Ah, well, I have no desire to discuss economics with those who engage in intellectual nihilism.
-
Features
Does the "trade deficit" really harm the economy? or cause higher national debt? When was any nation ever harmed by a trade deficit, historically?
- Thread starter Lumpenproletariat
- Start date
Ah, well, I have no desire to discuss economics with those who engage in intellectual nihilism.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Intellectual nihilism? Did you learn that in skule, too?
I dunno, it seems like an accurate way to describe people who go out of their way to avoid gaining knowledge yet still have an opinion.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
So how do you describe those who attempt to describe our complex world by citing slogans derived from cut and dry, abstract models that rely on a notion not observed in nature?
Religious?
No, economics is the study of the real world. You dismissively refusing to learn it does not make you irreligious, it just makes you ignorant.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
So disagreeing with you is ignorance. Modest one, you.
If you have relevant material on subsidies involving the real world, then show them. But that video is so far removed from the discussion as to be useless.
Is the NAIRU not a subsidy? Is there not a policy designed to keep the "correct" percentage of workers unemployed in order to maintain price stability?
No, refusing to accept the most basic premises of economics in a discussion about economics is willful ignorance.
And yes, when you reject that prices rise or fall to create an equilibrium between supply and demand you are rejecting a day one sort of economic concept. If you reject that nothing else in economics survives.
Talking economics with you is like having a geometry discussion with someone who rejects that the area of a circle is pi*r^2.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
I don't deny the truth, such as it is, of that demonstration, I deny its relevance to the discussion.
The point is that the world is far too complicated to make a sweeping statement like subsidies and economics don't get along, then attempt to justify that with a pi like statement.
I didn't make that particular sweeping statement. I stated that economics shows "subsidize" and "optimize" don't tend to get along. Then I provided you with the economics demonstrating exactly this.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
But there is no deadweight loss to the govt. The govt can essentially control prices. In that video, a govt subsidy must come from tax revenue. But that's not how the monetary system works. So, while true in its own little universe, it's irrelevant.
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
Justva note that supply and demand is a notion that does not describe reality. There are so many other influences on price. I've never set prices on demand but on what the market will bear.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,714
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
What good are "jobs" which force consumers to pay higher prices? = lower standard of living?
But the cost savings are also due to lower labor cost. And yet those wage-earners are still better off than most Chinese workers. And this is changing as labor costs are increasing in China.
Most importantly, U.S. consumers have saved billions of dollars and enjoy a higher standard of living as a result of this, just as we've benefited from higher technology, which eliminates jobs and raises the overall living standard. We are better off today as a result of the new technologies resulting in job losses.
As long as China offers a good deal, how are we harmed? As soon as they raise their prices, then we'll shop around from all the competing countries which are still producing steel, and we might expand our own production.
As long as there's competition, we'll get the best outcome. China can decide when they will finally reduce their mercantilist practices. In the meantime, importing countries like the U.S. and U.K. gain a net increase in living standard. It's basically no different than the benefits from new technology which has the same effect on labor.
And the U.S. and most steel-producing countries WILL retain their steel industry, but there's no reason for them to try to PROP UP the industry beyond its proper competitive level in the world market. There's nothing wrong with an uncompetitive sector having a decline, as the steel industry is in most countries. Even Germany is having trouble maintaining its steel production up to the same level. Germany's success in steel is due mostly to its superior technology, but the global competition is also a problem for some German producers. https://atradiusdutchstatebusiness....or---focus-on-steel-and-metals---germany.html
Under the pressure from cheap imports, some of the German companies are making sacrifices to keep up. From the above:
What these countries do is not the same as what is best for the U.S. Germans are more nationalistic than the U.S. and might also practice some mercantilist measures for the benefit of "The Fatherland" etc. But ultimately the Germans will force any companies protected to prove themselves -- there's a discipline in that culture which does not exist in the U.S. They will ultimately go in the direction of "meaner and leaner" as necessary.
But meanwhile, the policy of having PITY on workers and propping them and the companies up for the sake of nostalgia will not make America stronger, but weaker. The U.S. steel industry will never die, but it will shrink to its level of optimum performance, with increased specialization, and it's performance and merit which makes us stronger, not whining and pity toward those of lower performance level.
Producing at lower cost is part of what identifies superior performance and better service to society/consumers.
But why should consumers pay higher prices in order to subsidize jobs we don't need? What are these jobs for? to provide babysitting slots for potential troublemakers? to keep them off the streets? What is gained by putting people into these slots where we don't need them? where the cost to us is higher and thus makes us worse off than if we let the hyper-active Chinese provide the steel for us?
By that reasoning we should put an end to automation, which eliminates jobs and benefits us with the lower costs.
The only motive for generating such artificial "employment" is PITY toward the high-profile workers and companies being propped up. But this propping-up imposes a cost onto 300 million consumers to pay for the PITY toward these victims we're falling all over ourselves to feel sorry for. For every propping-up of companies or workers there are the resulting higher prices imposed onto new victims who in many cases are even worse off than the original select workers/companies being propped up. It is a net loss to us all.
How is there a net benefit to society by propping up certain select victims at a cost which then victimizes millions of others who are a much larger number than the select victims being propped up?
No, there's no net new money being generated and spent, because the money to pay them is forced out of consumers who have to pay higher prices, which means LESS money for those consumers to spend, i.e., it means money DISSIPATED, and thus canceling the money generated for those workers we've selected to receive the special pity. Transferring money away from consumers to uncompetitive select wage-earner-victims does NOT mean new money being generated.
If "high employment" is the goal, even at a cost to consumers, reducing their standard of living, then you must also want to eliminate computers/robots and bring back the jobs that we lost by replacing those workers. But since you recognize that as a net no-win, why is it so difficult to recognize the net no-win of preventing the similar cost-savings gained through cheaper labor?
Propping up certain select victims at the expense of others only decreases the total wealth, distributing only the poverty more equally, not the wealth.
But the cost savings are also due to lower labor cost. And yet those wage-earners are still better off than most Chinese workers. And this is changing as labor costs are increasing in China.
Most importantly, U.S. consumers have saved billions of dollars and enjoy a higher standard of living as a result of this, just as we've benefited from higher technology, which eliminates jobs and raises the overall living standard. We are better off today as a result of the new technologies resulting in job losses.
As long as China offers a good deal, how are we harmed? As soon as they raise their prices, then we'll shop around from all the competing countries which are still producing steel, and we might expand our own production.
As long as there's competition, we'll get the best outcome. China can decide when they will finally reduce their mercantilist practices. In the meantime, importing countries like the U.S. and U.K. gain a net increase in living standard. It's basically no different than the benefits from new technology which has the same effect on labor.
And the U.S. and most steel-producing countries WILL retain their steel industry, but there's no reason for them to try to PROP UP the industry beyond its proper competitive level in the world market. There's nothing wrong with an uncompetitive sector having a decline, as the steel industry is in most countries. Even Germany is having trouble maintaining its steel production up to the same level. Germany's success in steel is due mostly to its superior technology, but the global competition is also a problem for some German producers. https://atradiusdutchstatebusiness....or---focus-on-steel-and-metals---germany.html
Under the pressure from cheap imports, some of the German companies are making sacrifices to keep up. From the above:
Which sounds similar to some of the Chinese production, selling at below cost.
What these countries do is not the same as what is best for the U.S. Germans are more nationalistic than the U.S. and might also practice some mercantilist measures for the benefit of "The Fatherland" etc. But ultimately the Germans will force any companies protected to prove themselves -- there's a discipline in that culture which does not exist in the U.S. They will ultimately go in the direction of "meaner and leaner" as necessary.
But meanwhile, the policy of having PITY on workers and propping them and the companies up for the sake of nostalgia will not make America stronger, but weaker. The U.S. steel industry will never die, but it will shrink to its level of optimum performance, with increased specialization, and it's performance and merit which makes us stronger, not whining and pity toward those of lower performance level.
Producing at lower cost is part of what identifies superior performance and better service to society/consumers.
But why should consumers pay higher prices in order to subsidize jobs we don't need? What are these jobs for? to provide babysitting slots for potential troublemakers? to keep them off the streets? What is gained by putting people into these slots where we don't need them? where the cost to us is higher and thus makes us worse off than if we let the hyper-active Chinese provide the steel for us?
By that reasoning we should put an end to automation, which eliminates jobs and benefits us with the lower costs.
The only motive for generating such artificial "employment" is PITY toward the high-profile workers and companies being propped up. But this propping-up imposes a cost onto 300 million consumers to pay for the PITY toward these victims we're falling all over ourselves to feel sorry for. For every propping-up of companies or workers there are the resulting higher prices imposed onto new victims who in many cases are even worse off than the original select workers/companies being propped up. It is a net loss to us all.
How is there a net benefit to society by propping up certain select victims at a cost which then victimizes millions of others who are a much larger number than the select victims being propped up?
No, there's no net new money being generated and spent, because the money to pay them is forced out of consumers who have to pay higher prices, which means LESS money for those consumers to spend, i.e., it means money DISSIPATED, and thus canceling the money generated for those workers we've selected to receive the special pity. Transferring money away from consumers to uncompetitive select wage-earner-victims does NOT mean new money being generated.
If "high employment" is the goal, even at a cost to consumers, reducing their standard of living, then you must also want to eliminate computers/robots and bring back the jobs that we lost by replacing those workers. But since you recognize that as a net no-win, why is it so difficult to recognize the net no-win of preventing the similar cost-savings gained through cheaper labor?
Propping up certain select victims at the expense of others only decreases the total wealth, distributing only the poverty more equally, not the wealth.
RVonse
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,855
- Location
- USA
- Basic Beliefs
- that people in the US are living in the matrx
Lumpenproletariat you sound a lot like Loren to me. But If what you think is true then why does the real world prove you wrong? Racing the economy towards the bottom with lower consumer prices is the receipe for disaster. A good example for your kind of economy is Mexico. Let someone else manufacture the goods so we can buy them cheaper. Contrast that type of economy to silicon valley California where cost of living is extremely high but everyone has a nice job.
Clearly the California economy is far superior to the Mexican economy. A Mexican economy does have cheap prices for consumers.....but no one has employment. The Mexican economy is an economy with minimal employment where its people try to scale the fence to get into California. And yes, the homes, the food, and everything you buy in California do cost way too much..... but look at how well the average person in LA or San Francisco still lives. It's because they all have jobs. The employment factor is much more important in real life than the being able to buy goods cheap factor.
Until you can provide a satisfactory answer as to why we should want a Mexican economy for the US, Im going to basically conclude that you and Loren don't know what your talking about.
We should be modeling the country to what California has and NOT Mexico. That means protecting and encouraging employment anyway possible.
Basically what Trump is doing right now.
Clearly the California economy is far superior to the Mexican economy. A Mexican economy does have cheap prices for consumers.....but no one has employment. The Mexican economy is an economy with minimal employment where its people try to scale the fence to get into California. And yes, the homes, the food, and everything you buy in California do cost way too much..... but look at how well the average person in LA or San Francisco still lives. It's because they all have jobs. The employment factor is much more important in real life than the being able to buy goods cheap factor.
Until you can provide a satisfactory answer as to why we should want a Mexican economy for the US, Im going to basically conclude that you and Loren don't know what your talking about.
We should be modeling the country to what California has and NOT Mexico. That means protecting and encouraging employment anyway possible.
Basically what Trump is doing right now.
Last edited:
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,714
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
More free trade --> higher living standard. Evidence of harm from trade deficit = zero.
The real world proves that trade deficits do not damage the economy. There's no case historically where chronic trade deficits did any damage. And low trade barriers have led to better results. Artificial efforts to prop up exports and suppress imports do not improve a nation's economy.
It's obvious that you've been brainwashed with some perverse kind of economics to make a statement like this. All public policy, and all economic policy, recognizes the obvious goal of lower prices as part of the social good. That's why we have anti-trust laws, for example.
It's OK to say the higher costs and prices are worth paying as a sacrifice in return for higher quality or safety or security, etc. But you have to at least recognize the basic principle that lower price in itself is a basic economic goal. If not, then economics makes no sense.
No, Mexico is doing more like what you want. Protecting jobs and imposing trade barriers to prevent "unfair" foreign competition.
That's what the U.S. is doing, not Mexico. Most poor countries have been trying hard to force the manufacturing to happen in their own country, and erecting barriers to the foreign imports, as you advocate.
It's liberal trade policy which has led to Silicon Valley, and it's the competition to produce stuff at lower cost which Silicon Valley is all about. But meanwhile, Mexico could never have a Silicon Valley, because its laws prevent the necessary immigration and foreign business investment necessary to make it possible.
Though prices are high in Silicon Valley, they would be twice as high if this country did not enjoy all the cheap labor, foreign and domestic, and some illegal cheap labor, which produces most of the lower prices. The prices EVERYWHERE, even in Silicon Valley, are much lower as a result.
Partly because of freer trade and higher immigration, especially more immigrant labor, but also more immigrant business investment, much of which is illegal in Mexico, to protect Mexican businesses and workers, as you advocate the U.S. should do.
Mexico is really the much better model for your kind of economics, to protect jobs and companies against foreign competition.
How can you be so wrong on practically everything? Mexico has a relatively low unemployment rate, similar to the current official U.S. rate.
Obviously Mexico's wage levels are lower, because it's a poor country. All poor countries have low wages which are caused by the poverty level. It's never the wage level which determines the poverty level, but vise versa. I.e., you cannot prop up a nation's standard of living by artificially propping up its wage level. The poverty came first, and then this produced a low wage level, and also lower prices.
It is idiotic to think we can raise a country's standard of living by artificially propping up wages or prices.
And meanwhile Mexico turns away similar immigrants trying to sneak in over its southern border, in order to protect its workers from the cheaper labor from Central America. Mexico succeeds at this, keeping out those competitors, while the U.S. has little success keeping out the immigrants who sneak in to take jobs in the U.S. So greater success in keeping out the cheap labor has not made Mexico a better economy. Mexico is practicing what you and President Trump preach -- protecting "our" jobs from being stolen by those damn immigrants and foreign labor.
Mexico is your kind of economy -- saving jobs for "our own" people and not letting the dirty capitalists exploit the cheap labor or ship "our jobs" to China and other countries.
There's no place where "they all have jobs."
Our topic is the trade deficit and whether a trade imbalance hurts the economy, and by extension, whether jobs and companies should be protected against foreign competition, as you're demanding.
On this point you are in favor of Mexico's policy rather than that of the U.S. (or California), because Mexico has a much smaller trade deficit, protecting its jobs, propping up its exports and restricting imports as you demand. Whereas the U.S. has much lower trade barriers and a huge trade deficit going back about 40 years consecutively.
So it's not clear why you're using Mexico as an example, since it's an example to disprove your point.
So then you oppose replacing workers with robots. You would prohibit companies from saving on cost by replacing workers with machines.
And prohibit them from hiring cheap foreign labor, as Mexico does. And slap on tariffs to make foreign imports more expensive, as Mexico does.
No, it's YOU who wants a Mexican economy, where foreign workers are excluded, and also foreign imports, in order to protect the domestic labor market.
How ignorantly you say this. What you're demanding is exactly what Mexico is doing, and has been doing far back into history, and which has contributed to its lower living standard.
Yes, everything he promises to do about "jobs" is what Mexico has been doing for generations.
More trade barriers --> protecting "our jobs" --> lower living standard.
The following is an indication, only partial, of how free trade, or fewer trade barriers, leads to a higher standard of living. The following list of countries shows clearly that the higher-developed economies are also the more free-trade economies, allowing more global trade, with lower tariff levels. This list is helpful to make the point, but of course no one list can give the whole picture. Other lists and other considerations of the various trade barriers also show the same general pattern, that increased trade has led to higher living standard. (Of course you can claim that it's the higher living standard which led to more trade.)
One measure of protectionism/free trade is a ranking according to the tariff rates. However, it's only one indicator, and can be misleading. But it gives a general picture, mostly reliable, though also with some conspicuous exceptions.
By this ranking, the U.S. is ranked at 134 (on a scale of 0-177), relatively low tariffs (more free trade), but still there are about 40 countries ranked above the U.S (lower tariffs). More than 130 are below the U.S., i.e. higher tariffs (less free trade). High score = low tariffs or more free trade, and low score = high tariffs or less free trade.
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/TM.TAX.MRCH.SM.AR.ZS/rankings
Low-tariff countries are mostly the high-developed countries, with some odd exceptions, while the high-tariff countries are mostly poor countries. The list here is reversed to put the most free-trade countries at the top:
lowest tariffs:
177 Switzerland
177 Singapore
177 Hong Kong (China)
177 Macao (China)
177 Libya
175 Brunei
173 Georgia
173 Albania
172 Mauritius
171 Israel
170 Iceland
169 Croatia
142 United Kingdom
142 Finland
142 Cyprus
142 -- Most of the EU countries are ranked at 142 here.
etc.
some select countries down the list:
134 United States
083 China
081 Mexico
017 Brazil
etc.
Highest tariffs (least free-trade):
012 The Gambia
011 Chad
010 Central African Republic
009 Ethiopia
008 Gabon
007 Cameroon
006 Congo
005 Equatorial Guinea
004 Djibouti
003 Iran
002 Tunisia -- somewhat odd case.
001 The Bahamas -- extreme exception to the rule
The important point is the general pattern of richer countries higher up, in the low-tariff category, with the poor countries mostly toward the bottom. This pattern goes back many generations, showing that poor countries have tried to protect their "jobs" from foreign imports, and this shows no indication of having improved their living standard.
The real world proves that trade deficits do not damage the economy. There's no case historically where chronic trade deficits did any damage. And low trade barriers have led to better results. Artificial efforts to prop up exports and suppress imports do not improve a nation's economy.
It's obvious that you've been brainwashed with some perverse kind of economics to make a statement like this. All public policy, and all economic policy, recognizes the obvious goal of lower prices as part of the social good. That's why we have anti-trust laws, for example.
It's OK to say the higher costs and prices are worth paying as a sacrifice in return for higher quality or safety or security, etc. But you have to at least recognize the basic principle that lower price in itself is a basic economic goal. If not, then economics makes no sense.
No, Mexico is doing more like what you want. Protecting jobs and imposing trade barriers to prevent "unfair" foreign competition.
That's what the U.S. is doing, not Mexico. Most poor countries have been trying hard to force the manufacturing to happen in their own country, and erecting barriers to the foreign imports, as you advocate.
It's liberal trade policy which has led to Silicon Valley, and it's the competition to produce stuff at lower cost which Silicon Valley is all about. But meanwhile, Mexico could never have a Silicon Valley, because its laws prevent the necessary immigration and foreign business investment necessary to make it possible.
Though prices are high in Silicon Valley, they would be twice as high if this country did not enjoy all the cheap labor, foreign and domestic, and some illegal cheap labor, which produces most of the lower prices. The prices EVERYWHERE, even in Silicon Valley, are much lower as a result.
Partly because of freer trade and higher immigration, especially more immigrant labor, but also more immigrant business investment, much of which is illegal in Mexico, to protect Mexican businesses and workers, as you advocate the U.S. should do.
Mexico is really the much better model for your kind of economics, to protect jobs and companies against foreign competition.
How can you be so wrong on practically everything? Mexico has a relatively low unemployment rate, similar to the current official U.S. rate.
Obviously Mexico's wage levels are lower, because it's a poor country. All poor countries have low wages which are caused by the poverty level. It's never the wage level which determines the poverty level, but vise versa. I.e., you cannot prop up a nation's standard of living by artificially propping up its wage level. The poverty came first, and then this produced a low wage level, and also lower prices.
It is idiotic to think we can raise a country's standard of living by artificially propping up wages or prices.
And meanwhile Mexico turns away similar immigrants trying to sneak in over its southern border, in order to protect its workers from the cheaper labor from Central America. Mexico succeeds at this, keeping out those competitors, while the U.S. has little success keeping out the immigrants who sneak in to take jobs in the U.S. So greater success in keeping out the cheap labor has not made Mexico a better economy. Mexico is practicing what you and President Trump preach -- protecting "our" jobs from being stolen by those damn immigrants and foreign labor.
Mexico is your kind of economy -- saving jobs for "our own" people and not letting the dirty capitalists exploit the cheap labor or ship "our jobs" to China and other countries.
There's no place where "they all have jobs."
Our topic is the trade deficit and whether a trade imbalance hurts the economy, and by extension, whether jobs and companies should be protected against foreign competition, as you're demanding.
On this point you are in favor of Mexico's policy rather than that of the U.S. (or California), because Mexico has a much smaller trade deficit, protecting its jobs, propping up its exports and restricting imports as you demand. Whereas the U.S. has much lower trade barriers and a huge trade deficit going back about 40 years consecutively.
So it's not clear why you're using Mexico as an example, since it's an example to disprove your point.
So then you oppose replacing workers with robots. You would prohibit companies from saving on cost by replacing workers with machines.
And prohibit them from hiring cheap foreign labor, as Mexico does. And slap on tariffs to make foreign imports more expensive, as Mexico does.
No, it's YOU who wants a Mexican economy, where foreign workers are excluded, and also foreign imports, in order to protect the domestic labor market.
How ignorantly you say this. What you're demanding is exactly what Mexico is doing, and has been doing far back into history, and which has contributed to its lower living standard.
Yes, everything he promises to do about "jobs" is what Mexico has been doing for generations.
More trade barriers --> protecting "our jobs" --> lower living standard.
The following is an indication, only partial, of how free trade, or fewer trade barriers, leads to a higher standard of living. The following list of countries shows clearly that the higher-developed economies are also the more free-trade economies, allowing more global trade, with lower tariff levels. This list is helpful to make the point, but of course no one list can give the whole picture. Other lists and other considerations of the various trade barriers also show the same general pattern, that increased trade has led to higher living standard. (Of course you can claim that it's the higher living standard which led to more trade.)
One measure of protectionism/free trade is a ranking according to the tariff rates. However, it's only one indicator, and can be misleading. But it gives a general picture, mostly reliable, though also with some conspicuous exceptions.
By this ranking, the U.S. is ranked at 134 (on a scale of 0-177), relatively low tariffs (more free trade), but still there are about 40 countries ranked above the U.S (lower tariffs). More than 130 are below the U.S., i.e. higher tariffs (less free trade). High score = low tariffs or more free trade, and low score = high tariffs or less free trade.
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/TM.TAX.MRCH.SM.AR.ZS/rankings
Low-tariff countries are mostly the high-developed countries, with some odd exceptions, while the high-tariff countries are mostly poor countries. The list here is reversed to put the most free-trade countries at the top:
lowest tariffs:
177 Switzerland
177 Singapore
177 Hong Kong (China)
177 Macao (China)
177 Libya
Oddball case. Any poor countries near this end of the list are in some odd category. By some other factors they would probably be much farther down the list.
176 Norway175 Brunei
173 Georgia
173 Albania
172 Mauritius
171 Israel
170 Iceland
169 Croatia
142 United Kingdom
142 Finland
142 Cyprus
142 -- Most of the EU countries are ranked at 142 here.
etc.
some select countries down the list:
134 United States
If President Trump somehow imposes his high punitive tariffs, then the U.S. would move farther down the list, toward Mexico and China. You can see the odd cases of Argentina and Brazil below, which are listed as very high-tariff countries. For a more developed country, S. Korea is noteworthy in this ranking, as a high-tariff country. It and China are both criticized for their protectionist practices. But considering that China is actually still poor by comparison, per capita, it fits the overall pattern here, lower in the rankings.
102 Korea083 China
081 Mexico
Of the Latin American countries, most of them are below Mexico on this list.
030 Argentina017 Brazil
etc.
Highest tariffs (least free-trade):
012 The Gambia
011 Chad
010 Central African Republic
009 Ethiopia
008 Gabon
007 Cameroon
006 Congo
005 Equatorial Guinea
004 Djibouti
003 Iran
002 Tunisia -- somewhat odd case.
001 The Bahamas -- extreme exception to the rule
The important point is the general pattern of richer countries higher up, in the low-tariff category, with the poor countries mostly toward the bottom. This pattern goes back many generations, showing that poor countries have tried to protect their "jobs" from foreign imports, and this shows no indication of having improved their living standard.
You are not rejecting me or my thought so I don't take it personally. You are rejecting the combined thinking of thousands of economists over hundreds of years in favor of willful ignorance.
This is mostly your problem, not mine.
laughing dog
Contributor
A free market equilibrium is an intellectual concept, a tool to analyze the workings of a market. A free market with a stable demand curve and a stable supply curve will eventually reach a price where the amount people wish and are able to buy just equals the amount producers are willing and able to supply (i.e. an equilibrium) is not usually disputed. However, economics cannot establish a priori how quickly any free market will reach such an equilibrium. And, in the real world, demand and supply are not usually stable which means it is unrealistic to assume that any particular market is either in equilibrium or will quickly reach an equilibrium that is stable.
Horatio Parker is not dismissing a basic intellectual tool of economics, he is injecting reality into the discussion.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Or yours.
I don't reject those economics out of willful ignorance. On the contrary, I reject them in favor of a more reality based economics.
LOL, you reject supply demand equilibrium over more reality based economics?
In your reality are people more or less willing to sell something when price is higher?
Are people more or less willing to buy something when price is higher?
Let's try multiple choice:
1. Do you think there would be as many willing buyers of a pack of gum if the price were $.01 or $100?
a) more buyers at $.01
b) less buyers at $.01
c) the thousands of people who have studied this relationship for hundreds of years can tell us nothing, the relationship between price and quantity demanded is unknowable.
2. Do you think there would be as many willing sellers of a pack of gum if the price were $.01 or $100?
a) more sellers at $.01
b) less sellers at $.01
c) the thousands of people who have studied this relationship for hundreds of years can tell us nothing, it's just effin unknowable.
If your answers were c and c, you just might be an intellectual nihilist who has no business particpating in an economics discussion.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
The rejection is of the reasoning that uses your video as a justification to not subsidize labor. I'm not rejecting supply and demand, and I think you know that.
I must have been confused by you saying this after I had just linked an analysis showing the effects of subsidies using supply and demand curves: