Tweet
.
Attached Files
-
"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito Mussolini -
There's everything wrong with calling yourself a Marxist while rejecting Marxist analysis. It's dishonest.Originally posted by Kidicious
There is nothing wrong with calling yourself a marxist and thinking outside or marxism. To only stay within a certain ideology is close minded.Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
-
Originally posted by Last Conformist
There's everything wrong with calling yourself a Marxist while rejecting Marxist analysis. It's dishonest.
I'm certainly not rejecting Marxist analysis. I know that not one theory alone can explain economics.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
LoA,
What the hell is that graph? You have subsidies as an increase in cost for the suppliers. You just made that up and then tried to prove that it's true, and on top of that you are violating the foundation of your free market argument.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
hehe, no i didnt make up that graph. and no, subsidies are not an increase in cost for the suppliers. look at it. Ps, which is the price for subsidized domestic goods, pushes the Sdomestic right, so that it passes through D1What the hell is that graph? You have subsidies as an increase in cost for the suppliers. You just made that up and then tried to prove that it's true, and on top of that you are violating the foundation of your free market argument.
"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
No. Ps passes through S1. That is the initial condition. S2 is the subsidized goods. That graph isn't used for what we're talking about. It demonstates the increase in subsidies, not the removal. That's why you have it backwards.Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
hehe, no i didnt make up that graph. and no, subsidies are not an increase in cost for the suppliers. look at it. Ps, which is the price for subsidized domestic goods, pushes the Sdomestic right, so that it passes through D1I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
no, s2 is not the subsidized good. Ps is the subsidized good.No. Ps passes through S1. That is the initial condition. S2 is the subsidized goods. That graph isn't used for what we're talking about. It demonstates the increase in subsidies, not the removal. That's why you have it backwards.
"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
That's why I thought you made it up. Look, if I pay you to produce something that in effect lowers your costs. Then you will offer to sell your good for less money. If I stop paying you to produce it you will raise your price again. It's very simple.Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
no, s2 is not the subsidized good. Ps is the subsidized good.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
i agree totally. as you can see, the number of domestic suppliers at Ps is greater than at Pw. this is because there are more firms that can compete because they are subsidized. when subsidy is removed, the amount of domestic firms competing drops, because they cannot compete with the world price Pw. yeah, price goes up for the domestic suppliers, but since they can no longer compete, they are gone from the system, and are replaced by imported suppliers.That's why I thought you made it up. Look, if I pay you to produce something that in effect lowers your costs. Then you will offer to sell your good for less money. If I stop paying you to produce it you will raise your price again. It's very simple."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
From an increase in price. Prices drive in more competition and another equilibrium is reached. That equilibrium can not be below the original price. That's absurd.Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
but since they can no longer compete, they are gone from the system, and are replaced by imported suppliers.
Here's a proper graph.Attached FilesI drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
-
Security of food supplies is also a national security issue. The main reason the UK has supported its agricultural industry for the last 60 years was the German attempts in two world wars to cut the import of food as well as raw materials to the UK.
So anyone opposing agricultural subsidies is a terrorist!!!
As for reliability of third world suppliers, there is a one word refutation of that source of supply - Zimbabwe.Never give an AI an even break.Comment
-
your graph kid doesnt show what the world price is, or how much imports are being brought in at those prices, so if the world price is below original, getting rid of subsidies will push the price down, since world supply is considered infinite."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
Kid, sometimes I wonder about you. LoA posted a graph which is in just about EVERY macroeconomics textbook and you claim he made it up or its wrong?
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Didn't we already know that Kid has a BS econ degree?Comment
-
Do I need point out that those two sentences contradict one another?Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm certainly not rejecting Marxist analysis. I know that not one theory alone can explain economics.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
Comment