[FONT=&]It was a simple reference to your failure to make relevant comment. That you dont understand that simplicity only suggests to me that you dont understand how supply & demand is used in neoclassical theory. [/FONT] [FONT=&]Youve failed on several levels. First, you made a big deal about referring to demand side issues when your rant was supply-side orientated. Second, you referred to MRPL when it cant be used to understand wage determination (given that distinction between marginal cost of labour and average cost of labour). Third, you didnt realise that the analysis was static and reliant on homogeneous labour. You couldnt be more wrong and you reckon youve been educated in economics? Crikey![/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Basic error. MC=MR (here MRPL=MCL) only informs us of profit maximising output level. The point is simple: we cant also use it to determine wages. Indeed, neoclassical theory predicts that the working poor will suffer the most (in terms of % below the wage associated with payment according to productivity criteria) in underpayment. This makes a mockery of your supply-side its their fault efforts.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Youre making no sense![/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]I doubt that! You havent realised that the profit max rule can only allow us to understand employment levels. It cant be used to understand wages. Draw yourself some supply & demand curves. What does the labour supply curve look like?[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Where have you been educated in economics? The approach is static, by definition. There is no reference to time, except in terms of making a distinction between the short/long run (referring to the variability in the factors of production and optimality within the choices in the isoquant/isocost environment) and the very long run (where technical progress is allowed). With the endogeneity of productivity we are necessarily referring to how that distinction is invalid.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Everything youve said has involved corruption of basic terms. You shot yourself in the foot but do you have the good grace to admit it? [/FONT] [FONT=&]Poor on two levels. First, youre not making sense as we know productivity is endogenous. The only question is the source (as I mentioned with the comparison between shock theory and efficiency wage analysis). Second, given the US has higher working poverty, you continue to argue that Americans are more feckless than Europeans.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]More incoherency! Labour homogeneity refers to each individual worker being equally productive. [/FONT] [FONT=&]This isn't cunning. MRPL necessarily refers to an economic model. Indeed, it is mainly used just to reinforce the notion of diminishing returns in the labour market. The analysis is effectively trying to suggest that the labour market is the same as the product market. This is obvious as the analysis into isoquants/isocosts (needed to understand how labour demand is determined) is the same beast as indifference curves/budget constraints (needed to understand product demand).[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]You should have been rambling on about the human capital model. By referring to MRPL you only set yourself up for a fall.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Which involves, for example, discriminatory pay and exploitation. Economic rents have to be factored in if youre going to come out with any relevant comment about working poverty. By ignoring it, youve merely giving supply-side rant alien to economic reality.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]You continue to make basic error. MC=AC is not a sufficient criteria to assume homogeneity. Youve already been informed, for example, that MCL>ACL occurs simply because of asymmetric information (and resulting job search)[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Youre merely repeating your abuse of Econ 101. Its abuse as you havent factored in rent seeking behaviour. Again, there is no excuse for that as youve been informed of some of the problems: from the original reference to the low skilled equilibrium (which makes a mockery of your supply-side efforts) to the use of inefficient discrimination in order to further accentuate underpayment.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Plucking out fake stats? Tut, tut, that is rather crass! In terms of firm behaviour, we know that the basic profit maximisation approach cannot explain the product market. Cost-plus pricing, for example, is widespread. We also know that, if they do use the profit maximisation criteria in the labour market (and many will not, preferring instead the application of human resource management techniques within internal labour markets), you still cant use it to show low wage workers are paid according to their productivity levels. Given MCL>ACL, working poverty will be intensified purely because of underpayment.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Sounds like, whilst you dont understand it, youre obsessed with socialism. I have made no socialist comment. Indeed, all youre replying to is a correct use of neoclassical supply and demand. [/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Its comprised of all additional factor of production costs. To suggest it is comprised of labour cost youd have to assume a short run where only labour is variable. Of course youd only be confirming that your attempts at referring to static analysis is irrelevant to any discussion over the endogeneity of productivity.[/FONT] [FONT=&][/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]The problem is that you dont understand the Econ 101 approach. You cant use the MRPL to understand wages (and therefore outcomes such as working poverty) unless firms are wage takers. If they face an upward sloping labour supply curve (and any realistic analysis will assume that) then underpayment will occur. The analysis into that underpayment, provided originally by the likes of Burdett and Mortensen, also shows that it becomes more acute for low wage workers. That is an open assault on your supply-side whinge. Rather than workers having insufficient skills to escape poverty, workers will often be in poverty because they are not paid according to their productivity.[/FONT][FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]No, it means that they are equally productive (as human capital goes beyond skills measures such as education and training).[/FONT] You've probably confused yourself with diminishing returns. [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]And thats the problem! As you didnt understand the supply & demand approach that you introduced, you didnt realise that you were indeed making the naive assumption of worker homogeneity.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Ive seen no evidence of that. You didnt answer the question. [/FONT]Where have you been educated in economics? [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Its part of the neoclassical supply & demand model. In any other context it isnt used. As I said, its twinned with the rest of neoclassical production theory (with isoquant/isocost analysis key)[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]All part of the neoclassical supply & demand modelling of the labour market.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Comparative advantage only requires differences in opportunity costs. Those differences exist, by definition. To suggest that a country is more likely to have a comparative advantage is nonsensical and only informs me that you dont understand the concept. You should be referring to absolute advantage.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]MRPL is used in firm level analysis. It cant be used in trade analysis. Youd need to refer to new trade theory (and the appallingly entitled new new trade theory which focuses in particular on how firm productivity gains are achieved), necessarily shifting away from Ricardian analysis into comparative advantage.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]No credible economic content would attempt to use Econ 101 to understand Boeing-Airbus interaction. At the very least there would be a shift towards game theory analysis (as the analysis shifts to inter-dependent oligopoly analysis). Also disentangling productivity levels is terribly difficult. Boeing, for example, is effectively subsidised through the defence industry.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Supply-side economics is cobblers. Its origins are based on a fake argument with neo-Keynesianism on the nonsensical Phillips Curve. When it was applied (see Thatcherism), the results were disastrous. Note also that it was the stupidity of free market economics which gave us the folly of neo-liberalism.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]You do like to make basic errors! Comparative advantage eliminated the notion that trade is a zero-sum game. All those involved in trade has comparative advantage, by definition. You could say, using the Heckscher-Ohlin approach, that the country with capital abundance (and therefore a skewing towards high skilled labour) will have a comparative advantage in capital-intensive product. [/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]And you finish by again suggesting that Americans are more feckless than Europeans. Enough with the Europhiling![/FONT]
No it isnt, but in the example it was assumed that markets are perfect..so we dont assume that there are additional costs such as asymmetric information. Nice to see how you criticise my economics knowledge..when you each time go off the tangent. Can you at least stay on the topic? Who was talking about underpayment? underpayment could be because of organisatonal politics alone.. lol..nice to see that you just have a passing acquaintance with some theories in economics.. I wasnt trying to demonstrate wages, and I didnt state that the employer is a wage taker..But I will stick to the argument..even if we assume that he is a wage taker.. He will take only a few workers before diminishing returns. He is going to take the candidates that are most productive. When recession happens he is going to fire those who havent been productive. I didnt bring a full analysis, and no economic stance...I dont know if MRPL is being used in other models. I wanted to demonstrated the idea of productivity being tied to revenue, and the perception of the employer to it. In the examples they give..labor is homegeneous because every worker, produces the same amount of output. So lets say every one produces 10 bricks. But to produce 10 bricks you need to a capability! Here is one assumption: So wouldnt you agree with me , that even if labor is homogeneous, only because there is a mention of calculation of productivity, there will be some estimation about who should be taken to work or who should be fired? wouldnt an employer take physically productive workers (who are able to produce 10 bricks) from the outset..and then it can start refer to the analysis which shows that every worker produces 10 bricks? The MRPL curve is only drawn after you have some workers in the firm. Read carefully, cause you are not good at paying attention to details.. Doesnt say potential workers? So if we are talking about a software company..lets say that a firm hires employers who can produce 2 softwares in one month? how someone who is unskilled/incapable/lazy will get in if he cant produce 2 softwares in one month? With the employer hiring workers, you can draw the same MRPL curve where you get every worker producing 2 softwares a month..so in other words, each worker adds MP of 2? Quite overturns the applecart for you, because you were above yourself too long and too often! I wasnt, I was trying to show that poor people dont get their jobs, if they dont bring high enough margins.. I wasnt even going to wage analysis. Although, I do relate to it, if you dont promise to bring high margins, why should a firm pay you well or more.. Out of which @ss is it going to pull the money from? Thats your achilles heel, you are glued to models... I am not going to go to define how a country achieves a comparative advantage,.. I am just going to say that if a country does something better than another country with given resources (human or capital), it has a comparative advantage. Comparative advantage could include productivity levels.... may be two industries have their two homogeneous groups of workers..but between those two groups there is a difference in productivity. That industry that has got more productive workers (greater levels of MRPL), has the comparative advantage. I mixed microeconomics and macroeconomics..But the argument is still valid! hmm wast Thatcher monetarist?!? She actually pulled UK out of the mess with its efficient allocation of government spending and everything else to do with allocation of resources.. I hope you feel abashed by bringing Thatcher in! Cant a socialist like you just admit that a good liberal policy and the bases of meritocracy are the way a government should lead politics? I think that you are the one who makes an error and is a bit confused. Your last statement confirms my last statement, even though it involves capital. From Wikipedia. Relating to America and N.Korea. America produces high tech goods and N.Korea is more productive at producing shoes. They engage in trade..which country will be wealthier the one that produces high tech goods or the one that produces shoes? Now back to the brick example..if American workers are better at producing bricks than N.Korea, they will have that comparative advantage, and gain income from N.Korea.. (N.Korea will benefit from such trade, too).. That will improve Americas balance of payments..It is all about productivity..(there are other factors such as marketing, coming with the right idea, logistics, political assets...etc... I am not considering those). Comparative advantage abates the inclination towards self-sufficiency..each country engages in trade because it has strengths (productive/good at producing a good) and exploit strengths of others to prosper more. I hope that my examples and explanations werent too abstruse
[FONT=&]Theres no such thing as a perfect market. Do you think referring to clear irrelevance will strengthen your argument?[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Any discussion about working poverty would have to refer to underpayment. And note that my original comments referred to how working poverty is a demand-led problem and how education investments will increase underemployment (which is a form of underpayment which describes hidden unemployment). Ive since had to show the gross error in your MRPL efforts. You clearly didnt realise that, by referring to MRPL, youd necessarily have to assume underpayment. This undoubtedly attacks your its their fault whinge, as your MRPL efforts have only described how we cannot use MRPL to understand wage determination.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Technically youve demonstrated nothing except illustrate (without knowing it of course) that the working poor wont be compensated according to their worth.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Another basic error! Diminishing returns reflects the firms combined use of factors of production. Its summed up by the shape of the isoquant and how, as the firm increases its use of labour, it will need to forgo less capital to maintain a given output level. It has nothing to do with going to take the candidates that are most productive as worker homogeneity is assumed for simplicity.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]And you also dont know how MRPL is used in neoclassical analysis. You havent got an economic argument. All youve got is the standard anti-Americanism that I hear in discussions over relatively high US poverty. [/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]I certainly wouldnt agree with you as youre not making sense. If labour is homogeneous then there is no means to evaluate who should be fired. Indeed, it simply doesnt matter. Of course in reality the firm will apply artificial human resource management methods. In terms of a simple internal labour market approach, it would simply adopt a policy such as last in-first out [/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]The MRPL is hypothetical. It isnt drawn! Indeed, given the complexity of labour (as shown by the endogeneity of productivity), it cannot be drawn. We can estimate productivity criteria at an industry level, but that is for very specific empirical issues such as measuring average underpayment.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Your artificial example was just poorly written. Ill set you a task. Please present an actual example, from a real firm, of a drawn MRPL. Good luck![/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]All youve done is destroyed your own argument. Analysis into MRPL will necessarily lead to the conclusion that poverty will develop because of economic rents created through imperfect competition. Bit of an oops moment for you, but I reckon it will take some time for you to realise your error. [/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]No, Im just able to make accurate economic comment. Your use of comparative advantage was basic error.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Wrong again! Youre referring to absolute advantage. Comparative advantage refers to opportunity costs. All countries have a comparative advantage as they will produce a good more easily relative to another good. Indeed, comparative advantage will develop even if two countries are equally competitive and have the same production possibility frontier. Given diminishing returns, it would only require differences in product demand conditions.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Afraid not! There is no validity in your comment. Comparative advantage doesnt refer to differences in productivity of workers. In terms of Heckscher-Ohlin, it refers to factor proportions (e.g. workers in two countries can have the same skills set, but one country will have an advantage in labour intensive product because it has relatively little capital).[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]She quadrupled unemployment and destroyed the industrial base. Not surprisingly, poverty (particularly child poverty) went through the roof. Anyone who sees that as a positive outcome is struggling in the reality stakes![/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Again you only show your ignorance (a slightly amusing result given youre condemning folk for their fecklessness or stupidity). My reference to Heckscher-Ohlin was perfectly correct. Comparative advantage is derived through differences in factor proportions. Youve merely confused comparative advantage and Smiths absolute advantage. A poor error! [/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]First, comparative advantage doesnt say a country is more productive at producing a good. It says that, to produce the good, it has to forgo less of another good. Comparative advantage informs us how, through specialisation, overall economic output is increased (with a country effectively able to consume outside its production possibility frontier). Second, the analysis isnt used to say which country will be wealthier. Its used to show how the mercantilist approach is inappropriate (except perhaps in the case of a Keynesian analysis into unemployment) [/FONT] [FONT=&]More nonsense! Wed expect America to have a double absolute advantage, but for specialisation towards capital-intensive product (as the comparative advantage reflects abundant capital relative to labour)[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]You still havent actually presented anything remotely valid.[/FONT]
lol..."Another Basic Error".. Let references be the acid test.. http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-micro-demand-for-labour.html I seem to have statement on a good authority! I didnt try talk about wages,..I tried to explain why poor people dont get a job in an industry / firm that they want. There are however a few models that I know that are about wage determination. Simply put, with no diagrams: If you have the relevant education or skill you have more bargaining power to get higher pay in the specific industry. Poor people are lazy or have no relevant skill or education to bargain anything. The employer is not expecting to find a class act among the poor and low skilled. Why not first in first out..? lol Reading this makes me laugh. Now I can see how basic your understanding of economics... A country that sells a staple good, necessarily has a comparative advantage? I dont refer to absolute advantage..I know exactly what comparative advantage is, thats why I brought that argument cause it is based on one countries inputs/asset strengths compare to anothers. But even with absolute advantage my argument holds. If one country has more productive workers, it will be capable of producing more output than another one. Anyway, here is the definition of from wikipedia That explains why poor stay poor.. they have economic growth being sacrificed on the alter of religion, national symbolism and adapt socialist regimes..waste their time arsing around and not working! No, but it can be derived from it! Pay attention to the example I provided! or look for a better example yourself! Really, a socialist like you would produce a lot of hot air if you were at the time. I guess you have no passing acquaintance with British history..The coalmines were closing down..the industrial base was going down anyway..She led a good transformation with all her cuts and slack-cutting in general. Heckscher-Ohlin he is not the only economist who theorised based on comparative advantage! comparative advantage could come from labor, capital or both combined. Why do you concentrate on the unimportant..and nit pick and go wrong again. I know that comparative advantage is between two goods and is based on lower opportunity cost.. still it reflects economic efficiency.. an absolute advantage You said it yourself, something with capital and labor being skewed. You need workers to operate that capital at certain situations..are they all low skill ? So if you have more capital, then you need to have skilled workers to operate it or even create it..therefore skill/education/hard work does play a factor in explaining the differences not only in an economy but also in explaining global wealth differences. Nice how I can even take your own arguments and use them against you!! Just played your ace against you!! No! it isnt nonsense. Watch..no capital relative to labor ..is involved: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpTBjRf8lGs It says one country is productive at producing one good while another is productive at producing another...that motivates them to trade ..the end result is higher net wealth in both countries! I presented enough theories/facts that are valid not to come back here and continue that discussion.. You only caught me with that MRPL diagram, and homogeneous workers..but I was still able to spin myself out of your contradiction by using comparative/absolute advantage analysis. Your economic thought is out of the ark.. You are glued to textbook economics and prone to mistake, a smart alec in economics wouldnt make such simple mistakes as arguing against maximising profit, relationship between productive workers and wage (at least a weak positive one,,but still a positive relationship) and absolute/comparative advantage!!
Give Kharon a couple of months. Reiver "answers" with bluster, buzzwords, and sentences complicated to hide his ignorance. When that doesn't work, he reverts to personal attack. Nothing to be learned from him, even was a bleedin genius (which he isn't).
[FONT=&]We all make errors in economic comment. Unfortunately, despite me pointing out the exact problems, youre not even able to realise the nature of your multiple mistakes. What I said was perfectly correct. Diminishing returns reflects how factors of production are combined. In the isoquant analysis worker homogeneity is maintained. Productivity falls as there is less capital being used per worker. The comment going to take the candidates that are most productive was purely drivel.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Ive already told you that youve not provided anything and your attempts at using economics have only backfired. MRPL cannot be used to show why poor people dont get a job in an industry. It can only be used to show how many workers a profit maximising firm will employ. How it can be applied to poverty? Why, Ive already said: it shows that working poverty will be intensified because firms will fail to pay their workers according to productivity criteria.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Youre not saying anything interesting. As has already been said, given the low skilled equilibrium (a demand-side phenomenon), an increase in education or skills will merely increase underemployment.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Just repetition of your anti-Americanism.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Because the firm will want to ensure worker compliance. A simple last in, first out policy will eliminate any bargaining threat over employment levels. Bit obvious really![/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Were back to the sad reality of you making mistake and then refusing to acknowledge the error. That you didnt understand that comparative advantage refers to opportunity costs only tells me that you need an economics education. Theres no crime in that of course, but youre really going to have to do a lot of reading before you can craft a sensible argument. Being lazy in that reading wont make your the poor are lazy argument look credible.[/FONT] [FONT=&]All countries have comparative advantage, by definition. The only debate is in the extent that comparative advantage can explain trade patterns. We know that a large percentage of trade can be explained through factor proportions (e.g. labour abundant country will specialise in labour intensive product). However, we also know that we have to factor in additional issues such as economies of scale and product differentiation (giving us an understanding of intra-industry trade)[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Youve referred to differences in productivity levels. That is a reference to absolute advantage. I illustrated the stupidity of your argument by referring to how comparative advantage would be generated purely through differences in product demand conditions.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Absolute advantage is merely used to indicate how both countries can gain from trade. Comparative advantage, in contrast, goes further and shows that the non-economic were too uncompetitive to gain from trade argument is hogwash. A country could have appallingly low productivity levels in everything it produces but will still undoubtedly gain from specialising in the products that it has a comparative advantage in.[/FONT] [FONT=&][/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]This is low brow rant.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Pay attention? Noticing your numerous errors isnt difficult. Comparative advantage is simply about opportunity costs. There is no need to refer to whether one country is more productive in one good. To understand the concept it is purely about productivity across goods, describing the consequences of specialising and how much of the other goods is sacrificed.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Appalling ignorance. Britain suffered a recession worse than the Great Depression. Quadrupling unemployment wasnt a natural result. Indeed, the empirical evidence shows that it was the more productive enterprises that were forced to close. Why? Because those firms were involved in international competition and Thatcherism ensured that British companies could not compete.[/FONT] Note also that, through family credit, they cretinously encouraged low wage labour. [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]You think Heckscher-Ohlin is one person? That is nearly amusing. Only nearly mind you.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Keep up! Its all about factor proportions: e.g. how much land relative to labour. That helps us understand the nature of the opportunity costs and of course explain the majority of trade patterns.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Another silly error! The two good example is only used to enable a two dimensional Edgeworth box analysis. It isnt necessary. And you certainly didnt know that it referred to opportunity costs, as shown by your ramblings over productivity (and mistaking it with absolute advantage, without realising it of course)[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Another silly error! Comparative advantage exists when no absolute advantage exists.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Another silly error! As part of the analysis into comparative advantage, convergence is predicted (e.g. global wage differentials should be eliminated). Now we know that only partially happens. Why? Largely because of the distinction between static and dynamic comparative advantage. Indeed, the World Bank has even shown how trade can lead to a net reduction in a countrys well-being because of an inefficient focus on resource exploitation.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Its obvious what you do. You make an error. I inform you of that error. You then try to use Wikipedia to blag that you havent made an error. The process is then repeated. Weve only got one conclusion here: those that say stuff like the poor are feckless and stupid just arent very clued up when it comes to economics.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]I have no reason to tell porkies. I can reliably inform you that the number of valid arguments that you have presented is exactly zero.[/FONT] - - - Updated - - - Its really not my fault that you don't understand Econ 101. I'm not your teacher dear boy
It is called the natural rate of unemployment. For an economy like the US, it is estimated that the NRU is about 4.5%. It used to be considered 5% until our unemployment went below that number.
At any given time in any free marketish economy, there will be people losing jobs by quitting, getting fired, businesses going under and the like just in the natural course of normal business operations. That is just reality. If you want to call reality "bluster", that is certainly your choice to do so.
You're just referring to frictional unemployment. The NRU has a particularly ideological bent. Its used within supply-side economics to peddle nonsense like the optimality of reducing unemployment benefit
Yeah, I know Not Amused. "basic errors"... You made a basic error!! talking about reliability, you didnt bring even one single reference in all that hot air that you created! I remember that guy 4 years ago.. his economic understanding was appalling. Now it has improved, he brings models, some historical facts and analysis. But still to this day he doesnt know the difference between apples and oranges, and still is ignorant. I do recall know why he is ignorant and I can explain why.. He pulls statements from thin air, he nit picks and doesnt see the full picture, he takes a statement and puts it in a context that he wants and he is bad with many definitions in economics. Instead his source of reading is mainly not academic, he doesnt know how an economic argument is constructed and he has some odd social/political beliefs! And worse than that he bangs on about the same points (specifically the NRU, same way he did, 4 years ago), without checking the references you provide him..making you impossible to get a valid point. He wont let leave you alone, he loves trolling this site and has trolled this section for years may be decades who knows! Few users bandy around that he has some understanding, but 100% know no economics or they know some and they are trolls. Remember this symbol, Reiver: 4 years ago I was a member here (with a nickname of Libertyman if I recall correctly). I do remember now, why I left this section. He made a real ball-up of this whole discussion and the other ones I participated with in, I am going to bail out and go to another section!
Let's summarise your errors. You bogusly referred to MRPL when it can't be used to understand the working poverty's income situation (and therefore be used to support your anti-Americanism). You ignored the distinction between static and dynamic analysis, particularly important when taking into account the endogeneity of productivity. You then made the bogus claim that economic analysis doesn't make that distinction, as a matter of standard practice. You then made the ludicrous claim that Obama is a socialist. You then confused comparative and absolute advantage, demonstrating that you're not aware of the 'opportunity costs' basis of economic costs. You want me to refer to economic analysis entitled "Why Kharon is wrong?". Just pick up any Econ 101 text. The information is all available, given we haven't referred to anything complex (the most complex being the innovations into asymmetric information) This neatly sums up your non-economic nature. I wouldn't refer to the NRU. Closest I'd get is the NAIRU. However, I find the consequences of the 'neo-Keynesianism versus monetarism' debate (and the subsequent horror-fest from rational expectations with the new classicals versus new Keynesians) most dreary. My focus is typically a combination of variety of political economic schools in order to generate microeconomic argument: from neo-classical to institutionalism. Never been interested in fake libertarianism. The ideological and dogmatic right wingers that have infected the term in the US can only encourage further harmful coercion (as we saw with how free market economics delivered the folly of neo-liberalism) Come back when you know some economics! Cheerio
That what I wasnt trying to do. I was telling you that they wouldnt get a job in the first place if they didnt try to maximise margins (try harder) to get a job. It wasnt the most academic way to show my point, I admit,,..but I wasnt trying to do a wage analysis <- Stop plucking things out of thin air!!! and therefore be used to support your anti-Americanism <- no idea what you are talking about..sorry I am lost...I can adjudge by this that you are not a competent at having analytic economic thought The academic correct terms are short- and long-term analysis and not static/dynamic.. remember that!! Do you know what a left-wing party stands for? , Lol..would I really be too lacking in knowledge to confuse the two. It takes to explain what a comparative advantage is..I told you already, that comparative advantage stems from productivity differences. Shouldnt a country have better engineers to produce the capital in the first place? shouldnt schools/teachers be better at teaching? I also provided you a video of an explanation,,and you rejected that basic example Really, I remember my second lesson in economics, as I remember my birth date! I had a stack of economics books on my shelf back in the day. I can see you that you have no economic education and have never written a single essay in economics. References are used to support your points when engaging in a formal discussion. It was my avatar. finished my A-level in economics (high school) and I have a business degree from KCL, even before you made appearance on this forum. So the last thing I will be doing is coming back and discussing economics with someone who has never had any formal education in economics.
What you tried to do is pretend economics knowledge when in fact it couldn't be used in support of your 'Americans are more feckless than Europeans' argument. Indeed, you shot yourself in the foot as- by referring to MRPL- you merely advertised that the working poor were not paid according to their worth. I've already corrected your basic error. The MRPL can only be used to show an individual firm's optimal employment decision. It cannot be used to say, for example, a poor person is too unproductive to escape poverty. You've already been fully informed why your argument is anti-American, so please stop with the 'play pretend' games. The US has higher poverty than their European counterparts. You therefore have to argue that Americans are more likely to be feckless than Europeans Another basic error! Short term and long term only refer to the variability of factors of production. The analysis continues to be static. For example, in an analysis of the firm's long run production technical progress is assumed to be zero. All we have is a firm able to cost minimise by shifting between the use of labour and capital. In consensus politics it means very little. Suggesting Obama is a socialist is, however, clearly nonsensical. Yep Nope. There is no need to use absolute advantage (which people would typically just use to say garbage like "we're uncompetitive in everything, let's use protectionism". That is only used to show the problems inherent in mercantilism. Comparative advantage only requires reference to opportunity costs. And I've already told you that is nonsense. You could have two identical countries (same skills sets, same capital, same productivities) and they'd still have comparative advantage differences through differences in demand preferences. Its of course better to see general increases in human capital. Indeed, countries which are free from the limitations of a 'low skilled equilibrium' will typically see much more up-skilling. I'm certainly not an economist. I've always been open about it. I'm a SME consultant, although the missus is indeed an academic economist. She certainly go into much more detail than I would. She'd, for example, focus much more on the inherent characteristics of the internal labour market and how it eliminates the usefulness of MRPL even in making employment decisions. However, as I said, it really wasn't difficult to show the basic flaws in your argument. That might account for it. My experience of business degrees isn't too positive when it comes to economic analysis. I've never employed anyone with one. Economics is much more hard-core, ensuring the required skills to understand the economic issues my clients are interested in. I've been running rings around you. There's no disgrace in that. However, you're not even aware that I have. And that is indeed tut-worthy!
No, but the mere word "Marginal" and "Productivity" implies productivity. I extended the argument to international economics (let me appertain my argument to absolute advantage, for the simplicity of a discussion). Using same model in two economies, wouldnt you say that an economy with more productive workers will be more employed as it has MRPL curve shifting more outwards because of higher rates of productivity? Why not to address that point!! Not only. You made your static/dynamic and your poor example up, that is even worse than making a mistake. I am sure that you made that term up, too! Only flaw in all that hole-picking that you did, was that homogeneous labor... I compensated for the "mistake" by bringing an international economics argument, that you are too stubborn to accept. Even if I was wrong at an industry level, I was right on global scale (using macroeconomics).. I won the discussion as I see it because it is too easy to argue that poor people are poor because they arent productive (that is part of the reason.. you dont have to be productive to be rich..but it is a big reason). This is why it is easy to counter all your thought, no matter what school of thought you take Kenyans or monetarists, neoclassical or whatever. We can go in circles again, and I will stick to the point that productivity plays an important part in wages. I will tell you what is hardcore. Apart of my academic background in business/economics, I worked as a programmer and now I work as a hacker (hoping to go into the field of reverse engineering or security research) ..So mister SME consultant...I could learn everything that you can in two months..all the basic economics that you know is basic. It is too bad that you fail to interlink between economic thoughts (and fail at definitions at times)!
Again, its only used (in a hypothetical sense only of course as, when asked, you weren't able to refer to an actual firm's MRPL) to show the optimal employment decision. That's it! Nothing more. No, you extended your error to international economics. Referring to productivity was a particularly poor error as a country will have comparative advantage when it has no absolute advantage (i.e. its less productive at producing any good) You don't have a point. You're typing drivel. The MRPL cannot be used in a trade discussion. You should be referring to the production possibility frontier (with differences, in the Heckscher-Ohlin perspective, then purely driven through differences in factor abundance and factor intensity). Even then we cannot make any "one country will do better than the other" evaluation. Given comparative advantage, both countries will benefit. My comment was perfectly accurate. Short and long term refers to variability in factors of production. You're essentially saying "you're wrong because, as I haven't been taught much economics, I haven't encountered static and dynamic distinctions". The difference is obvious. The heterodox economist will, for example, attack neoclassical analysis as it focuses almost entirely on static analysis. And in terms of trade we've already referred to a big issue: the distinction between static and dynamic comparative advantage. The latter typically refers to the consequences of 'economies of time' (i.e. how average costs fall with accumulated output, reflecting learning economies) Again you're only advertising that you haven't encountered much economics. Please don't fib. Its crass. I've already summarised your multiple errors. Nope. Your application of international economics was woeful, particularly your abuse of the term comparative advantage. Dissonance is a terrible business! This is just repetition of your anti-Americanism. You forgotten your foot shooting? By bringing up MRPL you necessarily advertised that the working poor are not paid according to their productivity. Time starts now! Please come back in two months with a coherent economic argument
Lol, I doubt I made an error, and this statement is accordant to economics text book. I doubt that I havent been taught enough economics to not know what that there is such thing as a static and dynamic comparative advantage. I would want you to give me references, and you will have my abject satisfaction. Really..with one of your corrections as a reply: Really?!? my statements and the youtube video..at least I had references. Comparative Advantage is based on factors of production..I even know where that theory comes from..I will refer your point for you. It comes from this book http://www.amazon.com/International-Economics-Obstfeld-Prentice-Hardcover/dp/B00DU8C59S/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1380386903&sr=8-3&keywords=international+economics+paul+krugman+edition+11 Although the edition that I used was different. It is chapter 3 or 4.. there is a discussion of comparative advantage on the basis of factors of production. But before that there is a discussion of comparative advantage using simply two goods. In my minds eye, I recall what I was taught and read. You are referring to a particular explanation of comparative advantage... Go Research! There is no such term. google isnt lying: https://www.google.co.il/?gws_rd=cr&ei=_AVHUp2KM4fbswbatIC4Ag#q=economies+of+time and if you mean this definition which was formulated by Karl Marx.. ..you must be kidding me,,You went so far to bang on about what Karl Marx, You are such a babes in the woods in business/economics, arent you?!? Speaking of your reiteration. My point is also valid to American economy since its labor has been flexible (If you dont know this fact, then there is nothing to discuss), the fittest have been surviving (the productive ones..and the non productive ones who appeared to be lucky or creative <-there havent been many of the latter). Well not nationally, but internationally they would, absolute advantage could provide an account for that! so I wasnt shooting my foot... Lets agree on that fact, end this acrimonious debate and call it a day..where are you going to continue from this discussion? Call me Anti-American again? My time hasnt started and not going to start..It is part of my general knowledge.. You are in the field of business, SME consultant, you need to get your knowledge up to par.
You can keep your dissonance. It doesn't interest me. Again, the 'you're wrong cos I don't know enough' argument really will not wash. The infant industry hypothesis is, by definition, a reference to dynamic comparative advantage (and how, due to economies of time, static comparative advantage will lead to an inherently inefficient result which inflames absolute poverty) Here's a little task for you. Search for "dynamic comparative advantage" in Google Scholar. Let me know if you get less than 3,230 hits You haven't got one reference in support of your position as you've simply got the concept of comparative advantage wrong. The confusion with absolute advantage was obvious. A woeful effort on several levels. First, you've merely googled a textbook. Second, you've actually referred to the Heckscher-Ohlin model which understands the determinants of comparative advantage in terms of factor proportions. Third, I've already informed you of all this (remember you even mistook Heckscher-Ohlin for a single economist with an exotic double barrelled name) This reminds me of another error you cam out with. As you tried to use wikipedia to catch up, you didn't realise that the "two good" case was just about providing the means to come out with a two dimensional diagram (using the Edgeworth box to understand the shape of the production possibility frontier) Actually I'm merely correcting your errors but, out of rudeness or dissonance, you haven't got the good grace to thank me. Google isn't fibbing, you are. Google Scholar gives 1,780 hits. Of course it is a well known term and, here, describes how we cannot understand economies of scale purely in terms of current output. Thus, learning-by-doing can be understood in terms of accumulated output. You're not making sense. Are you referring to labour market flexibility in terms of a lack of collective bargaining? The US certainly doesn't have worker flexibility in terms of skills (upskilling necessarily delivers that) Just more anti-Americanism A random reply. First, MRPL necessarily leads us to a discussion of underpayment (with working poverty therefore occurring because workers aren't paid according to their value). Second, as you've already been told, absolute advantage can only be used to illustrate the weakness in the mercantilist position. There hasn't been a debate. I've merely been sweet natured and pointed out your errors. Whether you take that on-board and 'grow' is really up to you. I'm not fussed either way. There's no question in it. The US has higher poverty and you blame fecklessness for poverty. You therefore believe Americans are more feckless. I of course knew you wouldn't be up for it. You were blagging after all
Another nice term..why absolute and not relative? Yeah, they are two economists. Why the wikepedia and the video example are not sufficient proves of evidence Well, I will expand.. Read with is said, in the underlined sentence. Then it goes on saying what you said:: I gave up saying that even then it steps there is an element of productivity that creates the conditions...but I will leave you to yourself to understand and do research. Oh I can see now. A marginal point on internal economy of scale or external economy of scales..is that your best argument? lol..you are using my old argument to shoot yourself in the foot. Isnt it is assumed that the employer is a wage taker? that means he doesnt determine pay. look at the diagram the mc curve is flat..means everyone are paid the same..so who is underpaid..? Yeah, in terms of lack of collective bargaining. Firms have been able to fire and hire workers..that made skill/productivity an important reflective factor in their economy..which stresses why in American case it is important to be productive.. and if you are poor , most likely one of the factors that caused it is lack of skill or being lazy unproductive. This is a point that I do tend to agree (even though it is the most ludicrous point here). There are more job opportunities out there, and a bigger output gap to close... they just need to reach them.
Because the comment referred to the developing world Nice to admit your error. The problem is that you don't understand the sources that you pretend support your position. Wikipedia, for example, cannot be used to support your abuse of absolute advantage. Why? I'm the one that have made a mockery of your position through the use of the Heckscher-Ohlin model. Again, you're talking bobbins! Heckscher-Ohlin understands the differences in opportunity costs through differences in factor proportions. You bogusly suggested it was linked to absolute advantage. It isn't. Further, you have been informed numerous times now that comparative advantage would also be created through differences in product demand conditions. Another basic error. The difference between internal and external economies of scale refers to the firm's output or the industry's output. The classic example being clustering effects to enable a pool of skilled labour (eliminating cost effects created through hard-to-fill-vacancies). I've been referring to the learning curve, demonstrating how the standard isoquant-isocost analysis into comparative advantage can lead to inefficient specialisation. Note that I supported that with reference to World Bank research into how trade has actually reduced the well-being of sub-Saharan African countries. Another error (and you have no excuse for it as I have gone through it several times). We know that the firm faces an upward sloping labour supply schedule. We therefore know it has wage-making power. We also know that this wage-making power will lead to greater underpayment for the lowest paid workers. I referred you to the work by Burdett and Mortensen to see more detail. Monopsony is the norm. To derive that result we only need job search frictions (However, its also delivered through heterogeneity in worker preferences). Again, you've already been told all of this as I made it clear MCL>ACL And that has only encouraged the low skilled equilibrium. Firms have no need to train workers as there is too much profit in underpaying the low paid. Skills are important in any mature economy. Note, however, that very few mature economies have the same abundance of low paid labour as the US> All of those mature economies have lower poverty. You therefore continue to argue that Americans are more feckless. Finally! Thanks for agreeing that your argument is inherently anti-American. About time mind you
Actually, a grammatically correct way of saying it is this: The difference between internal and external economies of scale refers to the firm's output and the industry's output, respectively. But, nonetheless, that definition made me smile .. That might be because they dont fund them well to promise a sustainable development. Their loans are not aligned with their need for a sustainable development! I dont remember that. All what you know about international economics can be written on a postage stamp, so thanks for at least providing me with an alternative knowledge source. No I have no excuse, because I dont know what you are on about!?!? U do know I was talking about the MRPL, why did you copy and paste the sentence out of its context? very lame indeed. Dont do that again!! Thats may be because it is liberal, not socialist, and taxes are low. It has large and growing wage discrepancy..I am not 100% sure why it is growing..UK is also liberal, and it doesnt experience that problem! Lol..think through this statement. Didnt I just make you to agree that there is a relationship between skill/productivity and poverty? Or are you still an antagonist of that thinking?
If we corrected your errors we'd be here until doomsday. The point is simple: you misapplied the distinction between internal and external economies of scale. Its because trade liberalisation, if dynamic comparative advantage isn't pursued, can be harmful for economic development (as of course detailed by the infant industry hypothesis) You're fibbing again. I've informed you several times that MRPL can only be used (in a hypothetical sense as firms don't actually know their MRPL) to determine employment. Wage is determined by labour supply and, given MCL exceeds ACL, we know that the worker is underpaid. We also know, via that analysis by Burdett and Mortensen, that underpayment intensifies as we move down the wage distribution. So, as I said, by referring to MRPL you've undoubtedly advertised the "poverty reflects wage exploitation" argument. Well done! Fibbing again! You're the one that copy and pasted a diagram with an unrealistic perfectly elastic labour supply curve. Do you even understand that diagram? You're not making sense. First, the US and the UK both have an abundance of low paid labour. Second, are you seriously arguing that low taxes are behind the abundance of low paid labour? It doesn't take any thinking. I merely congratulated you for agreeing that your argument is inherently anti-American.
