Math Too Advanced For Mainstream Economists

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Vienneau

unread,
Feb 9, 2004, 5:20:00 AM2/9/04
to
I think this thread would amusing to those who find JSH threads
amusing, but with a twist.

"I was delighted to find in a dictionary the word MUMPSIMUS,
which means stubborn persistence in an error that has been
exposed."
-- Joan Robinson

In article <acec624d.04020...@posting.google.com>,
econg...@hotmail.com (Mark Witte) wrote:

<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Sraffa4/Sraffa4.html>

> ...the original poster was unable to find a single piece of
> empirical support for the labor market model presented...

The above, of course, is untrue, and it is hard to see how poor
Mark Witte cannot know it is untrue, if he had any clue about
what he is talking about.

> A
> demand curve is a relationship between price and quantity demanded.
> If something else changes, such as prices of related goods in demand
> (here the discount rate would be an example), this shifts the curve.

Poor Mark Witte is confused. A discount rate is not a price.

> To be charitable to the original poster, his confusion probably stems
> from his notion that a change by the firm in question in the number of
> workers it hires would change the discount rate for the economy.

The above is a strawperson. No such claim is to be found at the above
URL.

Notice no claim is made about the discount rate for the economy
being changed by a change in how many workers firm hires. In fact,
an economy-wide market for financial capital is not described at
my URL.

Poor Mark Witte just doesn't understand accounting. If the best
return a firm can obtain is 10%, then that's what the firm gives
up in investing elsewhere. If costs are different for the best
investment (e.g., because the level of wages is different), then the
firm gives up some other rate of return than 10%.

To help poor Mark Witte out, here's some explanations of a concept
important for understanding Step 2 of the algorithm given at my
URL:

<http://invest-faq.com/articles/analy-int-rate-return.html>

<http://www.toolkit.cch.com/text/P06_6550.asp>

My URL is more a tutorial to results well-established in the literature.
No claim is made to novelty there. For that matter, no claim is made
there that the relationship shown is a demand curve for labor. But that
claim is made in the literature.

--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
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

susupply

unread,
Feb 9, 2004, 1:47:58 PM2/9/04
to

"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com>

wrote in message news:rvien-C20DC1....@news.dreamscape.com...

> > ...the original poster was unable to find a single piece of
> > empirical support for the labor market model presented...
>
> The above, of course, is untrue, and it is hard to see how poor
> Mark Witte cannot know it is untrue, if he had any clue about
> what he is talking about.

Of course, it would be standard practice to produce here a single such
example. If one could.


Mark Witte

unread,
Feb 10, 2004, 10:36:33 AM2/10/04
to
> I have written up a demonstration that wages and employment need not
> be determined by the intersection of well-behaved supply and demand
> curves for labor:
> <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Sraffa4/Sraffa4.html>

The poster claims to have constructed a model that has something to do
with "the intersection of well-behaved supply and demand curves for
labor", but he has not. Rather, he comes close to presenting a model
of the factor demand for labor, but he confuses movements along a
demand curve with shifts of that curve. Further, he has confusion
about the competition assumptions that go with the basic supply-demand
setting, which set "the rate of profits" independently from the wage
rate. As such, he may have a model of something, but it's nothing
related to the workings of a competitive labor market.

Even if this were a model of labor market behavior that contradicted
the usual results of the standard supply and demand model, it would
not be an interesting contribution unless it did a better job than the
supply and demand (or other established labor models) of describing
something interesting about the observed world. There are plenty of
labor market models that use tools other than standard supply and
demand analysis, I've cited some of them in this thread, but their
value comes from their empirical relevance.

Does this model show something of interest to any serious researcher?
What do we observe that it explains better than competing approaches?


Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message news:<rvien-C20DC1....@news.dreamscape.com>...

Robert Vienneau

unread,
Feb 11, 2004, 1:35:55 AM2/11/04
to
"I was delighted to find in a dictionary the word MUMPSIMUS,
which means stubborn persistence in an error that has been
exposed."
-- Joan Robinson

In article <acec624d.04021...@posting.google.com>,
econg...@hotmail.com (Mark Witte) wrote:

> > I have written up a demonstration that wages and employment need not
> > be determined by the intersection of well-behaved supply and demand
> > curves for labor:
> > <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Sraffa4/Sraffa4.html>

> The poster claims to have constructed a model that has something to do
> with "the intersection of well-behaved supply and demand curves for
> labor", but he has not.

The claim is that the models shown at the above URL are not models of
such intersections. So poor Mark Witte is disagreeing with a
straw person.

> Rather, he comes close to presenting a model
> of the factor demand for labor, but he confuses movements along a
> demand curve with shifts of that curve.

Since no claim is made there that the relationship shown is a demand
curve for labor, no such confusion is shown. Once again, poor Mark
Witte is making it up.

> Further, he has confusion
> about the competition assumptions that go with the basic supply-demand
> setting, which set "the rate of profits" independently from the wage
> rate. As such, he may have a model of something, but it's nothing
> related to the workings of a competitive labor market.

The "rate of profits" found at that URL is the Internal Rate of Return
in the best investment opportunity available to the modeled firm. At
different wages, the costs used in calculating that IRR are different.
Poor Mark Witte rejects arithmetic.

> Even if this were a model of labor market behavior that contradicted
> the usual results of the standard supply and demand model, it would
> not be an interesting contribution unless it did a better job than the
> supply and demand (or other established labor models) of describing
> something interesting about the observed world. There are plenty of
> labor market models that use tools other than standard supply and
> demand analysis, I've cited some of them in this thread, but their
> value comes from their empirical relevance.
>
> Does this model show something of interest to any serious researcher?
> What do we observe that it explains better than competing approaches?

I remain of the opinion that discarding theories about the world
that are self-contradictory improves one's understanding of the world.

But, of course, cites of empirical evidence have already been given
in this thread.

Furthermore, my URL is more a tutorial to results well-established in


the literature. No claim is made to novelty there.

--

Mark Witte

unread,
Feb 11, 2004, 10:54:29 AM2/11/04
to
Is there a point here? Two questions should be answered if this is
serious rather than merely a strange polemic.

This thread opened with the simple statement:

1| I have written up a demonstration that wages and employment
1| need not be determined by the intersection of well-behaved
1| supply and demand curves for labor:
1| <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Sraffa4/Sraffa4.html>

I entered this thread to agree that the above text makes for an
unexceptional statement, but the originally linked material was
somewhat more problematic. I wrote:

2| Truly, while the simple supply and demand model does a
2| good job of explaining much of the data generated by
2| labor markets, there are certainly some complexities that
2| require more subtle tools. Certainly careful econometric
2| models are needed to handle the possibility of individual
2| labor supplies displaying backward bending behavior, and to
2| pick up tricky Becker-style joint labor supply decisions by
2| households. For more complex labor flows and unemployment
2| behavior, the labor matching/search methodologies of Diamond,
2| Mortensen, et al are quite useful. Modern labor economics
2| is a very exciting field.

Then I get to my point:

2| "What does this model tell us about the world we observe that
2| we didn't know before?"

The response involves the words "fool" and "infantile", yet doesn't
really get around to answering my question. So I post again, to ask:

3| So, what serious model does this work improve upon,
3| and what does it tell us about the observed world that
3| we did not already understand?

Responses come, yet no answer to the original question, so again I
ask:

4| Does this model show something of interest to any
4| serious researcher? What do we observe that it
4| explains better than competing approaches?

The latest response contains the following:

5a| I remain of the opinion that discarding theories about the
5a| world that are self-contradictory improves one's understanding
5a| of the world.

5b| But, of course, cites of empirical evidence have already been
5b| given in this thread.

There are two problems with this answer.

For (5b), empirical papers were cited, but they did not relate to
labor markets and so were a strange response to my question of the
relevance of this particular work.

For (5a), the problem is that no post on this thread indicates what
"self-contradictory" theories we should be "discarding." Is it supply
and demand models for labor? I have explained in this thread how the
linked post is not related to simple supply and demand curve analysis
of labor markets and only a misunderstanding of the supply and demand
approach would make anyone think so, such as with the misuse in the
context of tools like IRR. That this confusion exists on the part of
the original author is made clear by this quote from the linked
webpage:

L| "So much for the theory that wages and employment are determined
L| by the intersection of well-behaved supply and demand curves in
L| the labor market."

This calls for answering two questions.

Question 1: Does the originator of this thread believe that a
"well-behaved supply and demand" model is never appropriate for
explaining how labor markets function?

Question 2: Give than there are many types of models for explaining
labor markets, what observed aspect of labor market behavior does this
approach explain better than other established models?


Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message news:<rvien-FBD4B7....@news.dreamscape.com>...

Robert Vienneau

unread,
Feb 12, 2004, 11:21:18 PM2/12/04
to

RV> I have written up a demonstration that wages and employment
RV> need not be determined by the intersection of well-behaved
RV> supply and demand curves for labor:
RV> <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Sraffa4/Sraffa4.html>

MW> So, what serious model does this work improve upon,
MW> and what does it tell us about the observed world that
MW> we did not already understand?

Dear reader, poor Mark Witte shows that he thinks you an idiot:

MW> Responses come, yet no answer to the original question, so again I
MW> ask:

MW> Does this model show something of interest to any
MW> serious researcher? What do we observe that it
MW> explains better than competing approaches?

MW> The latest response contains the following:

MW> I remain of the opinion that discarding theories about the
MW> world that are self-contradictory improves one's understanding
MW> of the world.

Poor Mark Witte continues to insult the intelligence of his readers.
He presents that quote as if that is a new answer on my part. He
refuses to acknowledge that he has been ignoring an answer to his
question for some time.

"Personally, I'm of the opinion that one's ability to understand
the world is improved by throwing out internally inconsistent
theories."
-- Robert Vienneau, 20 September 2003.

"Personally, I'm of the opinion that one's ability to understand the
world is improved by throwing out internally inconsistent theories."
-- Robert Vienneau, 23 September 2003.

"I remain of the opinion that discarding theories about the world
that are self-contradictory improves one's understanding of the world."

-- Robert Vienneau, 2 February 2004.

"I remain of the opinion that discarding theories about the world
that are self-contradictory improves one's understanding of the world."

-- Robert Vienneau, 11 February 2004.

MW> ...the problem is that no post on this thread indicates what
MW> "self-contradictory" theories we should be "discarding." Is it
MW> supply and demand models for labor? I have explained in this
MW> thread how the linked post is not related to simple supply and
MW> demand curve analysis of labor markets and only a misunderstanding
MW> of the supply and demand approach would make anyone think so, such
MW> as with the misuse in the context of tools like IRR. That this
MW> confusion exists on the part of the original author is made clear
MW> by this quote from the linked webpage:



"So much for the theory that wages and employment are determined

by the intersection of well-behaved supply and demand curves in

the labor market."

Poor Mark Witte continues to insult your intelligence, dear reader.
Note that poor Mark Witte makes no attempt whatsoever to demonstrate
any misuse of "tools like IRR". He thinks his mere statement will
distract you from his previous error in asserting that the Internal Rate
of Return will not generally be different at different levels of costs,
when revenues are unchanged.

And poor Mark Witte seems to think readers, if any, are not aware
that, in mainstream economics, labor demand curves are supposed to
be derived from optimizing behavior of the firm. I provide a
correct analysis of such optimizing behavior. I do not end up with
a labor demand curve. In fact, I do not even end up with a firm
that will necessarily adopt a more labor-intensive techninue or
hire more workers at a lower wage. Somehow Mark Witte thinks you
will be confused enough to believe his echo of my point, that
such analysis does not yield well-behaved labor demand curves,
into thinking that I have not shown the foundation for well-behaved
labor demand curves is lacking.

If poor Mark Witte thought otherwise, he could always try to present
an argument. For example, he might construct an equilibrium of the
firm at each possible level of the wage in my example. And then
he might show how to draw a labor demand function. Or he could
show how to find the equilibrium of the firm under some other
description of technology.

I do not here address poor Mark Witte's pretence that empirical
evidence relevant to my example has not been cited on this
thread.

> Question: Does the originator of this thread believe that a


> "well-behaved supply and demand" model is never appropriate for
> explaining how labor markets function?

No such claim has been advanced here. Perhaps poor Mark Witte
could outline under what special case conditions one can
derive a labor demand function.

By the way, I also haven't suggested firms will always want to
adopt less labor-intensive techniques at lower wages. But if one
thought optimizing competitive firms always adopt more labor
intensive techniques at lower wages, one might outline some
special case assumptions that yield this conclusion.

But the empirical evidence suggests that poor Mark Witte will
always beg all arguments rather than put forth a statement that
is not fallacious.

"It is better to be left with an empty mind than one filled
with nonsense - with deductive inconsistencies and fanciful
empirical hypotheses."
-- Paul Samuelson

"since both groups of versions of marginalist equilibrium theory -
the long-period versions and the neo-Walrasian versions - encounter
what appear to be radical and insurmountable difficulties, one
must conclude that at present there is no defensible neoclassical
theory (in the sense of explanation) of prices and distribution.
The onus is on the neoclassicals to show that this is not so.
Unless and until they succeed, it seems reasonable to turn to
different, non-neoclassical approaches to value and distribution
(and employment and growth)."
-- Fabio Petri, "Professor Hahn on the 'neo-Ricardian' Criticism
of Neoclassical Economics", in _Value, Distribution, and Capital:
Essays in Honour of Pierangelo Garegnani". Routledge, 1999.

Mark Witte

unread,
Feb 13, 2004, 10:40:39 AM2/13/04
to
My last post contained the following, it remains unanswered and
evidently always will. Anyone interested in understanding the
supply-and-demand framework is recommended to read an intermediate
text on microeconomics.

__________________

L| "So much for the theory that wages and employment are determined
L| by the intersection of well-behaved supply and demand curves in
L| the labor market."

This calls for answering two questions.

Question 1: Does the originator of this thread believe that a


"well-behaved supply and demand" model is never appropriate for
explaining how labor markets function?

Question 2: Give than there are many types of models for explaining


labor markets, what observed aspect of labor market behavior does this
approach explain better than other established models?


Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message news:<rvien-06714A....@news.dreamscape.com>...

Robert Vienneau

unread,
Feb 14, 2004, 7:17:35 AM2/14/04
to
My URL suggests that explaining wages and employment by the supply
and demand for labor is problematic:

<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Sraffa4/Sraffa4.html>

Poor Mark Witte seems to believe that the supply and demand model
is sometimes reasonable. But he cannot and will not present any
argument whatsoever that addresses my argument (which merely
echoes well-established results in the literature).

Instead he tries to shift the burden of proof:

> Question: Does the originator of this thread believe that a
> "well-behaved supply and demand" model is never appropriate for
> explaining how labor markets function?

This raise an empirical question. Does poor Mark Witte realize
he has no point?

Mark Witte

unread,
Feb 14, 2004, 7:32:37 PM2/14/04
to
I've been asking two questions, the first a simple yes-or-no question,
the second asks for basic empirical support.

: Question 1: Does the originator of this thread believe that a


: "well-behaved supply and demand" model is never appropriate for
: explaining how labor markets function?

: Question 2: Give than there are many types of models for explaining


: labor markets, what observed aspect of labor market behavior does
: this approach explain better than other established models?

Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message news:<rvien-0D2CC7....@news.dreamscape.com>...


> My URL suggests that explaining wages and employment by the supply
> and demand for labor is problematic:
>
> <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Sraffa4/Sraffa4.html>
>
> Poor Mark Witte seems to believe that the supply and demand model
> is sometimes reasonable.

This is true, I do believe that the supply and demand model is
sometimes reasonable. Yes or no, do you believe that the supply and
demand model is never a reasonable description of what we observe in
the world? Here, I'll make it easy for you.

___ I, Robert Vienneau, believe that the supply and demand model is
sometimes a reasonable way of modelling the world we observe.

___ I, Robert Vienneau, believe that the supply and demand model is
never reasonable way of modelling the world we observe.

Please put your "X" in the appropriate space.

> But he cannot and will not present any
> argument whatsoever that addresses my argument (which merely
> echoes well-established results in the literature).
>
> Instead he tries to shift the burden of proof:
>
> > Question: Does the originator of this thread believe that a
> > "well-behaved supply and demand" model is never appropriate for
> > explaining how labor markets function?
>
> This raise an empirical question. Does poor Mark Witte realize
> he has no point?

I think it was clear early on that there was never any point to
this thread beyond it being "merely a strange polemic." Of course, if
someone would present an interesting model that did a good job of
describing something that we see, I could be persuaded otherwise.
But...that's just not going to happen, is it?

susupply

unread,
Feb 14, 2004, 7:59:48 PM2/14/04
to

"Mark Witte" <econg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:acec624d.04021...@posting.google.com...

> > Poor Mark Witte seems to believe that the supply and demand model
> > is sometimes reasonable.
>
> This is true, I do believe that the supply and demand model is
> sometimes reasonable. Yes or no, do you believe that the supply and
> demand model is never a reasonable description of what we observe in
> the world? Here, I'll make it easy for you.
>
> ___ I, Robert Vienneau, believe that the supply and demand model is
> sometimes a reasonable way of modelling the world we observe.
>
> ___ I, Robert Vienneau, believe that the supply and demand model is
> never reasonable way of modelling the world we observe.
>
> Please put your "X" in the appropriate space.

I don't think this will work. At least it hasn't in the past.

How about we try the affirmative silence gambit? Say, "Robert, if you
believe the supply and demand model is never a reasonable approach, don't
respond to this question."


Robert Vienneau

unread,
Feb 16, 2004, 5:06:34 PM2/16/04
to

> [snip]

Dear reader, poor Mark Witte continues to insult your intelligence
with his continual conflating and begging of all questions. Here
are some questions he conflates:

1. Are there internally consistent models of wages and employment
determined by the intersection of supply and demand curves, as
in supposedly neoclassical theory?

2. Do such internally consistent models, if any, have any actually
existing labor markets in their scope?

3. What competing theories have actually existing "markets" within
their scope?

4. What empirical evidence, if any, suggests one theory or another
better explains some observations in some context for some
purpose?

Note that empirical evidence is irrelevant for the answer to the
first question.

But, empirically, production in the U.S.A. usually occurs with the
usage of goods previously produced, that is, with capital goods. As
I have been pointing out for years, there seems to be no internally
consistent neoclassical model of well-behaved labor supply and
demand curves that has such an economcy within its scope. This, of
course, is not merely my opinion. It is the conclusion of a collection
of arguments I have presented. And these arguments follow the
literature.

(Notice the above paragraph does not imply that there are no
internally consistent neoclassical models of well-behaved
labor supply and demand curves which, by assumption, exclude time
and the existence of capital goods.)

If one were serious, unlike Mark Witte, one might address the
arguments I have presented. If one wanted to challenge my conclusion,
for example, one might outline a coherent neoclassical model of
supply and demand incorporating capital goods.

On the other hand, some silly person insulting the readership of
sci.econ might continue to beg the answers to the first two questions
above, while trying to change the subject to some such question as:

"Do you believe that the supply and demand model is never a


reasonable description of what we observe in the world?"

This is a non sequitur when the topic is the internal consistency
and scope of "the supply and demand model". It begs the question
of the existence of any such model.

> > This raise an empirical question. Does poor Mark Witte realize
> > he has no point?

> I think it was clear early on that there was never any point to
> this thread beyond it being "merely a strange polemic."

Whatever.

> Of course, if
> someone would present an interesting model that did a good job of
> describing something that we see, I could be persuaded otherwise.
> But...that's just not going to happen, is it?

Poor Mark Witte just continues to make shit up. From this thread:

"lots of empirical data goes along with what I am saying. For
example, ..."
-- Robert Vienneau, 27 January 2004

The URL
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Sraffa4/Sraffa4.html>
has been under discussion here, inasmuch as other posters can be
said to have been discussing anything at all. That URL contains:

"Consider a firm whose managers know two techniques for producing
widgets. Table 1 shows the amount of labor inputs required to
produce a widget for each technique. The interesting qualitative
properties of this example depend merely on the difference in
labor inputs between the techniques each year. Thus, if every
input of labor in both techniques was increased by the same
amount (e.g., 25 person-years), the results of this example
would look much the same. One instance discussed in the literature
is a choice between using a plot of land for either grazing or
mining; mining requires a high initial expenditure and a costly
cleanup phase at the end of the use of the land. Other empirical
examples have been discussed in the literature, usually in the
context of environmental economics or geography."

And, once again from this thread:

"Here's one example of empirical and applied work in the
literature drawing on Sraffa:

Raymond Prince and J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., "Some Implications
of Delayed Environmental Costs for Benefit Cost Analysis: A
Study of Reswitching in the Western Coal Lands, _Growth and
Change_, V. 16, 18-25, 1985."


-- Robert Vienneau, 2 February 2004

"If one were actually to produce such an argument, one should be
aware that both reswitching and capital-reversing can arise in
models in which technology is described in other ways. And one
might want to address the empirical examples in the literature.
Some empirical examples are vaguely alluded to at the above URL,
but have been more fully cited in the past on this newsgroup."
-- Robert Vienneau, 1 February 2004

Here's a list that poor Mark Witte has seen before:

Peter Albin, "Reswitching: An Empirical Observation," _Kyklos_, 1975,
Number 1, 28, pp. 149-54.

Geir B. Asheim, "The Occurrence of Paradoxical Behavior in a Model
where Economic Activity has Environmental Effects," Norwegian School
of Economics and Business Administration Discussion Papers, 1980.

Trevor Barnes and Eric Sheppard, "Technical Choice and Reswitching in
Space Economies," _Regional Science and Urban Economics_, V. 14,
pp. 345-352, 1984.

John Hartwick, "Intermediate Goods and the Spatial Integration of Land
Use," _Regional Science and Urban Economics_, V. 6, pp. 127-145, 1976.

Adam Ozanne, "Do Supply Curves Slope Up? The Empirical Relevance of
the Sraffian Critique of Neoclassical Production Economics,"
_Cambridge Journal of Economics_, Volume 20, pp. 749-762, 1996.

Raymond Prince and J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., "Environment Costs and
Reswitching Between Food and Energy Production in the Western United
States," mimeo, James Madison University, 1984.

Raymond Prince and J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., "Some Implications of
Delayed Environmental Costs for Benefit Cost Analysis: A Study of
Reswitching in the Western Coal Lands, _Growth and Change_, V. 16,
18-25, 1985.

U. Schweizer and P. Varaiya, "The Spatial Structure of Production with
a Leontief Technology-II: Substitute Techniques," _Regional Science and
Urban Economics_, V. 7, pp. 293-320, 1977.

A. J. Scott, "Commodity Production and the Dynamics of Land-Use
Differentiation," _Urban Studies_, V. 16, pp. 95-104, 1979.

I have still not read every paper listed above.

An amusing quote:

"I spotted no such naive errors in Marglin's estimation techniques."
-- Mark Witte, 12 April 1997

Elsewhere poor Mark Witte writes:

> Kind of like the "simple question about funding the Sraffa Memorial?"

Consider:

> 1. What tax should the Gov. of NY propose to fund the Sraffa
> Memorial?

I was amused that Mr. Auld should raise a question of tax incidence
for a demonstration of the lack of practical implications of
Sraffianism. That reveals that he had very little idea of what he
had been arguing about for years. (What is the distinction between
basic and non-basic goods? The King of Sweden conferred on Sraffa
the Soderstrom gold medal of the Royal Academy of Sciences in March
1961. This award was for a massive work of scholarship. What was the
topic of the middle third of the first volume?)
-- Robert Vienneau, approximately 18 January 2001

Naturally, the simple questions I asked then have gone unanswered
here, as far as I know.

Robert Vienneau

unread,
Feb 18, 2004, 12:05:49 AM2/18/04
to
The pitiful child who posts below is teaches economics at a leading
second-tier department of economics in the U.S.A. Hard to believe.

> "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last,
> have you left no sense of decency?"
> -- Joseph Welch to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, 1954. Army-McCarthy
> Hearings.
>
> also
> -- Mark Witte to Robert Vienneau, 2004, concerning cross-spamming
> to the sci.math newsgroup for no reason. Stop this.
>
> "That's the longest answer I ever heard to a yes or no question."
> -- John Edwards to John Kerry, 2004, Wisconsin Democratic
> Presidential Debate
>
> also
> -- Mark Witte to Robert Vienneau, 2004, concerning continued
> non-answers about whether supply-and-demand is ever valid.
>
> Samuel Johnson observed that that patriotism is the last refuge of
> scoundrels, and evidently aggressive editing is the last refuge of
> those losing newsgroup slanging matches. Anyone who is interested in
> a strange Sraffarian modus operandi is invited to read up on this sad
> thread.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=rvien-0D64F
> A.17063416022004%40news.dreamscape.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie
> %3DUTF-8%26group%3Dsci.econ


>
> Robert Vienneau writes:
>
> > So much for the theory that wages and employment are determined
> > by the intersection of well-behaved supply and demand curves in
> > the labor market."
>

> and
>
> > Poor Mark Witte seems to believe that the supply and demand model
> > is sometimes reasonable.
>
> I tired to explain that his linked page doesn't really critique the
> competitive labor market supply and demand model, where quantities are
> related to prices, and other factors shift said curves. It evidently
> didn't take, probably owing to confusion on Mr. Vienneau's part on the
> difference between partial and general equilbrium. It's a common
> intermediate mistake.
>
> I then asked whether Robert had the courage of his convictions to say
> whether he felt that supply and demand was ever a reasonable framework
> for explaining our world. I made it easy, but in trying to bring the
> mountain to Mohammed somehow only led Mohammed to run away.
>
> Robert's citing of empirically based papers on other topics in support
> of a model that endeavors to address labor market issues is shameful,
> and he does it here yet again.
>
> There are many models of labor market behavior, supply-and-demand
> being a very useful on among them. In the tradition of the following
> book,
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226458083/qid=1076997593//r
> ef=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-6894108-3696656?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> this thread will gain my reply when the approach Robert Vienneau
> advances is shown to explain something, anything, observable about
> labor markets that other approaches don't.
>
> To beat a model, one must either show it is invalid, or that another
> model is superior empirically. If supply and demand is not invalid,
> then for some other model to be preferred, that model must dominate
> supply and demand on some empirical dimension. It's that simple, and
> many models meet this criterion. Robert's evidently does not.
>
> Until some real evidence is offered in support of the attempted labor
> model under discussion, this thread will just be a weird polemic, the
> sound of one hand clapping.

susupply

unread,
Feb 18, 2004, 2:50:27 PM2/18/04
to

"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com>

threatening to hold his breath until he dies once again,

wrote in message news:rvien-14E220....@news.dreamscape.com...


> The pitiful child who posts below is teaches economics at a leading
> second-tier department of economics in the U.S.A. Hard to believe.

Maybe you can get your big brother to beat him up.


Robert Vienneau

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 7:11:33 AM2/29/04
to
"In the given example, the wage rate is multiplicatively separable,
and so has no effect on the choice of technique and thus on the amount
of labor chosen."
-- Mark Witte getting his sums incorrect, 7 February 2004

"this involves the ceteris paribus assumption that is basic to the
concept of demand curves (this example is not really one of supply
and demand but rather isolated factor demand for labor). A


demand curve is a relationship between price and quantity demanded.
If something else changes, such as prices of related goods in demand
(here the discount rate would be an example), this shifts the curve.

To be charitable to the original poster, his confusion probably stems


from his notion that a change by the firm in question in the number of
workers it hires would change the discount rate for the economy."

-- Mark Witte compounding his error, 8 February 2004

"I have explained in this thread how the linked post is not related
to simple supply and demand curve analysis of labor markets and only a
misunderstanding of the supply and demand approach would make anyone
think so, such as with the misuse in the context of tools like IRR."
-- Mark Witte continuing to make shit up, 11 February 2004

"I tired to explain that his linked page doesn't really critique the
competitive labor market supply and demand model, where quantities are
related to prices, and other factors shift said curves. It evidently
didn't take, probably owing to confusion on Mr. Vienneau's part on the
difference between partial and general equilbrium. It's a common
intermediate mistake."

-- Mark Witte continuing with the manure, 17 February 2004

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This post considers a competitive firm facing a given technology and
given prices. Two levels of the wage are considered; other prices
modeled below remain at one given level. Yet the cost-minimizing firm
chooses to adopt a less labor-intensive technique at the lower wage.

So I consider the thought experiment that mainstream economists
have claimed yields a non upward-sloping labor demand curve. Yet, I do
not obtain such a curve. This result raises some questions: under what
special-case conditions will cost-minizing competitive firms prefer to
hire more workers when the wage is at a lower level? What are the
assumptions needed to derive well-behaved factor input curves? How
are such curves derived?

Mainstream intermediate microeconomics is mostly nonsense, as has
been demonstrated in the literature long ago.

2.0 THE SETTING OF THE PROBLEM

Consider a widget-producing firm. The managers of the firm know of
two techniques for producing widgets, Alpha and Beta. Table 1 shows the


amount of labor inputs required to produce a widget for each technique.
The interesting qualitative properties of this example depend merely on
the difference in labor inputs between the techniques each year. Thus,
if every input of labor in both techniques was increased by the same
amount (e.g., 25 person-years), the results of this example would look
much the same. One instance discussed in the literature is a choice
between using a plot of land for either grazing or mining; mining
requires a high initial expenditure and a costly cleanup phase at the
end of the use of the land. Other empirical examples have been discussed
in the literature, usually in the context of environmental economics or
geography.

TABLE 1: INPUTS OF LABOR NEEDED PER WIDGET PRODUCED

YEAR
BEFORE
OUTPUT ALPHA TECHNIQUE BETA TECHNIQUE

0 33 person-years 0 person-years
1 0 person-years 52 person-years
2 20 person-years 0 person-years

The managers of the firm face three choices for the use of revenue
from previously-produced widgets:

(1) Buy a bond.
(2) Produce widgets with the Alpha technique.
(3) Produce widgets with the Beta technique.

The managers, in choosing among these alternatives, take prices as given.
Let p dollars per widget represent the price that widgets sell for, and
let w dollars per person-year represent the wage. Let i = 25% be the
interest rate earned on a bond. That is, if one spends $100 at the
start of the year on bonds, one will receive interest payments at the
end of the year of $25 in perpetuity (or until one decides to sell the
bond). Only one level for the price of bonds and of widgets is considered
below.

3.0 QUANTITY FLOWS

This analysis is intended to establish the labor-intensity of the
choosen technique at various levels of the wage. My first step is to
determine the labor-intensity of each technique. For this purpose,
consider steady-state quantity flows. Table 2 shows the labor inputs
required to produce each year an output of one widget with the Alpha
technique. As is easily seen, the labor-intensity of the Alpha
technique is 53 Person-Years Per Widget. Table 3 shows the labor
inputs required to produce a constant flow of one widget per year
with the Beta technique. The labor-intensity of the Beta technique is
52 Person-Year Per Widget.

TABLE 2: LABOR INPUTS FOR ALPHA PER WIDGET PRODUCED

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
...33
0 33
20 0 33
20 0 33
20 0 33
20 0 33
20 0 33
20 0...
20


TABLE 3: LABOR INPUTS FOR BETA PER WIDGET PRODUCED

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
...0
52 0
0 52 0
0 52 0
0 52 0
0 52 0
0 52 0
0 52...

4.0 THE COST-MINIMIZING TECHNIQUE

4.1 HIGH WAGES

For a given price of widgets, p, consider the wage:

w/p = 4/257 ~ 0.0156 Widgets Per Person-Year

Recall that the interest rate on bonds is i = 25%. Suppose the rate of
returns the firm uses for present value calculations, r, is also
equal to 25%. Table 4 shows the cost of producing widgets with each
of the two techniques with this price system.

TABLE 4: WIDGET PRODUCTION COSTS FOR INITIAL WAGE, r = 25%

TECHNIQUE COST PER WIDGET PRODUCED

Alpha 33 (4/257) + 20 (4/257) (1 + 1/4)^2 = 1
Beta 52 (4/257) (1 + 1/4) = 260/257 > 1

Table 4 shows that the Internal Rate of Return in producing widgets
with the Alpha technique is 25%; the revenue gained from selling widgets
is equal to their cost of production under Alpha at this rate of
return. Furthermore, the cost of producing widgets under the Beta
technique at this rate of return exceeds the revenue gained. Thus, the
firm would not want to produce widgets with the Beta technique at this
wage.

Suppose one wanted to speak of "the opportunity cost of using capital".
What rate of return would the managers of this firm be giving up for
every dollar invested in the Beta technique? The best rate the firm can
obtain is 25%, and this 25% rate is gained in either buying bonds or in
producing widgets with the Alpha technique.

4.2 LOW WAGES

Now consider the firm's choices at a lower wage, namely:

w/p = 1/91 ~ 0.0110 Widgets per person-year

The firm still needs to do present value arithmetic to determine
which option is best. Suppose the firm uses the interest obtainable
on bonds, 25%, for such calculations. Table 5 results.

TABLE 5: WIDGET PRODUCTION COSTS FOR LOW WAGE, r = 25%

TECHNIQUE COST PER WIDGET PRODUCED

Alpha 33 (1/91) + 20 (1/91) (1 + 1/4)^2 = 257/364 ~ 0.7060
Beta 52 (1/91) (1 + 1/4) = 5/7 ~ 0.7143

In the calculations shown in Table 5, the Alpha technique is cheaper
than Beta. Since the cost of producing a widget with the Alpha technique,
at a 25% interest rate, is cheaper than the price of widget, the rate
of return in using the Alpha technique is better than that obtained
from buying a bond. Evidently the "opportunity cost of capital" for
this firm under these circumstances is not 25%, but some higher rate
of return.

What is the best rate of return obtainable by the firm under these
conditions? One might hypothesize that it is the internal rate of return
obtainable in producing widgets with the Alpha technique. Table 6 shows
costs of the two techniques under this hypothesis, that is, with a rate
of return of approximately 70%.

TABLE 6: WIDGET PRODUCTION COSTS FOR LOW WAGE,
r = 100 [Sqrt( 29/10) - 1] %

TECHNIQUE COST PER WIDGET PRODUCED

Alpha 33 (1/91) + 20 (1/91) (29/10) = 1
Beta 52 (1/91) Sqrt(29/10) = (4/7) Sqrt(29/10) < 1

The analysis of the choice of technique is not complete with Table 6.
Note that the cost of producing a widget with the Beta technique is less
than unity. That is, the internal rate of return in using the Beta
technique exceeds the rate of return used in drawing up the table. If
the managers of this firm were to purchase a bond, the otherwise best
rate of return they could obtain - that is, "the opportunity cost of
capital" - would not be r = 70% used in drawing up the table. It would
be whatever rate is obtainable in using the Beta technique.

The internal rate of return in producing widgets with the Beta
technique is 75%, as shown in Table 7. Note that the cost of producing
widgets with the Alpha technique at this discount rate exceeds the
price obtained. Clearly, a cost-minimizing firm would not produce
widgets with Alpha technique at this wage.

TABLE 7: WIDGET PRODUCTION COSTS FOR LOW WAGE, r = 75%

TECHNIQUE COST PER WIDGET PRODUCED

Alpha 33 (1/91) + 20 (1/91) (1 + 3/4)^2 = 29/28 > 1
Beta 52 (1/91) (1 + 3/4) = 1

5.0 CONCLUSION

Note that in the above analysis, the price of bonds and the interest
rate obtainable on bonds has been assumed constant. Of modeled prices,
only the wage has been considered to be at different levels. If the
"opportunity cost of capital" is taken to be the best rate of return
that the firm has available, it clearly varies with the wage. That is,
the discount rate this firm uses in its internal accounting is
dependent on the wage, even though the rate used elsewhere by agents
in the economy may differ. In other words, the "discount rate for the
economy", whatever that may be, is not shown to vary with the wage
merely by the above analysis. It is true that other markets outside
the labor market are implicitly shown to be thrown out of equilibrium
by a shift in the wage. But, since the above analysis is one of
partial equilibrium, these disequilibrium forces are ignored in the
analysis.

Anyway, Table 8 summarizes this analysis. One sees that a
cost-minimizing competitive firm may want to employ less workers,
given the level of output, at a lower wage. If the supply of
workers were to increase, say because of increased immigration,
the labor market might only be able to come into equilibrium (in
this partial equilibrium analysis) with more workers employed at
a higher wage.

TABLE 8: THE COST-MINIMIZING TECHNIQUE

WAGE TECHNIQUE LABOR-INTENSITY

(p/91) Widgets Per Person-Year Beta 52 Person-Years Per Widget
(4 p/257) Widgets Per Person-Year Alpha 53 Person-Years Per Widget

An analysis of the cost-minimizing technique for the entire possible
range of wages is provided for this example at:

<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Sraffa4/Sraffa4.html>

So much for the theory that wages and employment are determined by the
intersection of well-behaved supply and demand curves in the labor
market.

--

BretCahill

unread,
Mar 14, 2004, 11:16:41 AM3/14/04
to
Would you call a biologist an "expert in his field" if he didn't even know
what is designated by the acronym "DNA"? How about chemist who couldn't
explain "stoichiometry?" A mathematician who couldn't prove the Pythagorean
theorem? A physicist who couldn't name Newton's Second Law of Motion?

Just about everyone in their respective fields would call them "outright
frauds" or "just plain stupid." What am I saying? Most educated people
outside their field would think there was something wrong. That's because
those questions are so basic you can go to any college or university and 98% of
the high schools in the U. S. and you know you'll get the correct answer in
less than 20 seconds.

The suggestion that there would be any stonewalling is ludicrous.

Now, let's leave the reputable science and math departments at every last
college and university on the planet and head on over the outspoken free market
"scholars" at the Chicago School, von Mises Inst., Hoover Inst., American
Enterprise, Cato, etc. and ask them a question that is even more basic to their
field:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

Even though the correct answer is an obvious self evident truth, the outspoken
"market" economists won't have any answers. In fact, these outspoken
"scholars" will stonewall and dodge like Labor Secretary Chao at a press
conference.

As Milton Friedman might reason, if corporate interests pay economists to
dodge issues, next thing you know, you have a lot of economists who dodge
issues.

Bret Cahill


All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Mar 14, 2004, 12:58:25 PM3/14/04
to
On 14 Mar 2004 16:16:41 GMT, BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:

> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

No.

Trade can exist between beings with no language in common.

BTW, I've noticed that when the dissenters from some orthodoxy make
sense, both sides usually refer to the orthodoxy as a "consensus"
whereas when the orthodoxy makes sense both sides refer to the
orthodoxy as "mainstream."

--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com

KRamsay

unread,
Mar 14, 2004, 1:16:58 PM3/14/04
to
In article <20040314111641...@mb-m12.aol.com>, bretc...@aol.com
(BretCahill) writes:

| Would you call a biologist an "expert in his field" if he didn't even
know

[...]

I don't see any mathematics here-- please use some more relevant group.

Keith Ramsay

ZZBunker

unread,
Mar 14, 2004, 7:38:22 PM3/14/04
to
bretc...@aol.com (BretCahill) wrote in message news:<20040314111641...@mb-m12.aol.com>...

> Would you call a biologist an "expert in his field" if he didn't even know
> what is designated by the acronym "DNA"? How about chemist who couldn't
> explain "stoichiometry?" A mathematician who couldn't prove the Pythagorean
> theorem? A physicist who couldn't name Newton's Second Law of Motion?
>
> Just about everyone in their respective fields would call them "outright
> frauds" or "just plain stupid." What am I saying? Most educated people
> outside their field would think there was something wrong. That's because
> those questions are so basic you can go to any college or university and 98% of
> the high schools in the U. S. and you know you'll get the correct answer in
> less than 20 seconds.
>
> The suggestion that there would be any stonewalling is ludicrous.
>
> Now, let's leave the reputable science and math departments at every last
> college and university on the planet and head on over the outspoken free market
> "scholars" at the Chicago School, von Mises Inst., Hoover Inst., American
> Enterprise, Cato, etc. and ask them a question that is even more basic to their
> field:
>
> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

No a war precedes each and every free trade.
Since econo weirdos are still reminded that
only Euro-weirdos have free trade.
But the US has NAFTA.

>
> Even though the correct answer is an obvious self evident truth, the outspoken
> "market" economists won't have any answers. In fact, these outspoken
> "scholars" will stonewall and dodge like Labor Secretary Chao at a press
> conference.
>
> As Milton Friedman might reason, if corporate interests pay economists to
> dodge issues, next thing you know, you have a lot of economists who dodge
> issues.

But since Milton Friedman dodges the issue
of U.S. Social Security at each and every
one of his press conferences, that's obviously
the reason why the U.S. has temporarily
traded him to the U.N. and the World Bank.
Since both are well-known to be filled with
Middle East shitheads.

BretCahill

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 9:50:37 AM3/21/04
to
The previous thread was questioning the use of
mathematics by economists.

Math is applied logic. If economists are too
corrupt or stupid to even pretend to be capable
of basic logic, then, a fortiori, anything they
do with math is a complete farce.

In other words, there's no reason to even
discuss economists' use of math because they
have ALREADY proven beyond any doubt that
they are complete frauds.

kra...@aol.com (KRamsay) in

OK, I'll prove the pythagorean theorem:

The 4 sides of a larger square touch the 4
corners of a smaller rotated square inside of the
larger square forming 4 right triangles of the
same size and shape between the larger sq
and smaller square.

The area of the larger square therefore equals
the area of the smaller square + the areas of
the four triangles.

If you designate

c = hypt of triangle
a = short leg of tri.
b = long leg of tri.

Then

c^2 = area of small square

(a + b)^2 = area of large square

ab/2 = area of one triangle

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4(ab/2) + c^2 = (a + b)^2

2ab + c^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2

c^2 = a^2 + b^2


Bret Cahill


Would you call a biologist an "expert in his field" if he didn't even know

what is designated by the acronym "DNA"? How about chemist who couldn't
explain "stoichiometry?" A mathematician who couldn't prove the Pythagorean
theorem? A physicist who couldn't name Newton's Second Law of Motion?

Just about everyone in their respective fields would call them "outright
frauds" or "just plain stupid." What am I saying? Most educated people
outside their field would think there was something wrong. That's because
those questions are so basic you can go to any college or university and 98% of
the high schools in the U. S. and you know you'll get the correct answer in
less than 20 seconds.

The suggestion that there would be any stonewalling is ludicrous.

Now, let's leave the reputable science and math departments at every last
college and university on the planet and head on over the outspoken free market
"scholars" at the Chicago School, von Mises Inst., Hoover Inst., American
Enterprise, Cato, etc. and ask them a question that is even more basic to their
field:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

Even though the correct answer is an obvious self evident truth, the outspoken


"market" economists won't have any answers. In fact, these outspoken
"scholars" will stonewall and dodge like Labor Secretary Chao at a press
conference.

As Milton Friedman might say, if corporate interests pay economists to dodge


issues, next thing you know, you have a lot of economists who dodge issues.

Bret Cahill


BretCahill

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 9:54:57 AM3/21/04
to
Joseph Hertzlinger jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com in
>Message-id: <5315c.3313$GQ3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> writes:

>On 14 Mar 2004 16:16:41 GMT, BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

>No.

Then how do you know it was a free trade and
not a theft?

>Trade can exist between beings with no language in common.

Who said all speech had to be in a common
language?

Under your assumption it would be impossible
for anyone to learn a completely exotic
language.

Care to try again?

Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 12:39:45 AM3/22/04
to
On 21 Mar 2004 14:54:57 GMT, BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:

> Joseph Hertzlinger jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com in
>>Message-id: <5315c.3313$GQ3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>On 14 Mar 2004 16:16:41 GMT, BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>
>>No.
>
> Then how do you know it was a free trade and
> not a theft?
>
>>Trade can exist between beings with no language in common.
>
> Who said all speech had to be in a common
> language?
>
> Under your assumption it would be impossible
> for anyone to learn a completely exotic
> language.

The example I had in mind was the trade between honeyguides and
badgers. Neither party can speak at all.

I assume that it is a free trade because otherwise honeyguides would
stop leading badgers to beehives.

Capitalism is sometimes called "Social Darwinism." It's more accurate
to think of Darwin's theories as biological capitalism.

--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com

ZZBunker

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 2:11:21 PM3/22/04
to
Joseph Hertzlinger <jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote in message news:<B_u7c.2648$V66...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

It's more accurate to think of Darwin's theory
as dead. Since the Eve idiot's who run it now
are like to science what a rock is to Geology.

BretCahill

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 4:24:56 PM3/23/04
to
Joseph Hertzlinger jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com in

>Message-id: <B_u7c.2648$V66...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> writes:
>
>On 21 Mar 2004 14:54:57 GMT, BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Joseph Hertzlinger jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com in
>>>Message-id: <5315c.3313$GQ3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>>On 14 Mar 2004 16:16:41 GMT, BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Then how do you know it was a free trade and
>> not a theft?

No answer?

>>>Trade can exist between beings with no language in common.
>>
>> Who said all speech had to be in a common
>> language?
>>
>> Under your assumption it would be impossible
>> for anyone to learn a completely exotic
>> language.

>The example I had in mind was the trade between honeyguides and
>badgers. Neither party can speak at all.
>
>I assume that it is a free trade because otherwise honeyguides would
>stop leading badgers to beehives.

How can any one or anything lead without
communicating?

Even the courts have decided that an
outstretched hand is "free speech."

ShrikeBack

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 11:57:31 PM3/23/04
to
bretc...@aol.com (BretCahill) wrote:
>
> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

That all depends on what your definition of "free" is.

It's even worse than that. For if all events are caused by
preceding conditions, then each speech or trade or position
paper is predetermined. It would mean that the universe came
from the Big Knee Jerk. If no trade or speech is free, your
question breaks down to "Does a Knee Jerk precede each and
every Knee Jerk?" But if a knee jerk precedes each and
every knee jerk, from whence came the First Knee Jerk?

Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Mar 25, 2004, 2:05:33 AM3/25/04
to
On 23 Mar 2004 21:24:56 GMT, BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:

> Joseph Hertzlinger jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com in
>>Message-id: <B_u7c.2648$V66...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>On 21 Mar 2004 14:54:57 GMT, BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph Hertzlinger jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com in
>>>>Message-id: <5315c.3313$GQ3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>On 14 Mar 2004 16:16:41 GMT, BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>> Then how do you know it was a free trade and
>>> not a theft?
>
> No answer?

If it a type of activity were a theft, the victims would evolve away
from accepting it.

> Even the courts have decided that an
> outstretched hand is "free speech."

Okay, now that the goalposts have been moved...

Yes. Free speech does precede every trade.

Of course, when the goalposts are moved again, I might change my mind.

--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com

BretCahill

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 3:03:46 PM3/27/04
to
Joseph Hertzlinger jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com in
>Message-id: <1xv8c.6296$HP....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> writes:

. . .

>> Even the courts have decided that an
>> outstretched hand is "free speech."

>Okay, now that the goalposts have been moved...

Do you know anyone else who assumes "free
speech" has no constitutional connotation and
is restricted to people communicating with just
their voices?

>Yes. Free speech does precede every trade.

And, yes, it is a self evident truth.

And as I will wager, no "free market" economist
at Hoover, Heritage. Am. Enterprise, Cato,
the Chicago School or von Mises Inst. will fail
to dodge that issue, no matter how many too
clever by half word games you may offer them
as fig leaves.

The only conclusion is they are outright frauds
or incapable of even the most basic logic.

Either way it's a COMPLETE farce to have
these "economists" pretend like they can apply
math in some meaningful way.

Here's another one:

In a land where all geo resources are claimed,
free speech with the public is always 100%
dependent on public funding. It matters not if
you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Exxon
Mobil or Walmart taking out full page ads in
the Wall Street Journal or if you are the "WILL
WORK FOR FOOD, GOD BLESS" guy at your
nearest busy intersection.

Any First Amendment "free speech"
communication with the public is always on the
public nickel.

If you think it is false, provide even on
counterexample.

Joe Kauzlarich

unread,
Mar 28, 2004, 1:00:19 AM3/28/04
to
Joseph Hertzlinger <jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote in message news:<B_u7c.2648$V66...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

> Capitalism is sometimes called "Social Darwinism." It's more accurate


> to think of Darwin's theories as biological capitalism.

That's a great quote 8) Mind if I add that to my quotes on
mathforge.net? I'll credit it to Joseph Hertzlinger since I can't find
it anywhere else on the internet... Pretty soon, millions will be
wondering: who the hell is Joseph Hertzlinger? ;)

Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Mar 28, 2004, 7:09:40 PM3/28/04
to
On 27 Mar 2004 20:03:46 GMT, BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:

> Joseph Hertzlinger jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com in
>>Message-id: <1xv8c.6296$HP....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> writes:
>
> . . .
>
>>> Even the courts have decided that an
>>> outstretched hand is "free speech."
>
>>Okay, now that the goalposts have been moved...
>
> Do you know anyone else who assumes "free
> speech" has no constitutional connotation and
> is restricted to people communicating with just
> their voices?
>
>>Yes. Free speech does precede every trade.
>
> And, yes, it is a self evident truth.

...

> Here's another one:
>
> In a land where all geo resources are claimed,
> free speech with the public is always 100%
> dependent on public funding. It matters not if
> you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Exxon
> Mobil or Walmart taking out full page ads in
> the Wall Street Journal or if you are the "WILL
> WORK FOR FOOD, GOD BLESS" guy at your
> nearest busy intersection.
>
> Any First Amendment "free speech"
> communication with the public is always on the
> public nickel.
>
> If you think it is false, provide even on
> counterexample.

Are you saying that a honeyguide who trades with a badger depends on
public funding?

What do you mean by "public"?

Shakespeare's plays are in the public domain but that doesn't mean
public funding has anything to do with them.

--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com

Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Apr 4, 2004, 1:34:59 AM4/4/04
to
On 27 Mar 2004 22:00:19 -0800, Joe Kauzlarich <jkau...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Joseph Hertzlinger
> <jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote in
> message
> news:<B_u7c.2648$V66...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>
>> Capitalism is sometimes called "Social Darwinism." It's more accurate
>> to think of Darwin's theories as biological capitalism.
>
> That's a great quote 8) Mind if I add that to my quotes on
> mathforge.net? I'll credit it to Joseph Hertzlinger since I can't find
> it anywhere else on the internet...

Comparing biology and economics is not my invention. See
http://www.bionomics.org/

> Pretty soon, millions will be
> wondering: who the hell is Joseph Hertzlinger? ;)

Someone with too much free time.

--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages