Re: Equilibrium Questions
From: smithaa02 (noreply_at_spamthis.com)
Date: 02/26/05
- Previous message: The Trucker: "Re: Middle Class Takes It In The Shorts With Bush"
- In reply to: Zerge: "Re: Equilibrium Questions"
- Next in thread: Robert Vienneau: "Re: Equilibrium Questions"
- Reply: Robert Vienneau: "Re: Equilibrium Questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:17:40 -0800
Zerge wrote:
> smithaa02 wrote:
>
>>Equilibrium theory is founded on contradictions. The division of
>
> labor
>
>> and other units of property does exists, but does not interact in
>
> the
>
>>fashion economists describe. Since the division of labor is a
>
> product
>
>>of co-dependence, it is absurd to assign indepedent variables to its
>>ratio of exchange as economists have in their silly little formulas.
>>Economists cluelessly ignore this and try to use price to define
>
> price.
>
>>If collectively I and another can produce 2 more widgets, there is no
>
>
>>objective mechanism that says I will get 1.2 as opposed to .7 or any
>>other share ratio of those 2 extra widgets.
>>
>>The economist assigns a random ratio of this increment of association
>
> to
>
>>get his story problem to work. In this fashion they skirt the issue
>
> of
>
>>coming up with real life independent economic variables, by making
>
> them
>
>>up, thereby defining price with price.
>>
>>There is no objective price theory as economists describe. Instead
>>price is a product of inherently unstable haggling and alliances
>
> between
>
>>parties to experience the extremes of self-sufficiency and
>
> individually
>
>>obtaining the full fruit of the increment of association. The weapon
>
> of
>
>>choice for all parties is then the ability to withdraw or strike
>
> their
>
>>services or contributions in order to obtain a higher ratio of the
>
> fruit
>
>>of the division of labor.
>>
>>This leads to economy where individuals can only survive by
>
> periodically
>
>>sabatoging (business cycles) the economy in order to increase their
>>bargainning power and personal wealth.
>>
>>Hope you found that interesting :)
>>
>
>
> Just to undersand you better allow me to ask you, are you an economist?
I have no economic credentials at all. Is that a bad thing in your eyes?
IMO it shouldn't matter because credential logic is contradictory. If A
got a degree from B, and B from C, then where did C did get the first
degree? If that can't exist, then how can the subsequent degrees?
- Previous message: The Trucker: "Re: Middle Class Takes It In The Shorts With Bush"
- In reply to: Zerge: "Re: Equilibrium Questions"
- Next in thread: Robert Vienneau: "Re: Equilibrium Questions"
- Reply: Robert Vienneau: "Re: Equilibrium Questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|