|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 18 2013 08:54 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 08:39 DoubleReed wrote:On September 18 2013 07:34 Kiarip wrote:On September 17 2013 06:44 sam!zdat wrote:
yes kwark thinks that a supply of workers will create its own demand for workers. So therefore there can never be a glut of labor, in the same way that say's law says there can never be a general glut of commodities
no reasonable person has believed says law since the publication of capital vol 1 but liberals can be a bit slow on the uptake Say's law doesn't work for labor because of the costs of hiring are not only limited to the salary paid to the worker. Also, labor on its own has to bring some kind of value for the employer. If the only value that an employer can receive from a particular person's labor is being brought coffee then that person could possibly snag this job for an appropriate wage of $0.10/hour. edit: In short, Say's law DOES work. Say's Law doesn't work for anything. There's no reason to think it does. It's just a economic fallacy. I am just as confused as sam as to why you are pushing discredited 19th century economics. How so? Supply, or existence of a good allows for the marketplace to determine its value, which then establishes a quantifiable demand curve. Are you suggesting that it works the other way around?
I think it's fine as a general descriptor but not so much as an iron "law".
For example a car company could produce too many cars. Before prices adjust downward the bullwhip effect has already resulted in mass layoffs at the local steel mill. Now no one will buy cars at even the lower price.
Eventually society will pick up the pieces but that's not an impressive statement.
|
On September 18 2013 08:54 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 08:39 DoubleReed wrote:On September 18 2013 07:34 Kiarip wrote:On September 17 2013 06:44 sam!zdat wrote:
yes kwark thinks that a supply of workers will create its own demand for workers. So therefore there can never be a glut of labor, in the same way that say's law says there can never be a general glut of commodities
no reasonable person has believed says law since the publication of capital vol 1 but liberals can be a bit slow on the uptake Say's law doesn't work for labor because of the costs of hiring are not only limited to the salary paid to the worker. Also, labor on its own has to bring some kind of value for the employer. If the only value that an employer can receive from a particular person's labor is being brought coffee then that person could possibly snag this job for an appropriate wage of $0.10/hour. edit: In short, Say's law DOES work. Say's Law doesn't work for anything. There's no reason to think it does. It's just a economic fallacy. I am just as confused as sam as to why you are pushing discredited 19th century economics. How so? Supply, or existence of a good allows for the marketplace to determine its value, which then establishes a quantifiable demand curve. Are you suggesting that it works the other way around?
Please describe what you think Say's Law is. Because I don't really know what that has to do with it.
(But yes, you can easily say it works the other way around. If people don't demand something, then there won't be 'supply' of it. I don't see many Self-Tar-And-Feather machines being made, do you?)
|
he means that if a thing exists, it will magically be given a correct price by the market, and will therefore be sold at that price and be exchanged for other products. This is just as stupid as it sounds
edit: really we should all just ignore him. Starting with sam.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lel say's law. the basic idea with it is that at any given transaction, the demand and supply are but two sides of the same coin.
but this obviousl ignores time and money, and this means the entire point of macroeconomics. to say it's a 'law' is beyond oblivious and arrogant. it's basically "if we assume time doesn't exist in our economy, then all these problems produced by time won't be there." hue
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i mean, go on d3 auction house to see what happens to a supply generated market with no glut. that's some real world shit right there
|
On September 18 2013 10:19 oneofthem wrote:
lel say's law. the basic idea with it is that at any given transaction, the demand and supply are but two sides of the same coin.
but this obviousl ignores time and money, and this means the entire point of macroeconomics. to say it's a 'law' is beyond oblivious and arrogant. it's basically "if we assume time doesn't exist in our economy, then all these problems produced by time won't be there." hue
Say's law wasn't always called a law and he didn't call it a law, and there aren't any real laws in economics like there are in physics anyways. It was originally called Say's conjecture/formulation, but for some reason it became better known as Say's Law. Law is a misnomer of course.
Also, say's law doesn't say that supply and demand are two sides of the same coin. If anything that's more of a Keynesian statement.
Say's law clearly does not deny that gluts can occur as a result of overproduction and thus it does take into account the investment necessary for the overproduction to occur (the time and money,) what Say's law denies, however, is that the glut is a result of a lack of demand, because supply is what creates the "demand curve"/consumer interest at various price levels and if the original investment of time and money was misplaced then it is what causes the glut and not some innate lack of demand in a given environment.
|
does this guy make sense to anybody else? This is almost like some kind of political economy madlib generator
|
Supply creates the demand curve and we ought not blame demand is all I could really make out. Oh yeah, and that if its wrong, it's probably Keynesian. There is a dangling "if" there at the end, Kiarip, that seems rather troubling.
|
congrads on the 7k posts farva
|
On September 18 2013 12:12 farvacola wrote:
Supply creates the demand curve and we ought not blame demand is all I could really make out. Oh yeah, and that if its wrong, it's probably Keynesian. There is a dangling "if" there at the end, Kiarip, that seems rather troubling.
Great.
I said Keynesian once in my post. Where do you get that "if it's wrong it's probably Keynesian?"
Glut is caused by a mis-allocation of resources, is this the statement you're having problem with or what?
|
On September 18 2013 12:20 Sermokala wrote:
congrads on the 7k posts farva
Thanks, I couldn't have done it without you. 
On September 18 2013 12:23 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 12:12 farvacola wrote:
Supply creates the demand curve and we ought not blame demand is all I could really make out. Oh yeah, and that if its wrong, it's probably Keynesian. There is a dangling "if" there at the end, Kiarip, that seems rather troubling. Great. I said Keynesian once in my post. Where do you get that "if it's wrong it's probably Keynesian?" Glut is caused by a mis-allocation of resources, is this the statement you're having problem with or what?
I got that based on the strange way in which you are defending Say's Law as though it is a defamed sibling. The issue is that you say that Say's Law denies lack of demand as a culpable factor in a glut, and yet you then only say that if a misallocation of resources is in play, that it is the responsible factor. This is basically a tacit denial of the possibility that there could ever be a glut where no apparent misallocation is at work, and I really don't find this likely whatsoever.
|
we're having an amusing pm conversation where he told me I was reading too much marx, and then told me to read marx
|
On September 18 2013 12:25 sam!zdat wrote:
we're having an amusing pm conversation where he told me I was reading too much marx, and then told me to read marx
I assumed you've been reading something other than Capital because you've provided no rebuttals to my arguments and simply acted like a patronizing prick.
|
you realize capital is a book in which marx devotes several pages of his signature scorn towards say's law, right? Which was the original point you were trying to pursue
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On September 18 2013 12:34 sam!zdat wrote:
you realize capital is a book in which marx devotes several pages of his signature scorn towards say's law, right? Which was the original point you were trying to pursue
I know that.
And the book by Keynes I sent you does the same. I'm hoping you can also use your own head however.
Tell me which line of argument by either isn't discredited by this most important part of Say's Formulation:
"a glut can take place only when there are too many means of production applied to one kind of product and not enough to another"
|
On September 18 2013 12:38 Kiarip wrote:
"a glut can take place only when there are too many means of production applied to one kind of product and not enough to another"
Why?
Edit: Try to use the most simple language possible.
|
On September 18 2013 12:38 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 12:34 sam!zdat wrote:
you realize capital is a book in which marx devotes several pages of his signature scorn towards say's law, right? Which was the original point you were trying to pursue I know that. And the book by Keynes I sent you does the same. I'm hoping you can also use your own head however. Tell me which line of argument by either isn't discredited by this most important part of Say's Formulation: "a glut can take place only when there are too many means of production applied to one kind of product and not enough to another"
Do you need the "and" bit? It seems to suggest that a glut in one product can be cleared by producing more of different products. I don't think that's true.
Or is it trying to say that if you have a glut, you should have been producing something else?
|
On September 18 2013 12:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 12:38 Kiarip wrote:
"a glut can take place only when there are too many means of production applied to one kind of product and not enough to another"
Why? Edit: Try to use the most simple language possible.
I posted a direct quote that's part of "Say's Law."
It's saying that a glut is caused by a misallocation of resources.
On September 18 2013 12:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 12:38 Kiarip wrote:On September 18 2013 12:34 sam!zdat wrote:
you realize capital is a book in which marx devotes several pages of his signature scorn towards say's law, right? Which was the original point you were trying to pursue I know that. And the book by Keynes I sent you does the same. I'm hoping you can also use your own head however. Tell me which line of argument by either isn't discredited by this most important part of Say's Formulation: "a glut can take place only when there are too many means of production applied to one kind of product and not enough to another" Do you need the "and" bit? It seems to suggest that a glut in one product can be cleared by producing more of different products. I don't think that's true. Or is it trying to say that if you have a glut, you should have been producing something else?
The second is what it's saying.
His argument is basically saying that a perfectly wise businessman will be able to avoid all gluts on the products he produces because regardless of the state of the economy there is going to be some product that's in high demand and he will produce that product and then he will continue to use his perfect-wisdom to buy appropriate resources to produce the next appropriate product to sell.
Therefore it follows that a general glut is impossible.
Of course in Say's times people didn't quite understand the real value of information to economy so the "perfectly wise businessman" isn't realistic with respect to an entire economy but is still quite realistic with respect to a specific sector.
|
On September 18 2013 12:53 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 12:41 farvacola wrote:On September 18 2013 12:38 Kiarip wrote:
"a glut can take place only when there are too many means of production applied to one kind of product and not enough to another"
Why? Edit: Try to use the most simple language possible. I posted a direct quote that's part of "Say's Law." It's saying that a glut is caused by a misallocation of resources.
Yes, I know, but I'd like for you to explain why a glut can only take place in the manner described by Say's Law, unless you don't think so yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
