Socialism

Well, that rules out Reiver and Burczak's strain.

 

Burcczak who Reivers claims to agree with, proposed a constitutional amendment to implements his strain of socialism across the whole country making it illegal to exchange labour for a wage.

 

No, protecting labour property rights! We'd expect wages to exist within SMEs. Can you post just once without misrepresentation? You've already been found out fibbing over your supply & demand stuff!

 

By making it illegal to exchange ones labor for a wage. I havent misrepresented anything.

 

Again, its a simple point: within large enterprises we must protect property rights and therefore worker ownership occurs. However, SMEs continue. Not as bad as your error on supply and demand mind you!

 

The silly ideas bouncing around in your head dont refute either wikipedia of Burczak.

 

Here's a little question for you: given monopsony is understood through supply and demand, how is it an additional factor to supply and demand? I look forward to your reply.

And, by the way, SME employment has to continue else you'd be attacking Hayekian tacit knowledge.

 

Here's a little question for you: given monopsony is understood through supply and demand, how is it an additional factor to supply and demand? I look forward to your reply.

And, by the way, SME employment has to continue else you'd be attacking Hayekian tacit knowledge.

 

Man you are clueless. Because one company in a monopsony can demand 100 workers and 10 firms in a competitive market can demand 10 workers each. The supply and demand for workers are the same in both. And yet we could expect different wages in the two scenarios because supply and demand are but two of the multitude of factors that effect price.

 

Chortle, chortle, you're a comedian genius again! You abused wikipedia, tut tut, using the statment "The model of prices being determined by supply and demand assumes perfect competition". We've now referred to monopsony and how its understood with supply and demand. Is monopsony consistent with perfect competition? Take a moment!

 

List these multitude of factors that affect wage. You were asked yesterday and you came out with this perfect competition red herring. Going to put that right my funny friend?

 

Why no it is not. Did you have a point? If you can locate your nads, step on up and make it. These silly quizes are just your method of avoiding addressing the content of the post you choose to respond to.

 

You cant even address the one example I provided, why would I supply even more

 

It isn't difficult. You've googled wikipedia and misrepresented a webpage. You've assumed that supply & demand means perfect competition. It doesn't. Supply and demand is also applied to all other market structures, monopolistic competition/oligopoly and monopoly (although we'd typically use a reaction function analysis in oligopoly,at least in terms of production analysis, given the advantages of game theory over the kinked-demand analysis).

When asked to list these 'multitude of facts', you go off on one to hide from the inability to do so. Put that right if you can!

 

I've assumed no such thing and I didnt misrepresent the wikipedia page, I quoted it. Watch the silly little man dance

 

You certainly did. You scrolled down to a poorly worded criticism section. Supply and demand isn't reliant on perfect competition. The idea is cretinous. We've seen that with the other market structures, all using supply and demand to understand the equilibrium. Keep going though, I can see another fun feast from you!

 

Try reading the words slowly or something
"The model of prices being determined by supply and demand assumes perfect competition." No one has claimed supply and demand are reliant on perfect competition. Watch the silly little man chase his own strawmen.

 

I'm belly laughing now! You're now saying that you don't actually have a critique. Do you have anything? Refer to this multitude of factors you keep going on about. Make me laugh again!

 

Nope, same critique you've been railing against for days now. Supply and demand are just two of the many factors effecting price. You haven't yet provide a coherent response yet to show this is not true

 

Of course it does.

 

Let's use yours so we can see you argue that these factors don't effect price. We have asymmetric knowledge, imperfect contracting and monopsony. Dance little man dance

 

That's understood within job search models, which derive an upward sloping supply curve for the firm!

That's actually an issue for general and specific training, demonstrating how long term human capital investment may not achieve the pareto optimal

Tut tut! I brought up monopsony myself (you're really bad at blagging). Again its understand within the supply & demand framework (essentially the firm faces an upward sloping labour supply curve)

Sorry, too busy laughing!

 

Silly little man,YOU brought up all 3 factors and you still haven't denied that they effect price, soooo what exactly are you laughing at.

 

3 factors that refer to supply and demand. You do make me laugh! Now, here's the difficult thing for you: can you now refer to these multitude of factors that don't actually refer to supply and demand?

Its how you can't even blag sense. Its so refreshing! I put up with managers every day who are so skilled in it, to see someone get it so horribly wrong is just good fashioned fun

 

Lololol watch the silly little man dance. Nobody has made any assertion as to what these factors "refer to". I'll wait here while you run down that strawman. Supply is the amount supplied. Demand is the amount demanded. Monopsony is neither demand or supply. Asymmetric knowledge is neither supply or demand. These are different factors, NOT the same factors.