Socialism

No need to fib. You've been caught out stating the ridiculous; accept it and learn! Monopsony is still supply and demand (market and firm labour supply just coincide).

We've also gone full circle. I said those rejecting supply and demand were typically radical in nature. I illustrated that via reference to 'genuine' non-supply/demand factors that impact on compensation.

You'll find that, as you learn labour economics, ridiculous right wing ideas have to be rejected for what they are. Get learning!

 

Nooo, your fabricated quotes youve attributed to me were ridiculous. I never said any such thing. You should stick with parroting the economic jargon. You come off slightly more credible.

 

Read! You have effectively said "its not supply & demand, its actually supply & demand", not realising that monopsony is understood with the same framework. This informs me that you do not know any labour economics, particularly as those non-supply/demand factors you can't refer to will actually attack the right wing position as vacuous!

Time for you to learn!

 

Noooo, what I actually said was

AND I never made any assertions as to what framework monopsony is understood. That why you keep fabricating these quotes and attributing them to me because you cant formulate a rationsal response to what Ive actuially stated. Pretty much what weve come to expect from our resident economic parrot.

 

You're just not good enough at blagging. You were asked to provide details of these non-supply/demand factors. You replied with supply/demand. The quote effectively summarises your position. As I said, you dug yourself deep. To refer to non-supply/demand factors would lead to rejection of your position. I nearly felt sorry for you!

 

Socialism originated in the upper classes and is therefore a fraud. A certain faction of these hereditary classes, always aware that their inheritance is unearned and that the common people may someday realize that, feared that democracy would disempower them, so they took over the labor movement to impose their unrealistic theories. Because these theories are not based on actual human conduct, a dictatorship becomes necessary to enforce them, and the false friends of the common man appoint themselves as the new socialist ruling class.

 

An amusing claim. You could attack the likes of Britain's Clause 4, but socialist political economy is vibrant and cannot be reduced to one apparent economic paradigm

 

Monopsony is neither supply or demand silly. The fact that monopsony for you can be best understood in the context of supply and demand, doesnt change the fact that monopsony is neither supply or demand. A completely separate "FACTOR" that can also effect price. Supply and demand is a quantity. Monopsony is not. What parts cant you understand?

 

To understand monopsony we use supply and demand. The only difference with perfect competition is that the firm's labour supply curve is the same as the market's labour supply curve. You've merely described that you do not understand how monopsony is modelled and its consistency with the standard supply/demand analysis (based on marginal revenue productivity of labour and the marginal cost of labour). As I said, you've shown yourself up. To do it so willingly was very convenient for my argument so thanks!

As you learn labour economics, you'll no doubt shift away from that naive position!

 

Yeah, socialism can be whatever you can imagine it to be. Our other resident socialist doesnt even consider your strain of socialism along the lines of Burczak, to even be socialism. Besides, Burczak would probably consider himself to be a marxist.

You should spell out your particuliar strain of socialism for the forum so you can learn why people oppose it. And by spell out, I dont mean tell us it would protect property rights. That is meaningless as long as you are the one defining what is and is not a property right. Need to be specific. Revealing that were up to 357 posts on this thread and most everyone here doesnt even know what you are talking about. Other than your single mention of Burczak in passing, you havent provided a shred of detail as to the form of this socialism you speak of. Tell them how you want to make it illegal to exchange ones labor for a wage. Tell us about this wealth tax you want to implement. How much will it be? will you try to eliminate all the wealth in one fell swoop, or do you want to just take it over a period of time. And how much is this grant to workers when they come of age to redistribute the wealth? $80,000 ? How much do you think it will it cost for someone to buy their job at the local factory??

 

No one claimed otherwise. Got anything relevant to what youve chosen to quote and respond to? We can understand the effect of adding Air conditioning to the factory floor in the context of supply and demand, BUT STILL, Air Conditioning is neither supply or demand. Its a separate factor from the supply of labor and the demand for labor.

 

What socialist policies do you want?

 

None of them.

 

What socialist policies do you want?

 

Golly, you're not even aware of what you said? You were asked to give non supply/demand factors. You gave supply/demand factors. As I said, ignorant of basic labour economics! To illustrate the point, consider the non supply/demand factors I gave and note their inconsistency with your position.

Still laughing mind you

 

No, I gave you factors other than supply or demand that can effect price. I could draw on a supply and demand graph the effect of adding ac to the factory floor. Doesn't make AC a supply demand factor. AC or other working conditions are neither supply or demand. Working conditions are factors other than supply or demand that can also effect price. Your laughter doesn't contradict these simple facts

 

No, you gave the standard supply/demand stuff. The clue is in the "monopsony is understood by referring to the firm and market labour supply coinciding". You've ignorantly assumed (without knowing it, except for relying on a misrepresentation of a poor source like wikipedia) that supply/demand refers to perfect competition. It doesn't. In the case of labour, the orthodox approach refers to the determination of wages based on the marginal revenue productivity of labour and the marginal cost of labour.

You've been caught out sunshine, but keep going. And don't forget what I said: consider the non supply/demand factors I gave and note their inconsistency with your position.

 

I assumed no such thing. That's why I've stated no such thing. That's just another in a long line of strawman you've crafted in order to busy yourself for days.

 

I don't think someone that has effectively said "other than supply & demand, we can refer to supply & demand" is in a position to really know what they've said!

 

Step away from the strawman if you can. Instead of trying to tell us what I have "effectively" said, why not use the quote function and show exactly what I've said. But I'm glad you've managed to locate at least a shred of integrity and backed off from simply fabricating quotes and instead gone to these strange restatements of what you think I've "effectively" said

 

Right now I want none of them, but I'm willing to listen and then judge what the OP wants.

 

Listening to the proponents, socialis sounds at worst innocuous, at best, near utopia.

One wonders why socialism has never taken root.

 

well explain to me where i am misunderstanding (labor economics has never been my strong suit i mainly worked with public econ and cost benefit) but the problem is that as we progress it would be terribly inefficient for the consumer the as it would lessen the value of interchangeable parts. the fir to the consumer is like the wholesaler to the firm who collects items from various manufactures then sells them to the firm in bulk so the firm doesn't waste time calling multiple manufactures.

for example if i have a gun and something breaks i have to take it to the exact guy that built my gun then he finds out whats wrong then has to contact the exact guy who made that part then that guy has to contact the guy who made the inter workings of that part and so on and so forth then the process reverses till and goes though the same process backward till it gets back to me.that seems terribly inefficient. however in a capitalist society like now for instance something breaks on my gun i send it to the firm Springfield they stock parts and have worker that fix it. the workers dot get 100% value for their labor but it makes for a more efficient system.

 

You want me to quote you using wikipedia (badly)? You want me to quote 'monopsony' when you were asked for these non supply/demand factors? Golly!

Monopsony is understood with supply/demand. You've therefore proved that you don't understand supply/demand. Don't you be worrying yourself though. I doubt many of your comrades know it either.

 

Not an issue for what I'm referring to. We'd expect lower market concentration and therefore more consumer choice. All that matters is that any large firm is owned by the workers. Restoring the services of your firearm only requires payment according to market value.