Thread: US to have highest corporate tax rate in the world in 30 days

Originally Posted by Reiver

The publishers are merely interested in ensuring subscriptions.

Well, thanks for proving that we can add publishing to the list of topics of which you are comprehensively ignorant.

That is actually generated by ensuring heterogeneity in output, ensuring that a journal fits within a hole in the literature.

The only hole economics journals fill is a propaganda hole.

Indeed, my other half has just been approached to be the editor in an applied economics variation

Having no doubt already demonstrated suitable subservience to the journal owners' agenda...

Again, could you give a little more detail with regards these 'financial interests' which control these hundreds of independent economic journals?

I can't think of an independent peer-reviewed economics journal: they're all beholden to those who fund them. Can you think of one that is FINANCIALLY independent? If not, then the relevant financial interests are whoever is paying the bills.

Originally Posted by Roy L

Well, thanks for proving that we can add publishing to the list of topics of which you are comprehensively ignorant.

My comment was mere fact. That I've recently seen it in action, via the missus, is just spiffing in showing the naivety of your stance

The only hole economics journals fill is a propaganda hole.

Detail the nature of this propaganda control. What is stopping georgism from publishing, particularly as most journals aren't specific to any specific political economic school of thought?

Originally Posted by Reiver

Have you read it?

Of course.

Its better than your usual blind copy and paste efforts,

?? I rarely copy and paste, so stop lying.

but its ultimately just a whinge about undergraduate textbooks.

No, of course it isn't. You are just lying again. You always have to lie. ALWAYS.

Take this comment:

Every microeconomics textbook shows the “producer surplus” as the area between the supply curve and the price. But no textbook that I have seen, with the exception of David Friedman (1996), has thought to ask who receives the surplus. If the industry is perfectly competitive, firms being price takers, there is no economic profit, yet the surplus is a return beyond costs.

Perfect competition cannot exist.

You have to evade, so you plonk out irrelevancy. Inevitable, really. The fact that there is no perfectly frictionless surface or perfectly elastic collision does not stop physicists from analyzing how objects move and interact by reference to such ideal conditions.

As I predicted, and knew was inevitable, you are contriving excuses to ignore, dismiss and evade the facts the article identifies.

Further, if we wanted to attack the neoclassical textbook approach we'd merely note that the marginal cost curve is purely hypothetical and that, without reference to transaction costs, we'd have no rationale for the existence of the firm.

The firm is not the issue in that passage. The surplus independent of the firm is the issue. You are merely trying to change the subject. Again. Inevitably.

In addition, if you want to question the microeconomic textbooks we'd refer to the pluralist approach to economics and describe the mathematical errors in the neoclassical basic model

You again prove that as you cannot refute, you must therefore resort to ignoring, dismissing, and changing the subject.

God, you are such a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Roy L

I rarely copy and paste

Nice to see you at least admit that you copy and paste. Well done for being open!

No, of course it isn't. You are just lying again. You always have to lie. ALWAYS.

Count up how many times it mentions textbooks!

You have to evade

Actually I have to refer to the obvious: you've referred to an article that describes the limitations of orthodox textbooks. I've referred to more important limitations (accepted of course within the discipline as advanced theory necessarily includes reference to aspects of them)

The firm is not the issue in that passage.

Again you only show your ignorance of economics! Perfect competition is a theory of the firm. Bit obvious really

Originally Posted by Reiver

My comment was mere fact.

Lie.

That I've recently seen it in action, via the missus,

No, you have not. You are lying.

is just spiffing in showing the naivety of your stance

You ignore financial control of journals, and call ME naive?? ROTFL!!

Detail the nature of this propaganda control.

<yawn> I'll let another Nobel laureate in economics explain it to you:

"But one cannot ignore the possibility that the survival of the [neoclassical] paradigm was partly because the belief in that paradigm, and the policy prescriptions, has served certain interests." -- Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

What is stopping georgism from publishing,

?? "Georgism" is not a financial entity. Duh.

particularly as most journals aren't specific to any specific political economic school of thought?

I already explained that to you multiple times: facts known for hundreds of years are not eligible for publication in academic journals. Why do you have to pretend you do not know that?

As if we both don't know very well why...

Originally Posted by Roy L

Lie.

The problem is your lack of perspective. It makes you make silly comment and deny reality.

You ignore financial control of journals, and call ME naive??

To have any relevant remark you'd have to argue that publishers aren't interested in publishing Georgist paper because everyone doesn't care about Georgist paper. You might have something there!

"But one cannot ignore the possibility that the survival of the [neoclassical] paradigm was partly because the belief in that paradigm, and the policy prescriptions, has served certain interests." -- Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

The interesting aspect of the neoclassical school is its ability to utilise both other political economic schools of thought and analysis from the other disciplines (e.g. see the similarity in efficiency wage analysis with the Marxists). That the Georgists haven't joined the party reflects their reliance on dead Henry.

I already explained that to you multiple times: facts known for hundreds of years are not eligible for publication in academic journals. Why do you have to pretend you do not know that?

You refer to facts, without rationale, because you cannot support your position with evidence. Its no different to the standard cultist stance

But thanks for the laugh. You make the "Jewish banking conspiracy" nonsense look small fry!

Originally Posted by Reiver

The problem is your lack of perspective. It makes you make silly comment and deny reality.

<yawn> I'm not the one claiming homeowners are poorer and more exploited than the landless, pal. You are.

To have any relevant remark you'd have to argue that publishers aren't interested in publishing Georgist paper because everyone doesn't care about Georgist paper.

No, that's just more of your anti-logic, anti-justice, anti-liberty, anti-economics vomitus with no basis in fact or logic.

The interesting aspect of the neoclassical school is its ability to utilise both other political economic schools of thought and analysis from the other disciplines (e.g. see the similarity in efficiency wage analysis with the Marxists). That the Georgists haven't joined the party reflects their reliance on dead Henry.

No, that's just more of your anti-logic, anti-justice, anti-liberty, anti-economics vomitus with no basis in fact or logic.

You refer to facts, without rationale, because you cannot support your position with evidence.

You know you are lying. I have identified the relevant facts and logic for you many times.

Its no different to the standard cultist stance

No, that's just more of your anti-logic, anti-justice, anti-liberty, anti-economics vomitus with no basis in fact or logic.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Nice to see you at least admit that you copy and paste. Well done for being open!

?? I've never denied it. Sometimes someone else has expressed something better than I can. You copy and paste, too. So what?

Count up how many times it mentions textbooks!

Thanks for evading again.

Actually I have to refer to the obvious: you've referred to an article that describes the limitations of orthodox textbooks.

Among other things.

I've referred to more important limitations (accepted of course within the discipline as advanced theory necessarily includes reference to aspects of them)

No, what you've referred to are trivial oversights by comparison with the deficiencies Foldvary identified.

Again you only show your ignorance of economics! Perfect competition is a theory of the firm. Bit obvious really

Except that it isn't.

Originally Posted by Roy L

You copy and paste, too.

Nope I read and critique. Its great to see you so open about your tactics though. You've given such desperately poor supporting evidence that it was obvious, but admission is one step closer to a solution!

No, what you've referred to are trivial oversights by comparison with the deficiencies Foldvary identified.

The problem is that you've put your foot in it again! By copying and pasting you've chosen an article that makes a rather tediously obvious point: microeconomic textbooks aren't that much cop!

Originally Posted by Reiver

Nope I read and critique.

You lie. You copied and pasted in post #90 in this very thread.

You just always have to lie. About everything.