Pilfered by Art...here's another beauty: "Re: Wages, Employment Still Not Determined By Supply And Demand"

[Arthur E. Sowers]

Here's another one (see below)...good for laughs.

Art

=========== no change to below, included for ref. & context =====
On 27 Oct 2002, Christopher Auld wrote:

> Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
> >(Christopher Auld) wrote:
>
> >> Here is an internally consistent and empirically applicable model of a
> >> labor market:
>
> >Chris Auld misrepresents mainstream theory, probably deliberately.
>
> The model I displayed is perfectly standard. Anyone can find variants of
> it in any econometrics textbook, discussions of closely related models and
> theoretical considerations in any microeconomic theory or labor economics
> textbook, and tens of thousands of applications in the professional
> literature. Robert Vienneau, steeped in archaic and radical literature,
> is apparently unaware of any of this. A reasonable and self-aware
> individual would conclude he is in no position to lecture on the topic.
> Robert Vienneau concludes I must be "misrepresenting mainstream theory."
>
>
> >Chris Auld refuses to explain how to derive such a model
> >for my example or why such a model cannot be derived there.
>
> I have answered this question numerous times. I suppose answering it is
> somewhat like explaining to a creationist that, in fact, the eye is a
> structure which has evolved independently and demonstrably numerous times:
> They just blink, wait a while, and repeat again that it is implausible
> that an eye could ever evolve.
>
>
> >He refuses to face up to the literature that I draw upon.
>
> Pay attention, Robert: Numerous people have told you numerous times that,
> yes, it is indeed possible to write down models in which there exists a
> positively-sloped locus between factor prices and factors demanded. That
> locus is not a factor demand curve. More directly, empirically, labor
> demand curves slope down ("the literature Robert draws on," as he likes to
> put it, predates econometrics, so this point always falls on deaf ears).
>
>
> >> [Blah, blah, blah]
>
> That's good, Robert. I'm sure you're winning converts to your cause with
> such "reasoned discussion." Why not try insisting that education makes
> you ignorant and follow *immediately* with "blah blah blah?" A double
> whammy like that would be hard to counter!
>
>
> >Chris Auld has yet to acknowledge that the example with which I
> >began this thread is correct.
>
> I don't know if the "new" ("I changed the numbers") version of this toy
> model is correct. I do know it is possible to write down models of the
> sort Robert favors in which the mechanisms Robert is obsessed with can be
> shown to obtain, although Robert often gets things wrong when he
> paraphrases rather than quotes. But I do not agree with any of Robert's
> conclusions regarding the implications for economic theory. Neither did
> most economists when JFK was president, which is roughly the period in
> which this discussion mostly took place. It wasn't a very important
> discussion then, and the literature has moved on in many interesting
> directions since.
>
> On that note, did anyone else get a good laugh out of RV's repeatedly
> referring to a paper written in 1926 to demonstrate that his pet theories
> are of current interest, not matters of historical curiousity? Robert
> believes that Marshall is the alpha and omega of economic thought. Here's
> a list of working papers issued last week by the NBER:
>
> ***********
>
> Solving Dynamic General Equilibrium Models Using a Second-Order
> Approximation to the Policy Function
> Stephanie Schmitt-Grohe and Martin Uribe #T282 (TWP)
>
> The Role of Output Stabilization in the Conduct of Monetary Policy
> Frederic S. Mishkin #9291 (EFG, ME)
>
> Agglomeration, Integration and Tax Harmonization
> Richard E. Baldwin and Paul Krugman #9290 (ITI, PE)
>
> Employee Stock Options, Corporate Taxes and Debt Policy
> John R. Graham, Mark H. Lang, and Douglas A. Shackelford #9289 (PE)
>
> Financial Globalization and Emerging Markets: With or Without Crash?
> Philippe Martin and Helene Rey #9288 (IFM)
>
> Digital Dispersion: An Indutrial and Geographic Census of Commercial
> Internet Use
> Chris Forman, Avi Goldfarb and Shane Greenstein #9287 (IO, PR)
>
> Margin Calls, Trading Costs, and Asset Prices in Emerging Markets: The
> Financial Mechanics of the 'Sudden Stop' Phenomenon
> Enrique G. Mendoza and Katherine A. Smith #9286 (IFM)
>
> A Gravity Model of Sovereign Lending: Trade, Default and Credit
> Andrew K. Rose and Mark M. Spiegel #9285 (IFM)
>
> The Benefits of the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
> Edward L. Glaeser and Jesse M. Shapiro #9284 (EFG, PE)
>
> Prices vs. Quantities vs. Tradable Quantities
> Roberton C. Williams III #9283 (EE, PE)
>
> After the Big Bang? Obstacles to the Emergence of the Rule of Law in
> Post-Communist Societies
> Karla Hoff and Joseph E. Stiglitz #9282 (LE)
>
> Is Health Insurance Affordable for the Uninsured?
> M. Kate Bundorf and Mark V. Pauly #9281 (HC)
>
> Does Medicare Benefit the Poor? New Answers to an Old Question
> Jay Bhattacharya and Darius Lakdawalla #9280 (HC)
>
> Mergers as Reallocation
> Boyan Jovanovic and Peter L. Rousseau #9279 (DAE, EFG, PR)
>
> The Stability and Growth Pact as an Impediment to Privatizing Social Security
> Assaf Razin and Efraim Sadka #9278 (PE)
>
> Anomalies and Market Efficiency
> G. William Schwert #9277 (AP)
>
> ************
>
> Does anyone else see twenty-odd papers on issues directly relating to
> capital theory and the Marshallian theory of the firm? Raise your hand if
> you see a bunch of papers on a variety of issues of interest to economists
> on social issues, and a couple on technical issues not related to Robert's
> "long essays." Possibly, some of these issues would be discussed
> informally on sci.econ, but no, every time someone brings up any issue,
> Robert Vienneau wades into the discussion and turns it into YET ANOTHER
> discussion of the god damned Cambridge Capital Controversy. There is
> more to economics than dreamt of in your philosophy, Mr. Vienneau.
>
>
> >Maybe Chris Auld should explain to David Lloyd-Jones why his
> >correct reading of my post was naive.
>
> I think DLJ said that Robert's model was crafted to show a point. I think I
> just said that toy models are actually preferable when a point can be
> demonstrated in such a model. I think Robert Vienneau has profound reading
> comprehension problems.
>
>
> >> to ask
> >> Robert Vienneau for empirical evidence on the empirical relevance of the
> >> mechanisms he's fond of...
>
> >I know of no empirical evidence whatsoever that technology cannot
> >have the relevant characteristics of my example. Chris Auld has not
> >and will not point to any such evidence.
>
> The answer to the first part of Robert paragraph is "empirically, factor
> demand curves slope down." The second part clumsily reverses the
> question: I asked Robert Vienneau for empirical evidence on the relevance
> of these mechanisms. Where is it?
>
>
> >Just as a reminder: Chris Auld has given no justification,
> >in theory, for the idea that employment would be higher if
> >real wages were lower.
>
> Just as a reminder, Chris Auld has repeatedly stated that eyes can evolve.
>
> This grows tiresome. I have a weakness in that at regular intervals I
> succumb to the temptation to point that Robert Vienneau's "long essays"
> and various kooky diatribes don't hold water. He infests almost every
> thread on sci.econ, recently taking even to answering every question posed
> by graduate students and researchers, usually incorrectly. But he never
> learns anything, indeed, he seems to actually understand less than he used
> to (or perhaps I just gave him the benefit of the doubt previously where
> it was not warranted). And the level of arrogance and obnoxiousness keeps
> steadily rising. I used to wonder why Robert Vienneau, who is clearly a
> clever man, doesn't actually read some economics rather than just rooting
> around for criticism that he can merrily repost and repost again, usually
> without any understanding of the issue at hand (cf, "David Friedman
> wrong.") Alas, even clever creationists don't read biology to understand
> how biological systems work, and no amount of prodding to get them to do
> so is going to be effective.
>
> --
> Chris Auld
> Department of Economics
> University of Calgary
> au...@ucalgary.ca
>

[va1e...@mail.ru]

The text is long and boring.
Point at what you wanted us to pay our attention.
Where is my instant gratification ??

Regards,
va1e...@mail.ru

"Arthur E. Sowers" <arth...@magpage.com> wrote in message news:<appu5s$amt$0...@216.155.0.50>...

[Arthur E. Sowers]

My god, Valerian, you have read so much before, now you are lazy? ;-)
I took lots of time to read many posts, and picked some nice examples, and
did all this work?

Art
=========== no change to below, included for ref. & context =====