. The way a price control is analyzed, that is the tools used are
the same once demand and supply curves are estimated, assuming perfect
competition.
You can argue demand or supply curves look different. It does not change
the tools of analysis. It does not change the fact that the analysis of
any price control uses the same tools. I may not get the exact results
as to what happens when a price control is placed on pet rocks as I do
with the labor market. Elasticities can differ, the amount of the price
control can differ, etc. The fact it is the same analysis and holds
equal interest. Neither is a political statement in and of itself. The
results can be used as a basis for political statements but neither are
politicial statement.
Lets assume I say to you that putting a price control on widgets of 5%
will decrease the quantity of widgets sold by 1%. THIS IS NOT A
POLITICAL STATEMENT.
A political statement can be made. For instance I may argue that the
increased revenues, assuming demand is inelastic, out weigh the decrease
in sales. The facts companies make more money is more important than the
loss of welfare to consume. I am not saying I agree with the statement
but it is possible to be said.
An alternative political statement can be made that prices for consumers
should not rise. These are political statements based on a completely
non-political argument.
>
>>Rob could have easily argued that the determinates of Labor supply are
>>different as well.
>
>
> Nope. The utility-maximizing framework that models consumers trading
> off goods and leisure also yields consumer demand.
>
You are way too on the defensive to realize what the argument says. I
did not mention rather your models were right or wrong in this
statement. I am only proving that the 2 statements are a political. It
is how you interpert the statements that make them political.
Consumer demand will affect prices and demand for the final good but it
also affects labor supply.
>>Yes economic analysis does play a role in forming normative statements
>>about what SHOULD be done. It does not tell us what SHOULD be done. It
>>predicts the effect of what WAS done or what WILL be done.
>
>
> The above is irrelevant to any point I've made. It is Mr. Weatherby
> that is rejecting any discussion of substantial points and who is
> holding on to an exploded economic theory, perhaps because of
> political ideology.
>
Quite the opposite. The statement that the effect of a price control on
pet rocks is the same question as a price control on labor is not
political. It shows that the nature of the question is not political to
an economist. The nature of the question is to determine the effect on
the market not rather morally speaking if something should be done.
The job of the economist is to predict the effect not to say if the
policy is morally correct.
>
>>There are
>>many economist who support the minimum wage who will tell you an
>>employment lost exist. They argue it is small and they argue who it
>>hits. In this case mostly high schoolers and not people who support
>>families. A good percentage of minimum wage workers are high school and
>>college students not heads of householder. Even "minimum wage jobs" pay
>>moare than minimum wages to anyone who has worked there for some time.
>
>
> I am aware that many mainstream economists often thought highly of
> by their peers cling to exploded theory, whatever their politics. These
> claims rely on a mistaken belief which way the effects must go,
> whether they are large or small. Here is an economist who knows
> that this belief is mistaken:
>
The argument was never about your views on mainstream economic theory.
These are just opinions about how things should be done. I can not prove
or disprove an opinion. The argument is that economic analysis is not in
of itself political. Serious economist do not make judgements on models
and evidence based on political motivations. We make judgements based on
evidence and the correctness of the application of techniques used.
You are too wrapped in defending your opinion and belief in Post
Keynesian theory to see a simple argument about what economic analysis
does and what it does not do.
Igor
> Nope. As empirical evidence of Sraffa effects and my favorite framework
> consider:
>
> Albin, P. S. (1975). "Reswitching: An Empirical Observation",
> Kyklos. V. 28, p. 149-153.
>
> Han, Z. and Schefold, B. (2003). "An Empirical Investigation
> of Paradoxes (Reswitching and Reverse Capital Deepening) in
> Capital Theory. September. (On the web somewhere.)
>
> Ozanne, A. (1996). "Do Supply Curves Slope Up? The Empirical
> Relevance of the Sraffian Critique of Neoclassical Production
> Economics", Cambridge Journal of Economics. V. 20, p. 749-
> 762.
>
> Prince, R. and Rosser, J. B., Jr. (1985). "Some Implications of
> Delayed Environmental Costs for Benefit Cost Analysis: A
> Study of Reswitching in the Western Coal Lands", Growth
> and Change. V. 16, p. 18-25.
>
> Zambelli, S. (2004). "The 40% Neoclassical Aggregate Theory of
> Production", Cambridge Journal of Economics. V. 28, Iss. 1, p.
> 99-120, January.
>
> I have pointed these references out to Mr. Weatherby before on this
> thread. He deleted them with no comment. Now he is repeating his
> error. This does not seem like honest behavior.
>
It is hard to refute them when you uses references like "on the web
somewhere". You might as well say in the library somewhere.
Then there is the reference do Supply Curves Slope Up? It automatically
states a misunderstanding of mainstream theory. There is no law of
supply. We all know the conditions for an upwarding sloping supply curve
assume diminishing returns which is only valid in the short run. Labor
economist show the theoritical possibility that labor supply curves can
bend backward when the wealth effect exceeds the substitution effect so
the answer found could not be amazingly revealing. Well not from the
view point of someone who has a proper education in economics. It is
amazing to the uneducated who look at a bad textbook and assume a law of
supply exist. It is surprising to those who did not finish a
microeconomics principle course and do not realize shockingly enough
that supply curves only exist for perfect competition and that models of
perfect competition are rarely used.
I may take a look at the last referrence but I doubt it because it has
nothing to do with my work. Rob you still know little about modern
mainstream economics.
For instance you really thought Romer measured capital in dollars
because the intro tried to explain a point of why the Solow model was
wrong using dollar measurements. Something I am really surprised you
tried to refute. You are still completely unaware that the CCC does not
apply to modern growth models. These model focus on Human capital or
Research and Development. THe Clarkian notion of capital is not used in
R&D models. In fact some R&D models do not even include capital in the
analysis.
In short the response is similar to Cohen and Harcourt. It really does
not seem to apply. The arguments died with the arguers just as they had
80 years earlier. They may reappear again, yet Rob you do not know
enough about what is happening in the literature to realize that
Dixit-Stiglitz 1978 revolutionized economic modeling in allowing
ecomonist to apply imperfect competition to macro models. Something that
was not possible before. The assumptions of neo-classical production are
founded on perfect competition and often constant returns. Neither is
necessary to make a model tractable any more. It makes no sense to talk
of supply curves if you are talking about a model of imperfect competition.
I am very surprised. I did not make any sort of personal attack and
recognized that the theories you speak of have been mentioned recently
in one of the top 5 mainstream journals. I made a simple argument that
politics and economics are seperate issues. Yet you are extermely
defensive and now trying to prove economic analysis is political analysis.
You still do not see that the choice between Post-Keynesianism and
Neo-Classical models are a matter of belief. I do personally believe you
prefer Post-Keynesian analysis because it brings economics back to the
last of the classical economist Marx. It is the only explanation for
your passion to disprove Neo-Classical economics. There is a reason
there is little attention to the issue today.
Finally your application of capital switching models to labor is solely
your application. None of the citations prove anything about what
happens to a market when minimum wages are implied. If you knew how to
right properly and explain models rather than write down several
equations and proclaim Q.E.D. you could try to publish these articles on
your website in a Post-Keynesian journal. I would be interested in
knowing if the Post-Keynesians other than you would agree with your
analysis. Assuming that you could present it in a coherent way.
I can post working papers on the web as well. It means little. The true
test is if colleagues in your field agree that the analysis is correct
and interesting. This is only shown by publishing in the journals of
your field. In short if you are correct and your analysis is so good
then why does it remain unpublished after years of being posted on the
web. Perhaps it is your inability to write a publishable paper perhaps
it is because Post-Keynesians do not agree with you or think your
analysis is wrong. I do not know.
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
> >>The point that the demand curve is derived differently or perhaps
> >>different properties does not change the fact a minimum wage is a price
> >>floor. The analysis of the effect of a price control is identical under
> >>both settings. The difference is how you estimate demand and supply.
> > Nope. Still question-begging.
> >
> > ...in my favorite framework... the
> > analysis of the effect of a price control is different for
> > different types of commodities.
> A rent control is a price ceiling. You still don't understand what I am
> saying. The way a price control is analyzed, that is the tools used are
> the same once demand and supply curves are estimated, assuming perfect
> competition.
Still question-begging. In my favorite framework, the tools used
for analyzing the effects of a price control are different for
different types of commodities. And the mainstream view of demand
and supply is inapplicable in that framework.
"...price as an index of scarcity cannot be made coherent in the
supply-and-demand framework, which I think is the principal Sraffian
critique... you might as well give up neoclassical economics as a
conceptual illumination because the results aren't robust enough to
go through, though you can pretend that they do."
-- J. E. King, _Converstions with Post Keynesians_, St. Martin's
Press, 1995
> [Non responsive babbling - deleted. ]
> >>Rob could have easily argued that the determinates of Labor supply are
> >>different as well.
> > Nope. The utility-maximizing framework that models consumers trading
> > off goods and leisure also yields consumer demand.
> [Off topic and illiterate babbling - deleted. ]
> >>Yes economic analysis does play a role in forming normative statements
> >>about what SHOULD be done. It does not tell us what SHOULD be done. It
> >>predicts the effect of what WAS done or what WILL be done.
> > The above is irrelevant to any point I've made. It is Mr. Weatherby
> > that is rejecting any discussion of substantial points and who is
> > holding on to an exploded economic theory, perhaps because of
> > political ideology.
> [ More babbling, including expressions of naive positivism - ]
> [ deleted. ]
Some Texans have read at least some of the literature on methodology
in economics. Here's one:
<http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/bleiter/archives/001637.html>
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
[ >>> Rob insist that the law of demand does not apply to labor. There ]
[ >>> is no evidence to show this. ]
> > Nope. As empirical evidence of Sraffa effects and my favorite framework
> > consider:
> >
> > Albin, P. S. (1975). "Reswitching: An Empirical Observation",
> > Kyklos. V. 28, p. 149-153.
> >
> > Han, Z. and Schefold, B. (2003). "An Empirical Investigation
> > of Paradoxes (Reswitching and Reverse Capital Deepening) in
> > Capital Theory. September. (On the web somewhere.)
> >
> > Ozanne, A. (1996). "Do Supply Curves Slope Up? The Empirical
> > Relevance of the Sraffian Critique of Neoclassical Production
> > Economics", Cambridge Journal of Economics. V. 20, p. 749-
> > 762.
> >
> > Prince, R. and Rosser, J. B., Jr. (1985). "Some Implications of
> > Delayed Environmental Costs for Benefit Cost Analysis: A
> > Study of Reswitching in the Western Coal Lands", Growth
> > and Change. V. 16, p. 18-25.
> >
> > Zambelli, S. (2004). "The 40% Neoclassical Aggregate Theory of
> > Production", Cambridge Journal of Economics. V. 28, Iss. 1, p.
> > 99-120, January.
> >
> > I have pointed these references out to Mr. Weatherby before on this
> > thread. He deleted them with no comment. Now he is repeating his
> > error. This does not seem like honest behavior.
> It is hard to refute them when you uses references like "on the web
> somewhere". You might as well say in the library somewhere.
I'll go with that analogy. If I download a PDF file, I see no
obligation to keep track of the URL.
> Then there is the reference do Supply Curves Slope Up? ... Labor
> economist show the theoritical possibility that labor supply curves can
> bend backward when the wealth effect exceeds the substitution effect so
> the answer found could not be amazingly revealing. Well not from the
> view point of someone who has a proper education in economics.
Mr. Weatherby doesn't know what he is talking about. The reference
is not about the supply curve in a labor market. It is evidence
that Sraffa has something to tell us about the world and, thus,
indirect empirical evidence that the law of demand doesn't apply
to labor.
> I may take a look at the last referrence but I doubt it because it has
> nothing to do with my work.
Mr. Weatherby states that he doesn't want to know what he is talking
about. He does not seem honest.
> Rob you still know little about modern mainstream economics.
I know of no reason technology cannot be such that
capital-reversing and related effects are manifested in long-run
models with technology specified to match the technology in, say,
selected vertically integrated markets in the U.S. economy. Mr.
Weatherby, like all other economists, cannot even specify assumptions
on technology needed to rule out capital-reversing.
That comment is on-topic for this thread. On the other hand, consider:
> For instance you really thought Romer measured capital in dollars
> because the intro tried to explain a point of why the Solow model was
> wrong using dollar measurements. Something I am really surprised you
> tried to refute.
I suppose some may be reading this and saying, "Whaa...?"
Mr. Weatherby is referring to
Paul M. Romer, "Endogeneous Technical Change", Journal of Political
Economy. V. 98, N. 5, p. S71-S101.
The first numbered equation in that paper is a production function.
The arguments of this function include heterogeneous capital goods.
These arguments are measured in numeraire units. I pointed out some
time ago that, because of price Wicksell effects, this equation (and
the remainder of the paper) is incorrect.
Mr. Weatherby's belief that this objection depends on whether
these units are dollars or some other numeraire reveals he doesn't
understand the objection.
Why does he bring up his failure on this thread? I suppose it is
an emotional reaction to my words. I wrote:
>> Cohen and Harcourt (2003) write:
>>
>> "The fight was far from over because THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT ON
>> THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ALL OF THESE RESULTS. The two sides used
>> different criteria to judge the agreed upon outcomes of the
>> controversy."
>>
>> Perhaps Mr. Weatherby, like any specialist in growth theory
>> conforming to what should be good scholarly ethics, should learn
>> what the "agreed upon outcomes" are.
> [ Unsupported babble - deleted. ]
Mr. Weatherby goes on with:
> Finally your application of capital switching models to labor is solely
> your application.
Two posts ago, I said that I think "the usage of the phrase
'capital switching' or 'capital reswitching' is indicative of
somebody that does not understand the conclusions agreed to
by both sides on the Cambridge Capital Controversy." Does Mr.
Weatherby explain why he thinks "capital switching" is an
appropriate term for switches of technique? No, he just repeats
his perhaps inappropriate terminology. This does not seem
like honest behavior.
In the post to which Mr. Weatherby is pretending to respond, I
cited the following URL as an application of my favorite sort
of argument to labor markets:
<http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0111/white.pdf>
Mr. Weatherby deleted that URL without comment, but makes the
above already-refuted statement. This does not seem like honest
behavior.
Those who have hung around here for a while know that other
economists have also applied the Cambridge Capital Controversy
to an analysis of labor markets. But this is trivial.
Notice Mr. Weatherby has not commented at all on the trivial
implications I draw from the following quote from Paul Samuleson.
I have already posted this on this thread.
"One cannot match a proof like that of Equation (5) by finding a
valid proof for the stationary state conjecture
d(C/L)/di <= 0. (6)
Why not? Because, as the next section will illustrate with numerical
examples, such a conjecture is simply not true!"
-- Paul Samuelson, "A Modern Post-Mortem on Bohm's Capital
Theory: Its Vital Normative Flaw Shared By Pre-Sraffian
Mainstream Capital Theory". Journal of the History of
Economic Though. V. 23, N. 3. 2001.
I'll explain Samuelson's notation. i is the interest rate. In
the simple model under discussion, a lower interest rate is
associated with a higher real wage. C/L is consumption per
person-year. Samuelson is saying a lower interest rate is not
necessarily associated with higher consumption per worker, that
is, a less labor-intensive (L/C) technique.
In other words, a higher wage may be associated with a switch
to a more labor-intensive technique. In other words, as I
have proven, cost-minimizing firms may want to hire more
workers at a higher wage, given the available technology,
perfect competition, and the level of output.
> None of the citations prove anything about what
> happens to a market when minimum wages are implied. If you knew how to
> right properly
I'm not going to learn how to "right" properly from Mr. Weatherby.
> and explain models rather than write down several
> equations and proclaim Q.E.D. you could try to publish these articles on
> your website in a Post-Keynesian journal. I would be interested in
> knowing if the Post-Keynesians other than you would agree with your
> analysis. Assuming that you could present it in a coherent way.
Notice Mr. Weatherby does not say anything at all about where he
finds anything confused, unclear, or incoherent about the following:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
That URL was in the post to which Mr. Weatherby is pretending to
respond. His behavior does not seem honest.
> I can post working papers on the web as well. It means little. The true
> test is if colleagues in your field agree that the analysis is correct
> and interesting. This is only shown by publishing in the journals of
> your field.
No. Neither authority nor popularity determines the validity of
an argument.
Robert Vienneau
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> news:rvien-2C5816....@news.dreamscape.com...
> > Nothing will stop you from demonstrating your stupidity on Usenet.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here are 562 economists, including some "Nobel" laureates and
> > past presidents of the American Economic Association, who think
> > a raise in the minimum wage in the United States is a good idea:
<http://www.epinet.org/stmt/economistsminwage200410web.pdf>
(I restored the URL that "jcpickels" cowardly deleted.)
> That you can find 562 economists and thousands of regular people who
> "think"
> that raising the minimum wage is a "good" thing is not surprising to me.
> That you "think" that makes anyone who disagrees is stupid...
Strawperson.
> You have your opinion and
> there are people that agree with you.
I have not merely posted opinions. Unlike some, I have presented
arguments responsive to what others were posting.
> There are others that disagree. You
> are not stupid...
I would be stupid if I expected certain people to ever post something
substantial. Consider, for example, "jcpickels". Post after post,
never addressing an argument, always proclaiming victory, the most
substantial posts being a couple of with links to URLs of web
pages with arguments that have already been exploded. It is this
inability to consciously recognize he has nothing to say on the
topic of the thread that makes me class him among "the less
they know, the less they know it."
I think he even recoognizes that he is being stupid and obnoxinous
at some level of his unconsciouness. What does he mean by "it"
when he writes:
"You can remove the rec.gambling.poker from your posting header
and it will all stop ... instantly."
If he were actually discussing the effects of minimum wages on
employment, why would he think sci.econ posters would want it to
stop? On the other hand, if he knew he was merely engaging in
stupid hazing, would he not suggest the above?
William Coleman
> "William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:75B8d.3476$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c56dnbCIUMZ...@www.bayou.com...
> > >
> > news:4161bea0...@news.telus.net...
> > > > On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:08:10 -0500, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(no
> > > > spam)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >You can
> > > > >go back and reread the thread from the beginning and you will see
the
> > > > >glaring juxtaposition you seek.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. I've been reading the thread, and the contradiction you claim
> > > > he uttered exists only in what you are no doubt pleased to call your
> > > > "mind."
> > > >
> > > > -- Roy L
> > >
> > >
> > > Which contradiction is that, Roy?
> >
> > The contradiction you claim exists between two statements I made, you
> > disingenuous dork. Too funny, Pickle. You have been caught lying when
> you
> > claimed I had made inconsistent statements. You refuse to specify which
> > statements you are talking about. You are a liar, pure and simple.
> > Everyone who reads this thread knows it.
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> Why does he "know" the contradiction and you do not, William?
Huh? You are really delusional, Pickle. Read what Roy said. He said the
contradiction exists only in your mind -- that there is no contradiction in
what I said.
> This Roy guy
> is from sci.econ land. I am sure that he is well loved there. He seems
to
> be counter-trolling you in this thread from another group. What an
> interesting dilemma for you. Being supported and then unsupported by a
> troll from another world.
Please explain how I have been unsupported by Roy. The reality is that you
are being told by three people that you are wrong. Roy, Robert, and myself.
All three of us are far more knowledgeable about economics than you are.
> The irony.
Indeed.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
William Coleman
> > > "William Coleman"
> > >
> > > > Of course I can be wrong. If you knew my intellectual history, you
> > would
> > > > know that, based on new evidence or arguments, I have changed my
mind
> > many
> > > > times about many different things. That is why I know so much now,
> > > because
> > > > I am constantly testing my theories against the data of reality.
> > >
> > > This is one of those times, William, when you must "change your mind."
> > Good
> > > luck.
> >
> > You are 100% correct, Pickle. I used to think you were rational,
> > intelligent, and well-educated. I also thought you had intellectual
> > integrity. Now I realize you are a liar and have zero intellectual
> > integrity. I also realize that you are irrational, stupid, and poorly
> > educated, at least in economics.
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> It is not like you to change your mind (if you are in reasonable-mode) on
> such limited information. The guys from sci.econ have slipped into this
> thread here on rec.gambling.poker and got you all confused.
They have not gotten me confused.
> Your theory
> that demand is not effected by an arbitrary setting of any "wage" is a
poor
> theory.
I am not advancing any theory here. Certainly not the theory that the
minimum wage can be set at arbitrary levels with no effect on quantity of
labor demanded. You are still incorrectly using demand when you mean
quantity demanded. What I have been doing is pointing out that empirical
data show that reasonable increases in the minimum wage do not result in a
decrease in employment.
> That under certain circumstances that one could define, a minimum
> wage might have no effect on anything because the minimum is insignificant
> compared to the labor market is not a refutation of the general comment
that
> (as a general proposition) an artificially set "minimum wage" is not a
"good
> thing."
Excuse me, do not try to change the subject. You have lost the argument
about whether raising the minimum wage has an employment effect. Now you
are trying to change the subject to whether the minimum wage is a good
thing. That has never been the subject of discussion.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
> "William Coleman"
>
>
> > > > When analysts say that the high price of oil is due to increased
> demand,
> > > > they do not mean that total oil consumption,the quantity demanded,
has
> > > > increased.
> > >
> > > One more time, William, you demonstrate that you just don't "get it."
> >
> > Wrong again, Pickle. As usual, you snip my post and quote me out of
> > context. All your post demonstrates is that "demand" is frequently
> > incorrectly used as a synonym for "quantity demanded". Here is what I
> said
> > in the sentence following your snip -- "They mean that the demand curve
> has
> > shifted to the right, indicating that oil consumers are willing to buy
an
> > increased quantity of oil at any given price." I stand by that
statement.
> > It is not correct to say prices are higher because more oil is being
> > consumed. The underlying cause is that the demand curve has shifted to
> the
> > right. That is what it means to say demand has increased. When the
> demand
> > curve shifts to the right, both the price and quantity demanded
increase.
> > The fundamental cause is the rightward shift of the demand curve. Both
> the
> > increase in price and increase in quantity demanded are dependent
effects.
> > It is fundamentally wrong to then turn around and say the increase in
> > quantity demanded is the cause of the price increase.
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
>
> Why do you continue to say these same things over and over, William.
Prices
> go up (under the very general circumstances of this discussion) when
demand
> increases with the same supply available.
That is 100% correct. You have finally said something correct, although it
was an accident. You said demand when you meant quantity demanded. When
demand is interpreted in its correct sense, the function relating the
dependent variable quantity demanded to the independent variable price, then
yes, when demand increases, that is when the demand curve shifts to the
right, the new intersection with the supply curve is at a higher price.
Unless the price elasticity of the supply curve is zero, that also results
in an increased quantity demanded. It is absolutely incorrect to say that
the increased quantity demanded caused the higher price. They are both the
effects of the demand function increasing, that is the demand curve shifting
to the right.
> If you do not understand that
> when "consumers" "ask for more" of a product "today" than they were
"asking
> for" "yesterday" it has no effect on prices the day after tomorrow, then
> you just do not get it.
That is what it means for the demand curve to shift to the right. At any
given price, quantity demanded increases.
> (That the increased demand also has other effects,
> like on the pressure for more supply,
A change in the demand function has no effect on the supply function. The
supply curve is determined by the marginal costs of production.
> does not negate the general thought
> that increased demand has a pressure effect on prices in the future.)
Huh? An increase in the demand function results in a new equilibrium price.
Ceteris paribus, there is no future effect on price.
> All
> of this is overly simplified if the discussion is carried beyond just the
> most basic of thoughts. The real world is much more complex than this
> discussion can approach but the general principles are clear.
Yes, they are very clear to me. Unfortunately, they are not clear to you.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
"Ben Franklin" <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bcda40e9...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...> > Why did you start this cross-posting, Pickle? Did you think you would
get
> > some support from the readers of sci.econ? How is that working out for
you?
> >
>
> What a moron, pickle did not do that. As was discussed in a previous
> read any of the posts and instead quickly launch into ad hominems just
> from the very presence of a refutation of your garbage. Now we know it
> to be so.
I suggest you look at the time stamps of the relevant posts before jumping
to any conclusions about who is the moron. I had not read any posts
discussing this when I made the post you quote.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
> > > > > In article <GLf8d.2500$UP1.2081
> > > > > @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, rama...@earthlink.net
> > > > > says...
> > > > > > Huh??? You are totally delusional, Pickle. You and Ben
Franklin
> > got
> > > > your
> > > > > > asses totally kicked in this debate, and you both know it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Still trying Coleman? The game was over several posts ago and
> > > > > you lost. LOL
> > > >
> > > > Go ahead and trash talk all you want. You lost the debate badly,
and
> > most
> > > > of the readers of this thread will see that clearly.
> > > >
> > > > William Coleman (ramashiva)
> > >
> > > Readers read and get to decide for themselves, William. The best hand
> > > always wins the pot at showdown.
> >
> > That's right, Pickle. I am holding four aces. You are holding a busted
> > flush draw. You are trying to substitute trash talk for arguments.
> >
> > By the way, I just noticed that my replies to you are being cross-posted
> to
> > sci.econ. At what point in the debate did you start this? You really
> > should have mentioned that you had done this, Pickle. I just now
noticed
> > that my replies are being cross-posted.
> >
> > Any readers at sci.econ, I encourage you to read the original thread on
> > rec.gambling.poker, as I am sure Pickle has somehow manipulated the
> > cross-posting to prevent all my posts in this thread being seen. Only
my
> > replies to Pickle are being cross-posted, and I have also replied to
other
> > posters in this thread.
> >
> > Why did you start this cross-posting, Pickle? Did you think you would
get
> > some support from the readers of sci.econ? How is that working out for
> you?
> >
> >
>
> Since I have already pointed out this fact and also named Roy L as the
> person responsible for the cross posting .... and Roy L has suddenly
> appeared as your "buddy" I am tempted to believe that maybe you are using
a
> sock puppet. This certainly would be yet a fourth incarnation of
"william"
> that must be dealt with. (When Roy L began the cross posting, all the
> replies have been cross posted. Can you not even see that, William? That
> is truly beneath you.)
>
> Now changing the entire thread away from the "minimum wage" argument is
much
> more like you. It has been fun, but you are definitely in uber-troll mode
> and perhaps the "ignore them and they will go away" is the best thought.
> You may go into pout-mode next or you may go into cheering-myself-mode.
> Either may be better than the flip-flopping that you demonstrate here.
Huh? I am not changing the entire thread away from the minimum wage
argument. I am just raising the question of cross-posting. Besides, you
have not posted anything on minimum wage in some time. You have merely
engaged in braindead rants about me being a troll in pout-mode.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
Igor
>
> Mr. Weatherby is referring to
>
> Paul M. Romer, "Endogeneous Technical Change", Journal of Political
> Economy. V. 98, N. 5, p. S71-S101.
>
> The first numbered equation in that paper is a production function.
> The arguments of this function include heterogeneous capital goods.
> These arguments are measured in numeraire units. I pointed out some
> time ago that, because of price Wicksell effects, this equation (and
> the remainder of the paper) is incorrect.
>
> Mr. Weatherby's belief that this objection depends on whether
> these units are dollars or some other numeraire reveals he doesn't
> understand the objection.
>
It is funny you still do not what that numeraire is. Your comment was
that because capital is measured in dollars it is subject to Price
Wicksell effects. You still do not what capital is measured in. You
speak against things before you have fully read and understand them.
Your beliefs will not allow you to look at model and interpert it.
Instead you catch one word, misinterpert it and then declare it is wrong.
> <http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0111/white.pdf>
>
> Mr. Weatherby deleted that URL without comment, but makes the
> above already-refuted statement. This does not seem like honest
> behavior.
>
No it is the decision to not to read undecipherable babble. The decision
is due to your inability to write. You just throw down equations without
explanations. I do not have the time to decipher your work. If you would
provide one referred journal reference showing the model I will happy to
read it. Your work has only been posted on the web for one reason. You
can not write well enough to publish. That is why you have been
regulated to usenet for years. I have yet to see one Post Keynesian cite
any of your convuluded mess.
> "One cannot match a proof like that of Equation (5) by finding a
> valid proof for the stationary state conjecture
>
> d(C/L)/di <= 0. (6)
>
> Why not? Because, as the next section will illustrate with numerical
> examples, such a conjecture is simply not true!"
> -- Paul Samuelson, "A Modern Post-Mortem on Bohm's Capital
> Theory: Its Vital Normative Flaw Shared By Pre-Sraffian
> Mainstream Capital Theory". Journal of the History of
> Economic Though. V. 23, N. 3. 2001.
>
> I'll explain Samuelson's notation. i is the interest rate. In
> the simple model under discussion, a lower interest rate is
> associated with a higher real wage. C/L is consumption per
> person-year. Samuelson is saying a lower interest rate is not
> necessarily associated with higher consumption per worker, that
> is, a less labor-intensive (L/C) technique.
>
> In other words, a higher wage may be associated with a switch
> to a more labor-intensive technique. In other words, as I
> have proven, cost-minimizing firms may want to hire more
> workers at a higher wage, given the available technology,
> perfect competition, and the level of output.
>
No this does not say that. Where are the techinique used. You are
skipping a lot of steps here. Saying a lower interest rate is not
necessiarly associated with higher consumption does not automatically
lead to highering more workers when wages rises. You have a lot of steps
to go through. You have to do that coherently. This is just another
example of your complete inability to write.
>
> I'm not going to learn how to "right" properly from Mr. Weatherby.
>
>
>>and explain models rather than write down several
>>equations and proclaim Q.E.D. you could try to publish these articles on
>>your website in a Post-Keynesian journal. I would be interested in
>>knowing if the Post-Keynesians other than you would agree with your
>>analysis. Assuming that you could present it in a coherent way.
>
>
> Notice Mr. Weatherby does not say anything at all about where he
> finds anything confused, unclear, or incoherent about the following:
>
> <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
>
> That URL was in the post to which Mr. Weatherby is pretending to
> respond. His behavior does not seem honest.
>
I am not going to read this babble again. I can not respond when it is
completely incoherent and pieces are missing. You can not present
something this complex in 8 pages without skipping steps and
explanations. You make this look like it is a journal article but it is
unpublishable. Learn to write and I will comment.
>
>>I can post working papers on the web as well. It means little. The true
>>test is if colleagues in your field agree that the analysis is correct
>>and interesting. This is only shown by publishing in the journals of
>>your field.
>
>
> No. Neither authority nor popularity determines the validity of
> an argument.
>
This is not authority or popularity. It shows conscensus that the
techniques are correct and properly applied. To be published you have to
explain things better. If you don't believe send one of these PDFs to a
professor at one of the schools that recognizes Post-Keynesian thoughts.
See their comments. They will say the same. You substance may or may not
be correct. I can not comment because it is too poorly explained and
poorly written. You throw down a bunch of equations with little
explanation of what you are doing or why it is proper then jump to
conclusions. Read some journal articles so you can begin to understand
how to write.
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
> > Mr. Weatherby is referring to
> >
> > Paul M. Romer, "Endogeneous Technical Change", Journal of Political
> > Economy. V. 98, N. 5, p. S71-S101.
> >
> > The first numbered equation in that paper is a production function.
> > The arguments of this function include heterogeneous capital goods.
> > These arguments are measured in numeraire units. I pointed out some
> > time ago that, because of price Wicksell effects, this equation (and
> > the remainder of the paper) is incorrect.
> >
> > Mr. Weatherby's belief that this objection depends on whether
> > these units are dollars or some other numeraire reveals he doesn't
> > understand the objection.
> It is funny you still do not what that numeraire is. Your comment was
> that because capital is measured in dollars it is subject to Price
> Wicksell effects.
I say above that this objection doesn't depend on whether these
units are dollars or some other numeraire. So what is Mr. Weatherby's
excuse for his falsehood?
> You still do not what capital is measured in. You
> speak against things before you have fully read and understand them.
> Your beliefs will not allow you to look at model and interpert it.
> Instead you catch one word, misinterpert it and then declare it is wrong.
Mr. Weatherby, of course, is making shit up.
Notice Mr. Weatherby's comments, inasmuch as they have any cognitive
content at all, merely demonstrate that "Mr. Weatherby's belief that
this objection depends on whether these units are dollars or some
other numeraire reveals he doesn't understand the objection."
And wasn't Mr. Weatherby just telling us that Cohen and Harcourt
clearly explain what Wicksell effects are?
In short, Mr. Weatherby has no idea of what he is talking about
and is not addressing the post to which he is pretending to reply.
By the way, Romer (1990) is mistaken.
[ >>> Finally your application of capital switching models to labor is ]
[ >>> solely your application. ]
[ >> Two posts ago, I said that I think "the usage of the phrase ]
[ >> 'capital switching' or 'capital reswitching' is indicative of ]
[ >> somebody that does not understand the conclusions agreed to ]
[ >> by both sides on the Cambridge Capital Controversy." Does Mr. ]
[ >> Weatherby explain why he thinks "capital switching" is an ]
[ >> appropriate term for switches of technique? No, he just repeats ]
[ >> his perhaps inappropriate terminology. This does not seem ]
[ >> like honest behavior. ]
And Mr. Weatherby's explanation of what he means by "capital switching"
is?
[ >> In the post to which Mr. Weatherby is pretending to respond, I ]
[ >> cited the following URL as an application of my favorite sort ]
[ >> of argument to labor markets: ]
> > <http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0111/white.pdf>
> >
> > Mr. Weatherby deleted that URL without comment, but makes the
> > above already-refuted statement. This does not seem like honest
> > behavior.
> No it is the decision to not to read undecipherable babble. The decision
> is due to your inability to write.
See, in particular, the fifth footnote and surrounding text in the paper
at the above URL. Does the paper at the above URL argue that the
Cambridge Capital Controversy has implications for the labor market?
So what is Mr. Weatherby's excuse for not having retracted his
false statement that my "application of capital switching models to
labor is solely [my] application"?
And what is Mr. Weatherby's excuse for pretending my writing abilities
are relevant to the clarity of the paper at that URL?
In the midst of babble, Mr. Weatherby writes:
> If you would
> provide one referred journal reference showing the model I will happy to
> read it.
Since this claim is immediately followed by a quote from a "referred"
journal showing a model (but shortly, as is typical of papers), Mr.
Weatherby is clearly making a false statement about what he is
willing to do. What is his excuse for his falsehoods?
Furthermore in Footnote 11 of Sraffa3.pdf, I reference five textbooks
justifying my favorite model. Any one of these textbooks would do.
Sraffa3.pdf is available off a link at the URL in my sig. The link is
labeled "A Critique of Disaggregated Neoclassical Theory."
Does Display 5 and Theorem 1 in Samuelson's paper say that "a lower
interest rate is associated with a higher real wage"?
Does Samuelson imply in the above quote that a lower interest
rate is not necessarily associated with a less labor-intensive (L/C)
technique?
Consider the point (S sub BC) in Figure 1 in Samuelson's paper. Around
this point is a higher wage associated with the adoption of a more
labor intensive (higher L/C) technique?
How does this not imply that cost-minimizing firms will hire
more labor around this point at a higher wage, given the technology,
perfect competition, and the level (C) of output?
> > I'm not going to learn how to "right" properly from Mr. Weatherby.
> >>and explain models rather than write down several
> >>equations and proclaim Q.E.D. you could try to publish these articles
> >>on
> >>your website in a Post-Keynesian journal. I would be interested in
> >>knowing if the Post-Keynesians other than you would agree with your
> >>analysis. Assuming that you could present it in a coherent way.
> > Notice Mr. Weatherby does not say anything at all about where he
> > finds anything confused, unclear, or incoherent about the following:
> >
> > <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
> >
> > That URL was in the post to which Mr. Weatherby is pretending to
> > respond. His behavior does not seem honest.
> I am not going to read this babble again. I can not respond when it is
> completely incoherent and pieces are missing.
Notice Mr. Weatherby does not say anything at all about where he finds
anything confused, unclear, or incoherent about the paper at the above
URL.
> [ Babble I don't feel like comment on - deleted. ]
> >>I can post working papers on the web as well. It means little. The true
> >>test is if colleagues in your field agree that the analysis is correct
> >>and interesting. This is only shown by publishing in the journals of
> >>your field.
> > No. Neither authority nor popularity determines the validity of
> > an argument.
> This is not authority or popularity. It shows conscensus that the
> techniques are correct and properly applied.
Whatever. "Conscensus" does not determine the validity of an argument.
> To be published you have to
> explain things better. If you don't believe send one of these PDFs to a
> professor at one of the schools that recognizes Post-Keynesian thoughts.
> See their comments. They will say the same.
Nope. I don't think I have ever had any interaction with a heterodox
professor who was not encouraging. Some use some of my materials
for teaching. Not everybody who has used my materials for teaching
has even told me about it.
> You substance may or may not
> be correct. I can not comment because it is too poorly explained and
> poorly written. You throw down a bunch of equations with little
> explanation of what you are doing or why it is proper then jump to
> conclusions. Read some journal articles so you can begin to understand
> how to write.
Mr. Weatherby can easily see that I have already read some journal
articles. What is his excuse for his false insinuation that I have
not?
A remark: how is it possible for professional academic economists
to be as dishonest as we've seen on sci.econ?
Igor
> Notice Mr. Weatherby's comments, inasmuch as they have any cognitive
> content at all, merely demonstrate that "Mr. Weatherby's belief that
> this objection depends on whether these units are dollars or some
> other numeraire reveals he doesn't understand the objection."
>
That was your statement not mine. I had to put out to you that capital
goods were measured in units of the consumpion good not dollars. I had
to point out to you that money never enters a growth model.
> In the midst of babble, Mr. Weatherby writes:
>
>
>>If you would
>>provide one referred journal reference showing the model I will happy to
>>read it.
>
>
> Since this claim is immediately followed by a quote from a "referred"
> journal showing a model (but shortly, as is typical of papers), Mr.
> Weatherby is clearly making a false statement about what he is
> willing to do. What is his excuse for his falsehoods?
>
The paper you cite actually deals with labor markets being out of
equilibrium due to rigdities. It does not deal with the possibility that
labor demand can slope upward. In fact in the introduction they cite
Mankiw and Romer 1992 that shows rigidities can keep labor demand from
equaling labor supply. This has nothing to do with your arguement. No
where does the paper say a firm can demand more labor when wages rise
which is your arguement. The refer to the fact that the "neo-classical"
assumption of flexible prices and wages" maybe wrong. It says that
policies that lower the real wage may not induce employment. This is
possible if real rigidities keep the labor market from clearing.
There is no place in this paper where the authors support your analysis
that labor demand can be increasing in the wage. The converse does not
follow from the argument. Real rigidities can mean that labor demand and
labor supply will not equate with a falling real wage. The same sort of
issue is dealt with in Real Business cycle models. In this case it deals
with labor hording where employers keep the same level of employment
when wages rise. This does not say nor is it a reasonable conclusion
from the paper that labor demand curves can slope upward. You are really
stretching to support your claims here.
> Furthermore in Footnote 11 of Sraffa3.pdf, I reference five textbooks
> justifying my favorite model. Any one of these textbooks would do.
> Sraffa3.pdf is available off a link at the URL in my sig. The link is
> labeled "A Critique of Disaggregated Neoclassical Theory."
>
Do you they make the same applications to wages. You have in the past
made far reaching statements such as unskilled labor increases when your
model only had one type of labor in it.
>>>>and explain models rather than write down several
>>>>equations and proclaim Q.E.D. you could try to publish these articles
>>>>on
>>>>your website in a Post-Keynesian journal. I would be interested in
>>>>knowing if the Post-Keynesians other than you would agree with your
>>>>analysis. Assuming that you could present it in a coherent way.
>
>
>>>Notice Mr. Weatherby does not say anything at all about where he
>>>finds anything confused, unclear, or incoherent about the following:
>>>
>>> <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
>>>
>>>That URL was in the post to which Mr. Weatherby is pretending to
>>>respond. His behavior does not seem honest.
>
>
>>I am not going to read this babble again. I can not respond when it is
>>completely incoherent and pieces are missing.
>
>
> Notice Mr. Weatherby does not say anything at all about where he finds
> anything confused, unclear, or incoherent about the paper at the above
> URL.
>
>
It is hard to do when so much is missing. I like other professional will
drop the paper and move on to something else long before we try to
decipher what you meant.
> Mr. Weatherby can easily see that I have already read some journal
> articles. What is his excuse for his false insinuation that I have
> not?
>
That is impossible for me to see. You do not post your CV. Only a bunch
of URLs.
>
> A remark: how is it possible for professional academic economists
> to be as dishonest as we've seen on sci.econ?
>
Dishonesty is posting a URL to a paper that has absolutely nothing to
do with your ideas and saying it supports your model.
Igor
How about dishonesty here. Here are the class notes you speak of.
# "Frequently Asked Questions about the Labor Theory of Value"
* Materials for Reviewing Marx, Dan Ryan's History of Sociological
Thought Class Notes. (My FAQ appears in other class notes too.)
* Wikipedia article
* Socialist Movement links, from Washington State University's
Program in American Studies
* Google directory links for Labor Economics
* Serebella Directory for Labor Economics (There are many other
directories with a link to my FAQ.)
* List of links from Vision? Nary!, a magazine of satire.
* Satoshi Miyamura's resources for economics
* Catallarchy Web Log discussion
* D-Squared Crooked Timber Web Log discussion
* Discussion of LTV several years ago on Agent Causation.
* Discussion Several years ago on another mail list, this one
described as "General nonsense, fun for everyone."
* Random Balderdash
Your class notes a heterodox economist have used deals with the labor
theory of value not the model you present. In fact it is one paragraph
you wrote.
I think this shows your political motivation. It shows I am correct. You
cling so heavily to one argument with little proof for it because you
are a Marxist and this is the only thing can you find that might put a
chink in the armor of economic theory. You want to replace economics
with Marx. That is why you do not have an alternative theory just
complaints about the current theory.
I like the fact you cited an article of mine in which I point out Cohen
and Harcourt's argument and cite it then call it a fumble. Please don't
put me on your fumble list again.
Did you really think I would not find your homepage Rob?
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
[ >>> To be published you have to ]
[ >>> explain things better. If you don't believe send one of these ]
[ >>> PDFs to a professor at one of the schools that recognizes ]
[ >>> Post-Keynesian thoughts. See their comments. They will say ]
[ >>> the same. ]
[ >> Nope. I don't think I have ever had any interaction with a ]
[ >> heterodox professor who was not encouraging. Some use some of ]
[ >> my materials for teaching. Not everybody who has used my ]
[ >> materials for teaching has even told me about it. ]
> > A remark: how is it possible for professional academic economists
> > to be as dishonest as we've seen on sci.econ?
> How about dishonesty here. Here are the class notes you speak of.
> [ Mr. Weatherby's clip of text off my home page. The text describes ]
> [ my FAQ on the Labor Theory of Value and some links to it. ]
> Your class notes a heterodox economist have used deals with the labor
> theory of value not the model you present. In fact it is one paragraph
> you wrote.
I took Mr. Weatherby's whine to be referring to my writing in general,
even though he does say "PDF". So I don't see how the fact that the
links I provide at that point are to my LTV FAQ, and not much CCC
commentary, is relevant. Furthermore, I don't know what the "one
paragraph" above refers to.
Furthermore, I don't know why Mr. Weatherby thinks professors using
my stuff for teaching are confined to my LTV FAQ. I know of one who
has told me that he has used my FAQ in teaching, but did not give
me a page linking to it. (They probably just gave out a URL in
class.)
There are many more pages attempting to link to my FAQ than I
list. If I were to attempt to ensure all these pages had updated
links, it would be a lot of work.
How does Mr. Weatherby know that teachers don't use in their
lectures, for example, my spreadsheet on the choice of technique?
I once asked a heterodx economist to take a look at it. His response
was encouraging. Perhaps he uses it in a lecture for all I know.
> I think this shows your political motivation. It shows I am correct. You
> cling so heavily to one argument with little proof for it because you
> are a Marxist and this is the only thing can you find that might put a
> chink in the armor of economic theory.
The above is mistaken ad hominem. There are many more objections
to neoclassical theory I could raise. My supposed motivations can have
nothing to do with the validity of the following claim:
"In this view, the central mistake in neoclassical theory concerns
the scarcity explanation of distribution which must lead into
difficulties whenever capital, being produced in the form of
heterogeneous capital goods, changes its price in a process of
substitution, hence its amount as 'capital'".
-- Bertram Schefold (2003)
Mr. Weatherby continues his fumbling blunders:
> You want to replace economics
> with Marx. That is why you do not have an alternative theory just
> complaints about the current theory.
Being able to say intelligent things about the Labor Theory of Value
does not establish one is a Marxist or that one wants to replace
(neoclassical?) economics with Marx.
It is odd to say one wants to replace (neoclassical?) economics with
Marx and simultaneously say one does not have an alternative theory.
I have no idea what Mr. Weatherby means by being a "Marxist". Last
time he brought up "neo-Marxist" he had no coherent explanation of
what he meant. Neither did poor Chris Auld.
And I have pointed out before that many Marxists attack Sraffians.
> I like the fact you cited an article of mine in which I point out Cohen
> and Harcourt's argument and cite it then call it a fumble.
This is a fumble:
"If you read Cohen and Harcourt you would that is exactly why
General Equilibrium analysis started. Did you read the whole
article? The authors state clearly that general equilibrium
arose after the failure of the parables. It was 'motivated by
Samuelson's quest, in his surrogate production function to
"provide some rationalization for the validity of the simple
J.B. Clark parables"' (Cohen and Harcourt 2003). Again did you
really read the article? Did you read all of it or just the parts
you previously agreed with?"
> Please don't put me on your fumble list again.
I may put Mr. Weatherby on my fumbles list again. But I am being
kind to him. I'm not sure if he has ever posted anything that
doesn't contain a fumble.
For example, this question, given my sig, is extremely odd:
> Did you really think I would not find your homepage Rob?
--
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
> > Notice Mr. Weatherby's comments, inasmuch as they have any cognitive
> > content at all, merely demonstrate that "Mr. Weatherby's belief that
> > this objection depends on whether these units are dollars or some
> > other numeraire reveals he doesn't understand the objection."
> That was your statement not mine. I had to put out to you that capital
> goods were measured in units of the consumpion good not dollars. I had
> to point out to you that money never enters a growth model.
Mr. Weatherby is making shit up. Consider:
Paul M. Romer, "Endogeneous Technical Change", Journal of Political
Economy. V. 98, N. 5, p. S71-S101.
The first numbered equation in that paper is a production function.
The arguments of this function include heterogeneous capital goods.
These arguments are measured in numeraire units. Because of price
Wicksell effects, this equation (and the remainder of the paper) is
incorrect.
This objection doesn't depend on whether these units are dollars or
some other numeraire.
And wasn't Mr. Weatherby just telling us that Cohen and Harcourt
clearly explain what Wicksell effects are?
What does Mr. Weatherby understand price Wicksell effects to be?
And Mr. Weatherby's explanation of what he means by "capital switching"
is?
Consider:
<http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0111/white.pdf>
See, in particular, the fifth footnote and surrounding text in the paper
at the above URL. Does the paper at the above URL argue that the
Cambridge Capital Controversy has implications for the labor market?
So what is Mr. Weatherby's excuse for not having retracted his
false statement that my "application of capital switching models to
labor is solely [my] application"?
And what is Mr. Weatherby's excuse for pretending my writing abilities
are relevant to the clarity of the paper at that URL?
The Graham White paper whose URL is given above does NOT assert that
the labor market would approach equilibrium more quicky if the labor
market were more flexible. It fact it asserts such a belief is
unfounded. Does Mr. Weatherby see that Graham White draws on the
Cambridge Capital Controversy analysis of competitive (flexible)
markets to support his arguments?
> >>If you would
> >>provide one referred journal reference showing the model I will happy
> >>to read it.
> > Since this claim is immediately followed by a quote from a "referred"
> > journal showing a model (but shortly, as is typical of papers), Mr.
> > Weatherby is clearly making a false statement about what he is
> > willing to do. What is his excuse for his falsehoods?
> The paper you cite actually deals with labor markets being out of
> equilibrium due to rigdities.
Notice the cited refereed paper by Samuelson below. It has nothing
to do with "rigdities".
Furthermore in Footnote 11 of Sraffa3.pdf, I reference five textbooks
justifying my favorite model. Any one of these textbooks would do.
Sraffa3.pdf is available off a link at the URL in my sig. The link is
labeled "A Critique of Disaggregated Neoclassical Theory."
"One cannot match a proof like that of Equation (5) by finding a
valid proof for the stationary state conjecture
d(C/L)/di <= 0. (6)
Why not? Because, as the next section will illustrate with numerical
examples, such a conjecture is simply not true!"
-- Paul Samuelson, "A Modern Post-Mortem on Bohm's Capital
Theory: Its Vital Normative Flaw Shared By Pre-Sraffian
Mainstream Capital Theory". Journal of the History of
Economic Though. V. 23, N. 3. 2001.
Does Display 5 and Theorem 1 in Samuelson's paper say that "a lower
interest rate is associated with a higher real wage"?
Does Samuelson imply in the above quote that a lower interest
rate is not necessarily associated with a less labor-intensive (L/C)
technique?
Consider the point (S sub BC) in Figure 1 in Samuelson's paper. Around
this point, is a higher wage associated with the adoption of a more
labor intensive (higher L/C) technique?
How does this not imply that cost-minimizing firms will hire
more labor around this point at a higher wage, given the technology,
perfect competition, and the level (C) of output?
Consider:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
Notice Mr. Weatherby does not say anything at all about where he finds
anything confused, unclear, or incoherent about the paper at the above
URL.
> > Mr. Weatherby can easily see that I have already read some journal
> > articles. What is his excuse for his false insinuation that I have
> > not?
> That is impossible for me to see. You do not post your CV. Only a bunch
> of URLs.
How would my CV establish whether I've read any journal articles?
The references in LaborDemand.pdf, Sraffa3.pdf, etc. suggest I have
read journal articles. So do my comments in the post to which Mr.
Weatherby is pretending to respond.
> Dishonesty is posting a URL to a paper that has absolutely nothing to
> do with your ideas and saying it supports your model.
I have no idea what Mr. Weatherby imagines he is talking about.
How is it possible for professional academic economists to be as
dishonest as we've seen on sci.econ?
--
Igor
So I don't see how the fact that the
> links I provide at that point are to my LTV FAQ, and not much CCC
> commentary, is relevant. Furthermore, I don't know what the "one
> paragraph" above refers to.
>
> Furthermore, I don't know why Mr. Weatherby thinks professors using
> my stuff for teaching are confined to my LTV FAQ.
Simply because that is all you post. The labor demand PDF you post is
incomplete and nearly incomprehensible because you don't know how to
write. That is why you can't be published.
>I know of one who
> has told me that he has used my FAQ in teaching, but did not give
> me a page linking to it. (They probably just gave out a URL in
> class.)
>
A FAQ on Marx's theory is not your ideas on labor demand.
> How does Mr. Weatherby know that teachers don't use in their
> lectures, for example, my spreadsheet on the choice of technique?
> I once asked a heterodx economist to take a look at it. His response
> was encouraging. Perhaps he uses it in a lecture for all I know.
>
A spredsheet not an article. I can run some regressions and get an
encouraging response. That does not mean the article written is good. I
have to explain things and spend more than 8 pages with references to
make an article.
>>You want to replace economics
>>with Marx. That is why you do not have an alternative theory just
>>complaints about the current theory.
>
>
> Being able to say intelligent things about the Labor Theory of Value
> does not establish one is a Marxist or that one wants to replace
> (neoclassical?) economics with Marx.
>
Making statements like general equilibrium implies explotation and that
Firday would kill Cursoe and true Marxism would exist if the general
equilibrium were in place does peg you firmly as a Marxist.
> It is odd to say one wants to replace (neoclassical?) economics with
> Marx and simultaneously say one does not have an alternative theory.
>
Simple Marx is not a coherent theory.
> This is a fumble:
>
> "If you read Cohen and Harcourt you would that is exactly why
> General Equilibrium analysis started. Did you read the whole
> article? The authors state clearly that general equilibrium
> arose after the failure of the parables. It was 'motivated by
> Samuelson's quest, in his surrogate production function to
> "provide some rationalization for the validity of the simple
> J.B. Clark parables"' (Cohen and Harcourt 2003). Again did you
> really read the article? Did you read all of it or just the parts
> you previously agreed with?"
>
>
>>Please don't put me on your fumble list again.
>
>
> I may put Mr. Weatherby on my fumbles list again. But I am being
> kind to him. I'm not sure if he has ever posted anything that
> doesn't contain a fumble.
>
This was scarcastic dimwit. If you call it a fumble then your hero
Harcourt and his coauthor Cohen fumbled. It is a direct quotation from
the article that shows the point. You think I put quotation marks
because I was quoting myself? That is why I laughed at this. You didn't
read the article or you saying now that they had no idea what they were
talking about.
Igor
> The Graham White paper whose URL is given above does NOT assert that
> the labor market would approach equilibrium more quicky if the labor
> market were more flexible. It fact it asserts such a belief is
> unfounded. Does Mr. Weatherby see that Graham White draws on the
> Cambridge Capital Controversy analysis of competitive (flexible)
> markets to support his arguments?
>
This paper deals with real rigidities. The Analysis is based on Romer
and Mankiw 1992. It is about labor markets not clearing not an upward
sloping demand curve.
I was making nothing up about your comments on Romer. They were what you
said sometime ago. I think that was the last post of yours I read until
now. It was clear by your comments you do not read things in entirity.
You look for a small point so oh I got them then declare it over.
Igor
> And what is Mr. Weatherby's excuse for pretending my writing abilities
> are relevant to the clarity of the paper at that URL?
>
> The Graham White paper whose URL is given above does NOT assert that
> the labor market would approach equilibrium more quicky if the labor
> market were more flexible.
Funny flexible wages and prices are unfounded but are assumed in your
labor demand PDF. This is not what is said in the paper. It says
lowering real wages may not increase employment due to rigidities not an
upward sloping labor demand curve. The viewpoint used is Neo-Keynesian
not Post-Keynesian.
You are very steeped in ideology to think that just because it mentions
the CCC it suddenly supports your position. In fact they say that the
CCC supports no relation between relative wages and relative employment.
This clearly says your labor demand model is wrong becuase it predicts a
relationship.
The authors point to growth models showing the link between higher
productivity and higher wages. This is true. Productivity shifts the
labor demand curve. You can find evidence that wages rose and employment
rose due to the increase in productivity therefore shifting labor demand
which implies that more labor is hired at each wage rate.
This is one thing I would have to question about your labor PDF. How
does worker productivity change. Is the high wage actually caused by
higher worker productivity. If so you are talking about two distinct
labor deamand curves not one. If you could write and did not skip steps
I could figure this out. However, I will just make the comment and let
you tell me what you think the babble meant.
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
[ >>>> I don't think I have ever had any interaction with a ]
[ >>>> heterodox professor who was not encouraging. Some use some of ]
[ >>>> my materials for teaching. Not everybody who has used my ]
[ >>>> materials for teaching has even told me about it. ]
[ >> I took Mr. Weatherby's whine to be referring to my writing in ]
[ >> general... ]
> > So I don't see how the fact that the
> > links I provide at that point are to my LTV FAQ, and not much CCC
> > commentary, is relevant. Furthermore, I don't know what the "one
> > paragraph" above refers to.
> > Furthermore, I don't know why Mr. Weatherby thinks professors using
> > my stuff for teaching are confined to my LTV FAQ.
> Simply because that is all you post. [ babble - deleted. ]
Mr. Weatherby claims all I post is my LTV FAQ. I don't know where
he thinks I brought it up on this thread.
> >I know of one who
> > has told me that he has used my FAQ in teaching, but did not give
> > me a page linking to it. (They probably just gave out a URL in
> > class.)
> A FAQ on Marx's theory is not your ideas on labor demand.
Which is totally irrelevant to my claim that "Some [professors]
use some of my materials for teaching."
> > How does Mr. Weatherby know that teachers don't use in their
> > lectures, for example, my spreadsheet on the choice of technique?
> > I once asked a heterodx economist to take a look at it. His response
> > was encouraging. Perhaps he uses it in a lecture for all I know.
> A spredsheet not an article. [ babble - deleted. ]
Which is totally irrelevant to my claim that "Some [professors]
use some of my materials for teaching."
By the way, Mr. Weatherby going on about Marx was never on-topic
for this thread.
Consider:
Avi J. Cohen and G.C. Harcourt "Retrospectives: Whatever happened
to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversy", The Journal of
Economic Perspectives Volume 17 No. 1 Winter 2003.
http://dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohen/Linked_Documents/JEP_Cohen_Harcourt.p
df
> > This is a fumble:
> >
> > "If you read Cohen and Harcourt you would that is exactly why
> > General Equilibrium analysis started. Did you read the whole
> > article? The authors state clearly that general equilibrium
> > arose after the failure of the parables. It was 'motivated by
> > Samuelson's quest, in his surrogate production function to
> > "provide some rationalization for the validity of the simple
> > J.B. Clark parables"' (Cohen and Harcourt 2003). Again did you
> > really read the article? Did you read all of it or just the parts
> > you previously agreed with?"
> >>Please don't put me on your fumble list again.
> > I may put Mr. Weatherby on my fumbles list again. But I am being
> > kind to him. I'm not sure if he has ever posted anything that
> > doesn't contain a fumble.
> This was scarcastic dimwit. If you call it a fumble then your hero
> Harcourt and his coauthor Cohen fumbled. It is a direct quotation from
> the article that shows the point. You think I put quotation marks
> because I was quoting myself? That is why I laughed at this. You didn't
> read the article or you saying now that they had no idea what they were
> talking about.
Mr. Weatherby is completely wrong. Cohen and Harcourt do not say
that "General Equilibrium analysis started" after the Cambridge
Capital Controversy. Nor does Mr. Weatherby quote them saying so.
His comment is, to put it kindly, a fumble.
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Consider:
Paul M. Romer, "Endogeneous Technical Change", Journal of Political
Economy. V. 98, N. 5, p. S71-S101.
The first numbered equation in that paper is a production function.
The arguments of this function include heterogeneous capital goods.
These arguments are measured in numeraire units. Because of price
Wicksell effects, this equation (and the remainder of the paper) is
incorrect.
This objection doesn't depend on whether these units are dollars or
some other numeraire.
And wasn't Mr. Weatherby just telling us that Cohen and Harcourt
clearly explain what Wicksell effects are?
What does Mr. Weatherby understand price Wicksell effects to be?
And Mr. Weatherby's explanation of what he means by "capital switching"
is?
Consider:
<http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0111/white.pdf>
See, in particular, the fifth footnote and surrounding text in the paper
at the above URL. The paper at the above URL argues that the Cambridge
Capital Controversy has implications for the labor market.
In other words, the following is completely wrong:
> This paper deals with real rigidities. The Analysis is based on Romer
> and Mankiw 1992. It is about labor markets not clearing not an upward
> sloping demand curve.
By the way, I have deliberately not described my analysis as of "an
upward sloping demand curve" in this thread.
And this is completely wrong as well:
> Funny flexible wages and prices are unfounded but are assumed in your
> labor demand PDF. This is not what is said in the paper. It says
> lowering real wages may not increase employment due to rigidities not an
> upward sloping labor demand curve. The viewpoint used is Neo-Keynesian
> not Post-Keynesian.
>
> You are very steeped in ideology to think that just because it mentions
> the CCC it suddenly supports your position. In fact they say that the
> CCC supports no relation between relative wages and relative employment.
> This clearly says your labor demand model is wrong becuase it predicts a
> relationship.
Notice Mr. Weatherby doesn't even attempt to explain what point
Graham White wants to make with the CCC.
I again affirm that the Graham White paper whose URL is given above
does NOT assert that the labor market would approach equilibrium more
quicky if the labor market were more flexible. It fact it asserts such
a belief is unfounded. Graham White draws on the Cambridge Capital
Controversy analysis of competitive (flexible) markets to support his
arguments.
If Mr. Weatherby would ask Graham White about this, I feel sure
he would (1) either ignore Mr. Weatherby as a crank or (2) say
that, of course, I am correct.
Consider:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
Mr. Weatherby finally comments, although ignorantly:
> This is one thing I would have to question about your labor PDF. How
> does worker productivity change. Is the high wage actually caused by
> higher worker productivity. If so you are talking about two distinct
> labor deamand curves not one. If you could write and did not skip steps
> I could figure this out.
The only steps that are skipped are ones of calculation, as they
should be in a journal paper. Also, I do not provide a tutorial
on duality theory in linear programming.
Wages, prices, and technology are taken as given in that paper.
Firms learn of no new processes for producing anything. There is
no innovation occuring.
Any differences in productivity firms achieve at different
configurations of the price of a certain good and the wage
result from different choices by firms' managers among the
(known) processes to be used in production.
I see nothing unclear in my paper on this point.
By the way...
How would my CV establish whether I've read any journal articles?
The references in LaborDemand.pdf, Sraffa3.pdf, etc. suggest I have
read journal articles. So do my comments in the post to which Mr.
Weatherby is pretending to respond.
How is it possible for professional academic economists to be as
Igor
> In article <XjRad.19733$iC4....@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Igor
> <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Consider:
>
> Paul M. Romer, "Endogeneous Technical Change", Journal of Political
> Economy. V. 98, N. 5, p. S71-S101.
>
> The first numbered equation in that paper is a production function.
> The arguments of this function include heterogeneous capital goods.
> These arguments are measured in numeraire units. Because of price
> Wicksell effects, this equation (and the remainder of the paper) is
> incorrect.
>
This was not your original argument. However, your analysis is
incorrect. Price Wicksel effects do not imply because the link between
capital and interest rates is not there. The link between capital and
interest rates are not one way as the one commodity good model would
suggest.
The following analysis comes for models similar to Romer. I do not have
my copy nearby so the analysis may be slightly different but it is in
the same spirit. The interest rate is determined by solving the
maximization of lifetime utility. Under Dixit-Stiglitz model this means
consumers have a 2 stage decision making process. In stage 1 stage they
max static consumption. Stage 2 they maximize consumption over periods.
In sense they determine how consumption trades off. The solution gives
the interest rate as a function of the discount rate and the growth of
prices. The growth of prices are determined by the growth of
productivity which is determined by capital and technology.
So you see here interest rates are determined bi-directionally not in
one direction. Levels of productivity affect interest rates while
interest rates affect the amount of research and therefore the growth of
productivity. The assumptions are not the Clarkian parable. The system
for determining interest rates is much more complex than you guessed
from only looking at equation 1.
This is why a lot of Americans think it is silly to argue about
neo-classical economics being wrong. It is not widely used. There are
some applications in the business cycle, most Keynesian and the schools
that argued only Keynes missed something so lets add it. The
Neo-Keynesians often use general equilibrium analysis and stress
imperfect competition. The real business cycle theorist have their bases
in general equilibrium. Models of today are not really neo-classical.
The last of the big neo-classical models in growth was Solow 1956. Since
then the model has been virtually abandoned toward general equilibrium
analysis such as Lucas.
Today the dominant trend is toward Research and Development models that
stress the firm's profit making decisions drive economic growth. In a
sense the idea is similar to what Robinson and others stressed but the
analysis is based in a general equilibrium framework not a neo-classical
framework.
Igor
You haven't read the article then. Look at page 206. You will the
argument comes directly from that section "Round 4: General Equilibrium
-- 1966 and Beyond." That is after the heyday of the CCC. The quotation
directly states that General equilibrium was motivated by wanting to
"provide some rationalization for the validity of the simple
>>> J.B. Clark parables"' (Cohen and Harcourt 2003). This is an
offshot of Samuelson's work. It is the failure of Samuelson to show the
validity of the Clarkian parables that played a role in General
equilibrium. No the parables were not recovered and were replaced by
simultaneous systems of equations that replaced the simple parables with
equalization of returns rather than a simple statement that increases in
capital increase the interest rate. This does not change the fact the
motivation was to regain validity for the parables. No where does it say
they succeded in fact the simple parables were abandoned and replaced by
a more complex and correct system.
You either can not read or blinded by the fact you can not admit you are
wrong.
Igor
>
>>This is one thing I would have to question about your labor PDF. How
>>does worker productivity change. Is the high wage actually caused by
>>higher worker productivity. If so you are talking about two distinct
>>labor deamand curves not one. If you could write and did not skip steps
>>I could figure this out.
>
>
> The only steps that are skipped are ones of calculation, as they
> should be in a journal paper. Also, I do not provide a tutorial
> on duality theory in linear programming.
>
> Wages, prices, and technology are taken as given in that paper.
> Firms learn of no new processes for producing anything. There is
> no innovation occuring.
>
> Any differences in productivity firms achieve at different
> configurations of the price of a certain good and the wage
> result from different choices by firms' managers among the
> (known) processes to be used in production.
>
Which means that there are seperate labor demand curves. Each technique
involves a different technology and different amounts of capital. Your
model predicts technological change will occur with changes in wages.
Technologies change with wages.
That is why you analysis is not comparable to the models used to state
employment will decrease when a minimum wage is imposed. These models
have assumptions about labor demand.
The assumptions are
1. The price of the final good is constant
2. The level of capital does not change with wages
3. The technology used in production is not affected by wages.
4. The price of inputs are constant.
5. The number of buyers in the market are constant
6. expectations are constant.
7. Profits in related industries are constant.
Change any of these 7 points and a new labor demand curve arises. When a
new labor demand curve arises it is difficult to interpert what the
results are without quantifying how things are changing. The employment
loss prediction is a ceteris paribus assumption. You break ceteris
paribus the prediction is no longer clear.
Your model assumes that there are different demand curves associated
with different wages. This is analogous to Keyneses assumption that a
different labor supply curve exist for each nominal wage.
It is known that feedback effects exist. For instance a minimum wage
makes labor more expensive. Under general equilibrium returns from
capital and labor must be equalized. This means more capital is
obtained. This moves us into the Long run because now capital changes.
The cahnge in capital increases worker productivity therefore shifting
labor demand. This means in the long run the feedback effect mean the
minimum wage decreses employment, increases employment, or makes
employment stay the same. The point is this is a Long Run effect.
The prediction less labor will be hired is a short run effect. This
assumes that you are operating in the short run therefore technology and
capital are fixed. Short run analysis means you can not switch techniques.
Note the analysis used here has nothing to do with Clark's parables.
This is general equilibrium analysis not neo-classical. Some of the
neo-classical results can be obtained through general equilibrium. See
Romer 1990 where he explains that the model can give similar results to
the neo-classical production function. This does not mean it is
neo-classical.
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Consider:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
> > Probably incorrect. The technology consists of all the known
> > processes that can be used in production. These processes are listed
> > in Table 1 in the paper.
> > I don't use the word "technique" in this paper, and I don't know
> > what Mr. Weatherby means by the word.
> It is a question of semanatics. You deleted the meat of the argument.
> That is when you change capital used due to a different technique the
> result is a new labor demand. This is not one labor demand curve.
I don't know what Mr. Weatherby means by "technique", "technology",
or "capital" in the context of the model at the above URL.
Until I know the answer to these questions, I cannot agree
that changes in technique or capital result in a new labor demand
curve in that model. I certainly cannot see how Mr. Weatherby
came to the idea that there are two labor demand curves in that
model. And, yes, suggesting that Mr. Weatherby explain what he
thinks he means is substantial.
As far as I am concerned, technology is taken as constant in
that paper. The technology consists of all the known processes
that can be used in production. These processes are listed
in Table 1 in the paper.
> It is
> not short run analysis which is where the prediction that a minimum wage
> will lower employment comes form.
Mr. Weatherby's opinion disagrees with David Henderson's:
"Why would this effect occur a year after the minimum wage
increase rather than right away? ... when the minimum wage increases,
employers take time to adjust their methods of production. That is
to say, it takes time for fast-food joints to buy new burger-flipping
machinery that requires one teenager to operate rather than two."
-- David Henderson,
<http://www.davidrhenderson.com/articles/1098_minimumwageplus.html>
David Henderson is correct about what one rationale is for opposing
minimum wages. However, his story has been exploded in theory
for almost half a century. That's part of my point.
In the midst of all his babble, Mr. Weatherby fumbles some more:
> ...It does not change the
> fact that modern economic models are driven by general equilibrium
> analysis and not Neo-Classical theory. You are not showing ignorance of
> American economist. You are showing your personal ignorance to the basis
> of American Economists' models...
So it is Mr. Weatherby's opinion that general equilibrium analysis
is opposed to Neo-Classical theory.
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
Consider:
Avi J. Cohen and G.C. Harcourt "Retrospectives: Whatever happened
to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversy", The Journal of
Economic Perspectives Volume 17 No. 1 Winter 2003.
http://dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohen/Linked_Documents/JEP_Cohen_Harcourt.p
df
> >>>This is a fumble:
> >>>
> >>> "If you read Cohen and Harcourt you would that is exactly why
> >>> General Equilibrium analysis started. Did you read the whole
> >>> article? The authors state clearly that general equilibrium
> >>> arose after the failure of the parables. It was 'motivated by
> >>> Samuelson's quest, in his surrogate production function to
> >>> "provide some rationalization for the validity of the simple
> >>> J.B. Clark parables"' (Cohen and Harcourt 2003). Again did you
> >>> really read the article? Did you read all of it or just the parts
> >>> you previously agreed with?"
> >>This was scarcastic dimwit. If you call it a fumble then your hero
> >>Harcourt and his coauthor Cohen fumbled. It is a direct quotation from
> >>the article that shows the point. You think I put quotation marks
> >>because I was quoting myself? That is why I laughed at this. You didn't
> >>read the article or you saying now that they had no idea what they were
> >>talking about.
> > Mr. Weatherby is completely wrong. Cohen and Harcourt do not say
> > that "General Equilibrium analysis started" after the Cambridge
> > Capital Controversy. Nor does Mr. Weatherby quote them saying so.
> > His comment is, to put it kindly, a fumble.
> You haven't read the article then. Look at page 206. You will the
> argument comes directly from that section "Round 4: General Equilibrium
> -- 1966 and Beyond." That is after the heyday of the CCC.
Nope. Mr. Weatherby does not quote Cohen and Harcourt saying
that "General Equilibrium analysis started" after the Cambridge
Capital Controversy.
I might as well document my point. Here's what Cohen and Harcourt
say:
"A final neoclassical theoretical counteroffensive moved into
the arena of general equilibrium, with Bliss and Hahn replacing
Solow and Samuelson as key protagonists."
and
"The general equilibrium round was motivated by Samuelson's quest,
in his surrogate production function model, 'to provide some
rationalization for the validity of the simple J. B. Clark parables'
(Samuelson, 1962, p. 194, emphasis in original)."
Notice there is no suggestion that General Equilibrium was started
to respond to the CCC. Mr. Weatherby is completely wrong.
Consider the point that prices, in some sense, are not scarcity
indices in General Equilibrium models. This point is made in
Section 3.3 in my essay "A Critique of Disaggregated
Neoclassical Theory", available at:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/Sraffa3.pdf>
So, if Mr. Weatherby were honest, he should acknowledge the JEP
article under discussion agrees with me. Mr. Weatherby has already
gone some way in this direction by pointing out that general
equilibrium models do not justify Samuelson's parables.
The URLs that Mr. Weatherby continually deletes allow any
interested readers to confirm that I am, of course, correct.
Igor
> I might as well document my point. Here's what Cohen and Harcourt
> say:
>
> "A final neoclassical theoretical counteroffensive moved into
> the arena of general equilibrium, with Bliss and Hahn replacing
> Solow and Samuelson as key protagonists."
>
> and
>
> "The general equilibrium round was motivated by Samuelson's quest,
> in his surrogate production function model, 'to provide some
> rationalization for the validity of the simple J. B. Clark parables'
> (Samuelson, 1962, p. 194, emphasis in original)."
>
> Notice there is no suggestion that General Equilibrium was started
> to respond to the CCC. Mr. Weatherby is completely wrong.
>
Can you read the quotation you posted and I have repeatedly posted
states clearly the motivation for General equilibrium was Samuelson's
failure to provide validity of the Clarkian parables. Are we speaking
the same language or do you just have to have the last word so bad that
you can not even read what you just wrote.
> Consider the point that prices, in some sense, are not scarcity
> indices in General Equilibrium models. This point is made in
> Section 3.3 in my essay "A Critique of Disaggregated
> Neoclassical Theory", available at:
>
> <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/Sraffa3.pdf>
>
> So, if Mr. Weatherby were honest, he should acknowledge the JEP
> article under discussion agrees with me. Mr. Weatherby has already
> gone some way in this direction by pointing out that general
> equilibrium models do not justify Samuelson's parables.
>
This has nothing to do with the statement that the motivation for
general equilibrium was to provide validity for the Clarkian parables. I
really don't have time to argue another point here. You are now changing
the argument because you desperately do not want to be proven wrong.
Your argument as to if prices are scarcity indexes or not deals with the
success of the attempt not the motivation. Lets take an example Darwin
was motivated to research his theory of evolution because he wanted to
prove that God created the world. This is well document and the reason
he undertook his research in the first place. His theory ended up
arguing the opposite. That does not mean his motivation for the research
was not to prove Creation. He did not succeed and completely changed his
mind but the motivation was to prove the world was created by a superior
being and not random. His interpertation of the findings were the
opposite. There is a difference between motivation and results.
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
Consider:
Avi J. Cohen and G.C. Harcourt "Retrospectives: Whatever happened
to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversy", The Journal of
Economic Perspectives Volume 17 No. 1 Winter 2003.
http://dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohen/Linked_Documents/JEP_Cohen_Harcourt.p
df
> > I might as well document my point. Here's what Cohen and Harcourt
> > say:
> >
> > "A final neoclassical theoretical counteroffensive moved into
> > the arena of general equilibrium, with Bliss and Hahn replacing
> > Solow and Samuelson as key protagonists."
> >
> > and
> >
> > "The general equilibrium round was motivated by Samuelson's quest,
> > in his surrogate production function model, 'to provide some
> > rationalization for the validity of the simple J. B. Clark parables'
> > (Samuelson, 1962, p. 194, emphasis in original)."
> >
> > Notice there is no suggestion that General Equilibrium was started
> > to respond to the CCC. Mr. Weatherby is completely wrong.
> Can you read the quotation you posted and I have repeatedly posted
> states clearly the motivation for General equilibrium was Samuelson's
> failure to provide validity of the Clarkian parables. Are we speaking
> the same language or do you just have to have the last word so bad that
> you can not even read what you just wrote.
Mr. Weatherby doesn't know what he is talking about. General
equilibrium was not invented in the 1970s. Cohen and Harcourt
do not say in the above quotes that "General Equilibrium analysis
started" (as Mr. Weatherby puts it) after the Cambridge Capital
Controversy.
> > Consider the point that prices, in some sense, are not scarcity
> > indices in General Equilibrium models. This point is made in
> > Section 3.3 in my essay "A Critique of Disaggregated
> > Neoclassical Theory", available at:
> >
> > <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/Sraffa3.pdf>
> >
> > So, if Mr. Weatherby were honest, he should acknowledge the JEP
> > article under discussion agrees with me. Mr. Weatherby has already
> > gone some way in this direction by pointing out that general
> > equilibrium models do not justify Samuelson's parables.
> This has nothing to do with the statement that the motivation for
> general equilibrium was to provide validity for the Clarkian parables.
I agree that this has nothing to do with the motivation for
general equilibrium (or even the motivation for Bliss and Hahn's
responses to the CCC). Still Cohen and Harcourt agree with my
point here.
Consider the point that prices, in some sense, are not scarcity
indices in General Equilibrium models. This point is made in
Section 3.3 in my essay "A Critique of Disaggregated Neoclassical
Theory". Can Mr. Weatherby acknowledge that the JEP article
under discussion agrees with me?
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
>
> > In article <XjRad.19733$iC4....@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Igor
> > <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> > Consider:
> >
> > Paul M. Romer, "Endogeneous Technical Change", Journal of Political
> > Economy. V. 98, N. 5, p. S71-S101.
> >
> > The first numbered equation in that paper is a production function.
> > The arguments of this function include heterogeneous capital goods.
> > These arguments are measured in numeraire units. Because of price
> > Wicksell effects, this equation (and the remainder of the paper) is
> > incorrect.
> This was not your original argument.
It is true that I did not originally point out that this objection
did not depend on the numeraire.
> However, your analysis is
> incorrect. Price Wicksel effects do not imply because the link between
> capital and interest rates is not there. The link between capital and
> interest rates are not one way as the one commodity good model would
> suggest.
This only strengthens my point.
What does Mr. Weatherby understand price Wicksell effects to be?
(I apologize if this post isn't as clear as I might be sometimes. I
cannot listen to Bush sober.)
Igor
I never stated it was in the 1970's. Arrow and Debreu published their
theory of value in 1959 about the same time Samuelson was having
problems with justifying the Clarkian parables. This was after
Robinson's work of the ealry 1950's. I believe the arguments were set
out in 1953. Haroourt and Cohen state the motivation was to find
validity for the Clarkian parables. The emergence of general equilibrium
was post 1966. That is only 7 years after the publication of Arrow and
Debreu. You do understand their is a lag before a ground breaking idea
becomes common practice. Don't you?
>
>
>>>Consider the point that prices, in some sense, are not scarcity
>>>indices in General Equilibrium models. This point is made in
>>>Section 3.3 in my essay "A Critique of Disaggregated
>>>Neoclassical Theory", available at:
>>>
>>> <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/Sraffa3.pdf>
>>>
>>>So, if Mr. Weatherby were honest, he should acknowledge the JEP
>>>article under discussion agrees with me. Mr. Weatherby has already
>>>gone some way in this direction by pointing out that general
>>>equilibrium models do not justify Samuelson's parables.
>
>
>>This has nothing to do with the statement that the motivation for
>>general equilibrium was to provide validity for the Clarkian parables.
>
>
> I agree that this has nothing to do with the motivation for
> general equilibrium (or even the motivation for Bliss and Hahn's
> responses to the CCC). Still Cohen and Harcourt agree with my
> point here.
>
I would not say that outright. I don't recall the entire article to my
recollection there was no clear statement that general equilibrium did
not reflect prices as being scarcity indices. I could be wrong. I am
tired and will not look it up now. I would say it probably mentions the
argument. As to if it says the argument is correct or proven I can not
say if it does or does not. The article takes a rather neutral stance on
some issues. I woill have to look over the article tomorrow when I have
more time to see what says on the issue. So I really can't comment right
now.
Igor
> Until I know the answer to these questions, I cannot agree
> that changes in technique or capital result in a new labor demand
> curve in that model. I certainly cannot see how Mr. Weatherby
> came to the idea that there are two labor demand curves in that
> model. And, yes, suggesting that Mr. Weatherby explain what he
> thinks he means is substantial.
>
It is very simple you state at one wage rate a certain level of capital
is used. When the wage rate rises firms chose a more labor intensive
mode of production, they use less capital. That means the level of
captial is dependent on the wage. This means the firm has the ability to
change the level of capital as it makes choices.
When you change the level of capital you are
1. operating in the long not short run
2. Defining a new labor demand curve. Capital levels are constant along
a single demand curve. You change capital or your change productivity
and it causes labor to shift.
> As far as I am concerned, technology is taken as constant in
> that paper. The technology consists of all the known processes
> that can be used in production. These processes are listed
> in Table 1 in the paper.
>
Each process implies a differnt level of capital and a different
marginal product of labor for the same number of workers. This means
each process is a distinct labor demand curve not one single labor curve.
>
>
>>It is
>>not short run analysis which is where the prediction that a minimum wage
>>will lower employment comes form.
>
>
> Mr. Weatherby's opinion disagrees with David Henderson's:
>
> "Why would this effect occur a year after the minimum wage
> increase rather than right away? ... when the minimum wage increases,
> employers take time to adjust their methods of production. That is
> to say, it takes time for fast-food joints to buy new burger-flipping
> machinery that requires one teenager to operate rather than two."
> -- David Henderson,
> <http://www.davidrhenderson.com/articles/1098_minimumwageplus.html>
>
No it does not. He is pointing out the short versus the long run. The
long run takes time to acheive because capital changes. The Henderson
quotation, NOT QUOTE, states that the effect of employment loss is a
short run effect. Feedback effects take time to happen and are long run
effects.
> David Henderson is correct about what one rationale is for opposing
> minimum wages. However, his story has been exploded in theory
> for almost half a century. That's part of my point.
>
No it hasn't because you do not deal with the short run. Your model is a
long run model where capital can change. The short run assumes a period
where some factors mainly capital are fixed. The problem is you don't
understand mainstream theory. You refuse to understand it that is why
you can not see the point. I am sorry if your Marxist mind can not
comprehend it. Please do quit stretching for a response and showing a
quotation that has nothing to do with the argument or supports what I
have just said.
> In the midst of all his babble, Mr. Weatherby fumbles some more:
>
>
>>...It does not change the
>>fact that modern economic models are driven by general equilibrium
>>analysis and not Neo-Classical theory. You are not showing ignorance of
>>American economist. You are showing your personal ignorance to the basis
>>of American Economists' models...
>
>
> So it is Mr. Weatherby's opinion that general equilibrium analysis
> is opposed to Neo-Classical theory.
>
I could care less if it is opposed or not opposed to neo-classical
economics no one uses it. We use General equilibrium results and
methods. That is why most American economist ignore your post. Our
answer to is neo-classical economics consistent is who cares we use
general equilibrium analysis.
Igor
Lets start with standard analysis.
The firm in the short run will hire an amount of labor that maximizes
profits. The short run means that factors other than labor are fixed.
Assume that the market for the final good is perfectly competitive.
Perfect competition is not necessary but it does simplify things.
The firm wants to maximize
profit = P(L^{\alpha} K^{\beta}) - wL - rK,
where P is price, L is labor, K is capital, w is wages, r is the rental
rate on capital, and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are shares of capital and
labor respectively. To ensure diminishing returns to capital and labor
alpha<1 and beta<1. Constant returns would imply alpha + beta = 1.
Constant returns are not necessary.
FOC
1. 0 = P\alpha L^{\alpha -1} K^{beta} - w
2. 0 = P \beta L^{\alpha} K^{\beta-1} - r
Factor demands are found by solving 1 and 2 for L and K respectively.
That gives
1. W = P * MPL
where MPL = is \alpha L^{\alpha -1} K^{beta} .
The important part here is short run analysis. This implies $\alpha$
does not change. Neither $\beta$ nor K change either. Given the fact
that $\alpha$ is less than 1 as labor decreases the MPL of labor rises.
This means an increase in the wage leads to less labor hired because the
MPL must rise. The result is dependent on \alpha, \beta, and K being
constant.
Now lets see what you have done differently.
The firm change choose between processes.One process involves a high
level of capital and a low level of labor. Another involves a high level
of labor and high level of capital. The wage will determine what process
is used.
Under the model I gave that says that under different processes the
level of capital changes. This is long run analysis and violates the
short run assumptions. So the comaparison is not valid. Also in your
analysis the share of labor changes with the process chosen mean \alpha
changes. Your model is not short run. This would assume under standard
analyis that labor demand shifts. It means MPL is determined differently
at different wages and therefore more than MPL curve.
For instance a capital intensive process could mean
W = P * .5 L^{-.5} 100^{.5} . This would be one demand curve.
The labor intensive process could mean
W = P * .7 L^{-.3} 50^{.3} - W .
These are two distinctly different labor demands. Your argument is that
there is a distinctly different labor demand for different thresholds in
the wage rate. This is not short run. It involves both \alpha and K
changing. The first implies a completely different production function.
The second implies it is a long run model.
Now General equilibrium analysis gets a similar long run result.
In the long run returns must equalized. This would imply
MPL/W = MPK/r.
This creates a long run feedback effect. Why?
because this can be rewritten as
(\alpha L^{\alpha -1} K^{beta})/W = (\beta L^{\alpha}K^{\beta -1})/r.
The equation shows that as wages rise the firm begins to substitute
toward capital. This has two effects.
1. MPK falls and MPL of labor rises as firms substitute labor for capital.
2. captial rises making labor more productive so more labor is hired at
each short run wage.
What is unclear is if employment increases, stays the same, or
decreases. Why because capital has risen.
So in the long run if a firm invests in more capital due to the increase
in wages then the new short run Labor demand changes because capital has
risen.
An example could be
Short run labor demand 1. W = P * .5L^{.5}100^{.5}
Short run labor demand 2 W = P * .5L^{.5}200*{.5}
It is clear that under these circumstances that for every wage rate more
labor would be hired than before. So an increase in the wage in the long
run could increase, decrease, or keep the Quantity Demanded of Labor the
same. Your result is no different from the general equilibrium result.
Now this is the point that people stick on and why there is argument. It
is because people use loose language. To say Mainstream economics
predicts a fall in employment when a minimum wage is passed is right and
wrong. The problem with the statement is that it does not indicate if
one is speaking in terms of the short run or the long run. Mainstream
economics would predict a SHORT RUN decrease in employment. Your model
does not address short run effects so I can not comment. The fact that
firms can choose factors other than labor indicates a long run model.
However, Mainstream Economics would also predict that the LONG RUN
effect on employment from a minimum wage is THEORITICALLY UNPREDICTABLE.
Empiricly if you estimate labor demands and know the exact increase of
capital you can figure out the direction of employment. Empirically you
can not. So you model does not show mainstream economics is wrong or
that American economist are ignorant. It shows the same result general
equilibrium methods show.
The argument shows that people are guilty of loose language which leads
to confusion. The average student usually skips the days late in a
course when labor economics is discussed so they are left with chapter 2
analysis not realizing that that analysis was under short run
assumptions. The other possibility is that the pressure of comprehensive
finals mean they are studying past material and devote less time than
necessary to the portion of labor economics discussed in the last week
or 2.
Robert Vienneau
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
In article <GcLbd.2816$Rf4....@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Igor
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
[ >> I don't know what Mr. Weatherby means by "technique", ]
[ >> "technology", or "capital" in the context of the model at the ]
[ >> above URL. ]
> > Until I know the answer to these questions, I cannot agree
> > that changes in technique or capital result in a new labor demand
> > curve in that model. I certainly cannot see how Mr. Weatherby
> > came to the idea that there are two labor demand curves in that
> > model. And, yes, suggesting that Mr. Weatherby explain what he
> > thinks he means is substantial.
> It is very simple you state at one wage rate a certain level of capital
> is used.
No such statement is to be found in the paper at the above URL.
I still don't know what Mr. Weatherby means by "technique",
"technology", or "capital" in the context of the model at the
above URL.
> > As far as I am concerned, technology is taken as constant in
> > that paper. The technology consists of all the known processes
> > that can be used in production. These processes are listed
> > in Table 1 in the paper.
> Each process implies a differnt level of capital and a different
> marginal product of labor for the same number of workers. This means
> each process is a distinct labor demand curve not one single labor curve.
The above is wrong.
Consider the production function the firms in a (non-vertically
integrated) industry face. Suppose this production function is
a nice smooth Constant-Returns-to-Scale production function.
Consider around Displays A-3 to A-5 in:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/Sraffa3.pdf>
I show there that such a nice production function represents an
uncountably infinite number of processes.
Suppose the firms are perfectly competitive and minimize cost.
Now consider an isoquant of such a production function. The relative
prices of the inputs determine the slope of the tangent line to
the isoquant. At different levels of wages the slope will be
different and the cost minimizing firm will adopt a different
process of production.
That is, labor demand functions are NOT drawn for a single process.
The cost-minimizing process varies along a labor demand function.
> >>It is
> >>not short run analysis which is where the prediction that a minimum
> >>wage
> >>will lower employment comes form.
> > Mr. Weatherby's opinion disagrees with David Henderson's:
> >
> > "Why would this effect occur a year after the minimum wage
> > increase rather than right away? ... when the minimum wage increases,
> > employers take time to adjust their methods of production. That is
> > to say, it takes time for fast-food joints to buy new burger-flipping
> > machinery that requires one teenager to operate rather than two."
> > -- David Henderson,
> > <http://www.davidrhenderson.com/articles/1098_minimumwageplus.html>
This is completely backwards:
> ...The Henderson
> quotation, NOT QUOTE, states that the effect of employment loss is a
> short run effect. Feedback effects take time to happen and are long run
> effects.
Henderson is saying that the effect of employment loss is a long
run effect. It is long run since the firm under consideration is
given time to replace its stock of capital equipment ("burger-flipping
machinery") with a stock more appropriate for the relative costs the
firm is facing.
It is an application of Marshall's Principle of Substitution. He is
saying that when the relative cost of labor is high, as compared
to the cost of capital equipment, the firm will substitute the
cheaper capital equipment for labor.
Henderson is not considering some "vague" feedback effects operating
across markets. He is considering a long run partial equilibrium
analysis of a firm operating in a single market.
> > David Henderson is correct about what one rationale is for opposing
> > minimum wages. However, his story has been exploded in theory
> > for almost half a century. That's part of my point.
> No it hasn't because you do not deal with the short run. Your model is a
> long run model where capital can change.
I address Henderson's argument (which is not original with
Henerson). I show he is mistaken about the implications of the
theory. For example, I show that here:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/Sraffa3.pdf>
> > In the midst of all his babble, Mr. Weatherby fumbles some more:
> >>...It does not change the
> >>fact that modern economic models are driven by general equilibrium
> >>analysis and not Neo-Classical theory. You are not showing ignorance of
> >>American economist. You are showing your personal ignorance to the
> >>basis
> >>of American Economists' models...
> > So it is Mr. Weatherby's opinion that general equilibrium analysis
> > is opposed to Neo-Classical theory.
> I could care less if it is opposed or not opposed to neo-classical
> economics no one uses it. We use General equilibrium results and
> methods. That is why most American economist ignore your post. Our
> answer to is neo-classical economics consistent is who cares we use
> general equilibrium analysis.
Mr. Weatherby is fumbling some more. If economists only used
general equilibrium results, they would not tell tales about
the supposed employment-decreasing effects of minimum wages. And
many other supposedly "practical" applications of neoclassical
economics would fall too.
Furthermore many mainstream economists realize the Arrow-Debreu
model has been shown to have little empirical content. This
lack of empirical follows from the Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu
results.
Furthermore, those drawing on Sraffa have been attacking general
equilibrium for about half a decade now. See Footnote 23 and
around Footnote 48 in:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/Sraffa3.pdf>
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >>Robert Vienneau wrote:
Mr. Weatherby fumbles some more:
> I never stated it was in the 1970's. Arrow and Debreu published their
> theory of value in 1959 about the same time Samuelson was having
> problems with justifying the Clarkian parables. This was after
> Robinson's work of the ealry 1950's. I believe the arguments were set
> out in 1953. Haroourt and Cohen state the motivation was to find
> validity for the Clarkian parables. The emergence of general equilibrium
> was post 1966. That is only 7 years after the publication of Arrow and
> Debreu. You do understand their is a lag before a ground breaking idea
> becomes common practice. Don't you?
General equilibrium theory was not started by Arrow and Debreu.
This is easily demonstrated. Consider:
J. R. Hicks. Value and Capital. Oxford University Press. 1939.
This book presents a general equilibrium approach. And J. R.
Hicks did not start general equilibrium theory either.
Furthermore, Arrow and Debreu were not responding to Joan Robinson
or any other Cambridge Capital Controversy argument. Furthermore,
Samuelson did not use the Arrow-Debreu model, in his surrogate
production function paper, to justify Clarkian parables. The
Arrow-Debreu model is short run, while Samuelson did not take
endowments as given.
Harcourt and Cohen are referring to the use of general equilibrium
theory by Christopher Bliss and Frank Hahn. They used the
Arrow-Debreu model in responding to the Cambridge Capital
Controversy. This was mainly in the 1970s.
Joan Robinson's opinion of the Arrow-Debreu model was that she
could never make it stand up long enough to knock it down. Hicks
came to agree with Joan Robinson. I think Hicks recantation
was in the 1970s.
> >>>Consider the point that prices, in some sense, are not scarcity
> >>>indices in General Equilibrium models. This point is made in
> >>>Section 3.3 in my essay "A Critique of Disaggregated
> >>>Neoclassical Theory", available at:
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/Sraffa3.pdf>
> >>>
> >>>...the JEP
> >>>article under discussion agrees with me...
Igor
> Consider:
>
> <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>
>
> In article <GcLbd.2816$Rf4....@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Igor
> <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Vienneau wrote:
>
>
>>It is very simple you state at one wage rate a certain level of capital
>>is used.
>
>
> No such statement is to be found in the paper at the above URL.
>
What are to say steel is not capital? When the amount of corn and steel
change so does production time. Are these not capital goods that are
labor augmenting or is it a magic process that uses the capital but
gives two different outputs for different two sets of inputs?
> Henderson is saying that the effect of employment loss is a long
> run effect. It is long run since the firm under consideration is
> given time to replace its stock of capital equipment ("burger-flipping
> machinery") with a stock more appropriate for the relative costs the
> firm is facing.
>
> It is an application of Marshall's Principle of Substitution. He is
> saying that when the relative cost of labor is high, as compared
> to the cost of capital equipment, the firm will substitute the
> cheaper capital equipment for labor.
>
This is a LONG RUN EFFECT. Learn the difference between Long and Short
Run and maybe you can understand what is said. I have explained this
several times.
> Henderson is not considering some "vague" feedback effects operating
> across markets. He is considering a long run partial equilibrium
> analysis of a firm operating in a single market.
>
Feedback effects are not vague. It is exactly what is described.
>
> Mr. Weatherby is fumbling some more. If economists only used
> general equilibrium results, they would not tell tales about
> the supposed employment-decreasing effects of minimum wages. And
> many other supposedly "practical" applications of neoclassical
> economics would fall too.
>
Yes they do for SHORT RUN ANALYSIS. I have shown you SHORT RUN labor
demand curves slope downward. In the LONG RUN general equilibrium
analysis shows the effect of a rising wage is undeterminable. YOU IGNORE
THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE APPLYING A LONG RUN MODEL TO COUNTER A SHORT
RUN RESULT. It is completely inappropiate.
Igor
> In article <JpLbd.2817$Rf4....@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Igor
> <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is easily demonstrated. Consider:
>
> J. R. Hicks. Value and Capital. Oxford University Press. 1939.
>
> This book presents a general equilibrium approach. And J. R.
> Hicks did not start general equilibrium theory either.
>
This does not mean the motivation for extending the theory was not to
recover the Clarkian parables that Samuelson could not prove. This is
what Cohen and Harcourt say.
>Furthermore,
> Samuelson did not use the Arrow-Debreu model, in his surrogate
> production function paper, to justify Clarkian parables.
Exactly that is why there was a belief general equilibrium methods could
give validity where Samuelson failed. If the motivation for extending
general equilibrium and bringing to the forefront was from Samuelson's
failure then it is not logical to assume Samuelson had used general
equilibrium. This is a ridicolous statement. Samuleson's surrogate
production function failed to give validity to the parables, so in the
next round general equilibrium was used to try to give validity to the
parables.
> Harcourt and Cohen are referring to the use of general equilibrium
> theory by Christopher Bliss and Frank Hahn. They used the
> Arrow-Debreu model in responding to the Cambridge Capital
> Controversy. This was mainly in the 1970s.
>
Starting in 1966. This was the motivation for bringing general
equilibrium analysis in and bringing to the forefront. So are now saying
that they used general equilibrium as response to the CCC but they were
not motivated by the CCC?