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...