Re: Budget deficits and GDP

On Nov 30, 4:36 am, Robert Vienneau <rv...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 11/29/2007 13:45:44 Lysander <lysan...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 29, 1:14 am, Robert Vienneau <rv...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/28/2007 18:54:18 Lysander <lysan...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John posts with complete indifference to whether what he says is true. In
short, he is lying and bullshiting.
Quite the contrary. The discussion is simple and Rob's usual tactics are
showing. He claimed he showed the neoclassical model was wrong because
labor and capital were substituted for each other in the long run.

The above is a lie. I made no such claim in this thread.


Rob is correct. I made a typo. I left out a not in between were and
substituted. Rob has made this claim in other threads. I was simply
pointing out that Rob has a very selected "education" in economics. Is
only aware of what he has read by people who claim to show problems
with the neoclassical. I was pointing out that Rob also often does not
understand the implications of what he is trying to attack. The claim
he has shown the neoclassical model to be incorrect because labor can
increase when wages increase in the long run is proved to be a
misunderstanding of the model that was made clear by a simple
exposition of the actual model. As opposed to what Rob has been told
are the results of the model.

Rob has no counter that the neoclassical model does not predict what I
have shown. Which is contrary to what he has stated, in other threads,
as to what the neoclassical models predicts. Rob blunders often by not
researching the models he wishes to attack throughly. His response
with links that the interest rate does equal the MPK is further proof
of his unwillingness to even begin to understand the models he tries
to attack. Even in my post of the simple model, I made it clear the
cost of capital was the opportunity cost of capital. Instead Rob wants
to use an accountants view and use an explicit cost of capital. That
being the cost of financing the capital. This is not the view used by
economist when we calculate economic profits nor would the model
predict that the interest rate should equal the MPK. The economic cost
of capital is in what it can be used alternative for. That is the rate
it could be rented at if the firm decides not to use the capital under
its control.

Rob is devoid of a deep understanding of what these models try to
accomplish, the mechanics of how they accomplish it, and what it is
they predict. I will grant he has read people's work who understand
these issues but he himself does not understand. As is usual with self
taught people some concepts are not fully understood. The problem with
Rob is he will not admit he does not understand a concept. Instead he
will resort to the ridiculous or try to change the subject just to
make a retort. Roy does the same thing. If were not for Roy's even
smaller understanding of economic concepts I would believe they are
the same person.
.