Spam for sale!
Kelly DeRango
I know that many of you don't like Spam but this fact should not deter
you from purchasing what I have to offer. After all, many in this group
seem to believe that an exchange can take place if one party is harmed
and one party benefits. You would be harmed and I certainly would
benefit so let's make a deal!
Now I know that the price may seem prohibitive but Robert's recent post
"Do Factor Markets Exist" argues that demand curves might not slope
downward. So what the heck, it seems that raising my price shouldn't
deter any buyers.
I look forward to hearing from those of you who think a voluntary
exchange can occur when one or more party does not benefit and from
those of you who don't think that demand is not downward sloping.
Please put your collective money where you mouths are.
Kelly
SUSUPPLY
>Now I know that the price may seem prohibitive but Robert's recent post
>"Do Factor Markets Exist" argues that demand curves might not slope
>downward. So what the heck, it seems that raising my price shouldn't
>deter any buyers.
Yeah, here's you're chance to prove your point, Robert.
Kelly, do you take Visa/Mastercharge?
Patrick
Robert Vienneau
<kder...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> I have a few cans of Spam that I would like to unload for $100/can.
Kelly,
Are you trying to imply something about my recent post on factor markets?
> I know that many of you don't like Spam but this fact should not deter
> you from purchasing what I have to offer. After all, many in this group
> seem to believe that an exchange can take place if one party is harmed
> and one party benefits. You would be harmed and I certainly would
> benefit so let's make a deal!
How many is "many"?
Are you trying to suggest a way to empirically test a proposition that
you think a tautology? You seem not to be willing to think things through.
If I send you $100 for the pleasure of getting you to admit that
the neoclassical understanding of behavior is flawed, would neoclassical
theory be invalidated?
> Now I know that the price may seem prohibitive but Robert's recent post
> "Do Factor Markets Exist" argues that demand curves might not slope
> downward.
If you read carefully, you will find no *assertions* in my post about
the slope of factor demand curves. You will find a demonstration that,
given technology, a vertically-integrated firm choosing to adopt a
more labor-intensive technique at a higher wage is consistent with
cost-minimization.
You will also find a question. I don't know why you want to loudly
suggest your inability or unwillingness to answer it.
> So what the heck, it seems that raising my price shouldn't
> deter any buyers.
> I look forward to hearing from those of you who think a voluntary
> exchange can occur when one or more party does not benefit and from
> those of you who don't think that demand is not downward sloping.
> Please put your collective money where you mouths are.
Just out of curiousity, have you heard of Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu
results? What restrictions do you suppose are imposed on the shape
of market demand curves by utility-maximization under the usual
assumptions? (Since my long post on factor markets does not mention
utility, this is a different question than the one in that post.)
--
Robert Vienneau
r
v
i
e m
n o Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom,
@ c or virtue, are always found...in proportion to
d . the power or wealth of a man [is] a question
r e fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the
e p hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming
a a to reasonable and free men in search of the
m c truth.
s -- Rousseau
SUSUPPLY
>Are you trying to suggest a way to empirically test a proposition that
>you think a tautology? You seem not to be willing to think things through.
>If I send you $100 for the pleasure of getting you to admit that
>the neoclassical understanding of behavior is flawed, would neoclassical
>theory be invalidated?
It's not Kelly who isn't thinking things through. If you do part with that
$100, you'd be validating Friedman's (and Kelly's) point.
But hey, I can help you. E-mail me your Visa or M/C number and date of
expiration, along with the address where you want the Spam delivered. That way
we can both have the "pleasure" (theoretically speaking).
Patrick
Kelly DeRango
I actually enjoyed your post "Do Supply Markets Exist" because, frankly,
most of it consisted of other people's writings on economics.
How and the world can you extensively quote Robert Samuelson on Joan
Robinson (two economists) who demonstrates the point you are trying to
make, that a maximizing framework can have produce a relationship
between labor utilization and wages which is counter to the econ 101
model and then say,
"The final questions posed by this example are a matter of the
sociology of knowledge. Similar examples have been available
in the literature for over three decades. Many economists,
including specialists in labor economics, seem to be unaware of
this possibility. Why do so many economists have logically
mistaken beliefs about their subject? Why do they continue to
teach exploded dogma?"
Are you claiming to be an expert on Labor Economics and Labor
Economists?
And to answer:
"Why do they continue to teach exploded dogma?"
in econ 101? Do you think that observing breaks in the fossil records
that are not consistent with a biology 101 understanding of evolution
constitutes a rejection of evolutionary theory?
Drop the arrogance and get serious.
Kelly
Robert Vienneau wrote:
> In article <36599603...@students.wisc.edu>, Kelly DeRango
> <kder...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> > I have a few cans of Spam that I would like to unload for $100/can.
>
> Kelly,
>
> Are you trying to imply something about my recent post on factor
> markets?
>
> > I know that many of you don't like Spam but this fact should not
> deter
> > you from purchasing what I have to offer. After all, many in this
> group
> > seem to believe that an exchange can take place if one party is
> harmed
> > and one party benefits. You would be harmed and I certainly would
> > benefit so let's make a deal!
>
> How many is "many"?
>
> Are you trying to suggest a way to empirically test a proposition that
>
> you think a tautology? You seem not to be willing to think things
> through.
>
> If I send you $100 for the pleasure of getting you to admit that
> the neoclassical understanding of behavior is flawed, would
> neoclassical
> theory be invalidated?
>
Robert Vienneau
<der...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
> I actually enjoyed your post "Do Supply Markets Exist" because, frankly,
> most of it consisted of other people's writings on economics.
Kelly,
Would I sound arrogant if I point out that you changed the name of
my post? I assume that substituting the name of the journalist
Robert Samuelson for the name of Paul Samulson is only a slip.
> How and the world can you extensively quote Robert Samuelson on Joan
> Robinson (two economists) who demonstrates the point you are trying to
> make, that a maximizing framework can have produce a relationship
> between labor utilization and wages which is counter to the econ 101
> model and then say,
>
> "The final questions posed by this example are a matter of the
> sociology of knowledge. Similar examples have been available
> in the literature for over three decades. Many economists,
> including specialists in labor economics, seem to be unaware of
> this possibility. Why do so many economists have logically
> mistaken beliefs about their subject? Why do they continue to
> teach exploded dogma?"
>
> Are you claiming to be an expert on Labor Economics and Labor
> Economists?
Actually, I have the testimony of one specialist in labor economics
who graduated from one of the better schools in Canada to support this.
This testimony confirms claims I've read in some literature.
I have seen little awareness of Joan Robinson's contributions to
economics in many posts from economists in this group.
As for arrogance, notice the tone of the economists in this newsgroup
(Sometimes it's hard to tell which posters are economists.) You didn't
appreciate my joke about Jay Hanson's posting style and your response?
I bet he didn't either.
I think many mainstream economists avoid addressing the points of
critics. I think you have been doing the same. It's seems to be part of
a socialization process that some learn how to respond to interesting
arguments with what seem to me to be a sequence of non sequiturs.
I would be interested in reading somebody seriously addressing
Lauchlan Mackinnon. Why do you think he's received so little in the
way of response?