Republican nominations - Page 306

On January 19 2012 09:05 Hider wrote:
Through monopsopny (cant read wikipedia) compeition between selling companies should be tougher hence they will sell to a lower price. If prices on their goods goes up the buying company can buy less and hence hire less people. I fail to see how this is not just another redestributing of wealth?

On January 19 2012 09:07 Haemonculus wrote:
Honestly I think you all are just getting hardcore trolled by this idiot, lol

On January 19 2012 09:03 acker wrote:


You do realize that if you're defining real value as the equilibrium wage...

Look, have you ever taken an introductory microecon class?

On January 19 2012 09:08 acker wrote:

I'm extremely close to punching my computer.

Before we get to monopsonies, do you have any idea WHY minimum wages above the equilibrium wage destroy production in a perfectly competitive model?


I'm starting to think this way, too. I'm hoping he was trolling intentionally, not unintentionally. I'd lose faith in the Danish education system if it was unintentional.


Actually, I give up. It's Denmark that has to deal with him, not the United States.

On January 19 2012 09:11 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
acker, please stop using the question "have you taken ____ class?" as an insult. It's annoying and has no bearing when the question at hand ultimately has different answers depending upon what you view as ideal or moral. Milton Friedman had a nobel prize in economics and wrote pages upon pages of why he thought minimum wage laws were ultimately counterproductive. Would you give him the same "have you taken ____ class?" insult?

On January 19 2012 09:11 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
acker, please stop using the question "have you taken ____ class?" as an insult. It's annoying and has no bearing when the question at hand ultimately has different answers depending upon what you view as ideal or moral. Milton Friedman had a nobel prize in economics and wrote pages upon pages of why he thought minimum wage laws were ultimately counterproductive. Would you give him the same "have you taken ____ class?" insult?

On January 19 2012 09:08 acker wrote:

I'm extremely close to punching my computer.

Before we get to monopsonies, do you have any idea WHY minimum wages above the equilibrium wage destroy production in a perfectly competitive model?


I'm starting to think this way, too. I'm hoping he was trolling intentionally, not unintentionally. I'd lose faith in the Danish education system if it was unintentional.


Actually, I give up. It's Denmark that has to deal with him, not the United States.

On January 19 2012 09:09 ikl2 wrote:
Here we go! I found the way (finally) to express what my problem is.

So you're modeling not the flow of money as if it's a mindless, automatic force. Instead, you're modeling how human beings move capital. Unless you have some analytic truths about how human beings act (remembering that for your claim not to rely on empirical reality, it has to be true 100% of the time with no logically possible cases of it being false), then you absolutely must rely on empirical data to make a point. It seems to me that in my Widgetmaster case, the employees aren't actually acting 'rationally' in the sense I suspect you'd use it, and thus that wouldn't work exceedingly well in the kind of model you're using.

Edit: I don't think my end of the discussion is getting trolled, is it? I know from discussion with some of the more, uh, interesting libertarians, that the extreme types think that human behaviour can be modeled a priori and that empirical data is not only irrelevant but misleading. It's a position actual people hold, somehow...

On January 19 2012 09:14 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like ABC has an interview with one of Newt's ex-wives that could end his campaign.

On January 19 2012 09:16 radiatoren wrote:


He is not representative of anything in Denmark. I denounce any affliation with him.

It has to be said though that more advanced economics is not part of standard education. That is no excuse for claiming that the world is wrong and governments are pure evil, though.

On January 19 2012 09:16 Haemonculus wrote:
The free market crap makes sense in incredibly simplistic terms in theory. Company A charges X for a product, and pays its workers Y. Company B also charges X for a product, but pays its workers Y+1. All employees just switch from A to B, and bam, the free market is good for workers! Huzzahs all around!

This shit literally never happens in reality.

On January 19 2012 09:19 Hider wrote:


Why would it be getting trolled. You used a lot of time to to express your problem, so obv. it wasn't that easy a task.
The thing is with empirical cases. Lets say we use the induction proces. All swans are white. Obv. that isn't true, but if your only statistics come from a certain geographical area then you will think that since 100% of your observations states that the swans are white then that must be true.

What if the employees aren't rational. I never assumed they were. What does that change? No wealth is still created.

let's try to talk about the candidates between the crossfire of people arguing i dont even know what anymore.

On January 19 2012 09:13 allecto wrote:


I'm against minimum wages but I think that Milton Friedman would agree that minimum wage laws are effective in monopsonies for example. Anyway moving on.

On January 19 2012 09:14 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like ABC has an interview with one of Newt's ex-wives that could end his campaign.

On January 19 2012 09:33 radiatoren wrote:


The real question is: Why hasn't this happened earlier?