I'll let readers judge which of us makes sense. Lie. But there are many fundamental problems with it, as most of the best economists are aware. See Steve Keen's excellent work, "Debunking Economics." That wasn't the distinction he made, and you know it. You just lie and lie and lie. Sorry, sonny jim, but no amount of fallacious, irrelevant, dishonest garbage from you can alter the fact that equality and fairness are not antonyms. Guess who said this, sonny: "One might ask, how can we explain the persistence of the paradigm for so long? Partly, it must be because, in spite of its deficiencies, it did provide insights into many economic phenomena. ... 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." And this: "The economics profession appears to have been unaware of the long build-up to the current worldwide financial crisis and to have significantly underestimated its dimensions once it started to unfold. In our view, this lack of understanding is due to a misallocation of research efforts in economics. We trace the deeper roots of this failure to the profession's focus on models that, by design, disregard key elements driving outcomes in real-world markets." I am willing to know such facts. You are not. Simple.
You deliberately lied about what it plainly said. I have already informed you that "the" mainstream neoclassical economic analysis on the subject is merely an effort to change the subject. You like to change the subject. A lot. And I identified the fact that such publications in such journals are very much the problem. <yawn> Take it up with the Nobel laureates in economics who agree with me.
[/FONT] [FONT="]Indeed. I love your tactic. Monotonous in the “you fib” and dodge from basic error. You replied with drivel. We both know that.[/FONT] [FONT="] [/FONT] [FONT="] [/FONT] [FONT="]Zero attempt to reply to the comment made, as usual! Free trade refers to equal treatment (and therefore can be used within the poster’s equality comment). Fair trade refers to deliberate discriminatory practices in order to remove the damage generated through the failures of specialisation according to comparative advantage (again consistent with the poster’s comment). You’ve lost and you’re giving inane prance in order to hide from that fact, as neatly advertised by the tiresome copy and paste[/FONT]
The "you fib" monotony strikes again. You attacked my comment on the tragedy of the commons, despite it being clear-cut sense. That I have supported my comment with a recent academic article on the subject has just led you down your usual rant routine where we go for conspiracy coupled with non-economic grunt You have been found out to be ignorant of the literature on the subject. Nothing more. The Journal of Economic Psychology isn't a neoclassical journal. You'd know that if you were typing with knowledge, rather than just ranting inanely because you've been caught out again
Because the fibbing monotony strikes again. It's clear-cut irrelevancy: we really don't have to concern ourselves with over-exploitation that isn't profitable. Duh. You are lying. I never mentioned any conspiracy. Simple commonality of interests, and awareness of same (which lets you out, sorry) are quite sufficient. ROTFL!! No, that's just another stupid lie from you, Reiver, nothing more. I was the one who pointed out that Frank was misusing Hardin's work, just as you are, and as the liars and dupes who produce such a copious and irrelevant (and dishonest) "literature" on the subject are. Too bad you still can't think of anything relevant to say. One can be wrong without being a neoclassical nitwit. Look at you. <yawn> You lied. I identified that fact. Now you are sneering and weaseling to try to save face, as usual. Nothing more. And certainly nothing new.
My identifying your lies bothers you, I know. Live with it. Another lie. I know that I identified facts, and you started lying about them. But then, that is invariably the case, isn't it? Because the comment you made was nothing but an attempt to change the subject, as usual! No, of course it doesn't. Free trade is simply a policy of not interfering with trade. Treatment can be and usually is grossly unequal between competitors in different countries. You know this. You just decided deliberately to lie about it. "Consistent with," but entirely different from... You've lost and are wasting my time with tiresome garbage, as usual, and giving inane prance in order to hide from that fact. Which not coincidentally proves you lied, and which you can't answer.
That you say "you lie" constantly doesn't bother me. You might want to learn some more vocab though, else you're just going to come across as a knuckle dragger. We both know differently. You came back with utter drivel as we both know you can't reply to the reality. Can you deny that the fair trade literature refers to discriminatory practices in order to eliminate the inefficiencies created by first-mover advantage? Of course you can't. That's just a summary of the literature. The other fellow made a correct comment and you've been completely reliant on rant. Its not even interesting rant [FONT=&]Which, by definition, derives equal treatment (and therefore can be used within the posters equality comment). Your argument is even more illogical than usual. The fellow has managed to refer to modern economics and that must upset you as you cannot[/FONT]. I'm feeling sympathy for you
You just don't do imaginative writing and, when you realise you're on a loser, you go back to that pathetic "its a lie, its a lie, I say its a lie" rant Again, I've referred directly to a recent scholarly paper that proves my comment was perfectly correct. You attacked without knowledge. You're always reliant on the conspiracy angle as you know modern economics laughs at your position. Here you've just managed to show that your understanding of the tragedy of the commons is next to nil. There's no debate in it. I made a statement consistent with well-known economic analysis. I supported that with a scholarly source. You've simply had a tantrum. I'm simply having to do the norm with you: defend economic comment against your rant. The scholarly resource doesn't agree with you? Gosh, there's hundreds of them! I'd lie if I said something like "you understand the tragedy of the commons"
We both know I am right and you are lying. You didn't mention any reality, nor will you be doing so. I have no interest in denying it. It's an ignoratio elenchi fallacy, the same fallacy you commit in virtually every post. But has nothing to do with the issue. As usual. No, the other fellow has no idea what you are talking about. He made an elementary error in English usage, and you had to lie about it when I corrected him because for some reason you have decided to make it your life's work to troll me. Flat false, as already proved. He did no such thing, and you know it. You are just lying, as usual. Beneath contempt.
I correctly pointed out that you are still engaging in ignoratio elenchi fallacies, as usual. You are lying again. I have not posited any conspiracy, and you know it. It will be news to the dozens of eminent Western economists, including four (count 'em, FOUR) Nobel laureates, who signed a public letter agreeing with my position, that "modern" economics laughs at it. Lie. I have identified the facts. You have tried to change the subject. As usual. To try to change the subject. Right. Your constant lying about what I have plainly written is tiresome. No doubt there are millions of scholarly sources that talk about subjects other than the one under discussion. You have cited one. So? Why not cite others, in even more irrelevant fields? Why not cite papers on histology, philately, taxonomy or astronomy? They'll all be just as irrelevant as the paper you cited. You've lied that you understand it. I've proved you don't.
Our total revenues as I understand it are sadly short of our expenditures. Eventually we will all have to pay for this. You can argue the rest of your life about what is fair, but I wouldn't expect the minimum wage workers to shoulder this debt as their real income is decreasing. The wages of the average worker have faltered and the wages of the top 10% have risen disproportionately as their taxes decrease. Obviously some have benefited from current spending policies. What's the big deal about them paying more taxes?
Frank's first fallacy was to talk about income tax fairness in the first place. As income tax is inherently unfair, you can never solve the fairness problem as long as you confine your thinking to income taxation. Frank's second fallacy was to talk about the top 10% of income earners as if they were receiving disproportionate amounts of income, when most of the bottom 9/10 of the top 10% are quite ordinary working people who earn their incomes and are consequently paying quite a lot of income tax. It's the top 1% and especially the top 0.01% whose incomes have really increased disproportionately, are almost never earned by any commensurate contribution to production, and who are not paying their fair share of the income tax, let alone all taxes. They have indeed, and it is mostly the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich, especially landowners and bankers, who have benefited. What's the point of government giving the privileged top 1% such immense amounts of money for doing nothing if they are just going to be paying it back in taxes? [/sarcasm]
You always give the game away when you're reliant on your one liners (which always have zero content in them as they're designed to spoil and avoid the arguments raised). Sorry chum, I'm not going to let you get away with it You decided he was wrong, as you do, despite the fact that his comment is consistent with modern economics. You've achieved no relevant counter to that consistency. Once we refer to international trade we certainly see the merit in his distinction. Free trade does indeed refer to equality as, by definition, there is equal treatment between countries. Its that equal treatment which supposedly enables specialisation according to comparative advantage (and therefore the usual Heckscher-Ohlin tales to kick in). Fair trade, in contrast, focuses on discriminatory treatment because of the error in the standard Ricardian approach. There is no understanding of the firm (and how economies of scale is often a dynamic phenomenon based on accumulated output, rather than magnitude of current output). First mover advantages can then be very damaging, ensuring absolute poverty continues unabated in countries lacking economic development. You ignore all of this stuff of course as you're obsessed on one issue (and, as shown by the errors you've made with the tragedy of the commons, you're not even well read on that one issue)
You post, as usual, has no content. You've assumed knowledge of the tragedy of the commons and then, when confronted with scholarly resource (and, as remarked, its one of hundreds upon hundreds), you've gone into a rant routine. The distinction between MR=0 and MR=MC enables the over-exploitation to be fully disclosed. Its of course been used on numerous issues, such as over-fishing. However, as I originally remarked, the focus on the standard tragedy often leads to a corrupted understanding of the market failure at play (and how proposed solutions can generate other losses). This is neatly summed up by the tragedy of the anti-commons. For an example applied to over-fishing see Candeias et al (2008, Anti-commons: How tragedies happen: Some cases and the evidences on fisheries, China-USA Business Review, Vol. 7, pp. 9-14). Again, chosen randomly
Your statement, as usual, is a flat-out lie. You just lied again. [irrelevant, dishonest garbage snipped] That's because -- as I informed you multiple times, but you have refused to know and then industriously lied about -- the "standard tragedy" is itself a corrupted version of Hardin's work designed to rationalize private appropriation of common resources, and the proposed "solutions" are INTENDED to generate other losses for the broader community, in order to enable taking by a greedy, privileged, parasitic minority.
<sigh> I have explained WHY that MADE it wrong: the "modern economics" take on the tragedy of the commons is dishonest crap. Lie. Already refuted: by definition, competitors in different countries START OUT getting unequal treatment from their own governments. Irrelevant. I already proved you wrong about the tragedy of the commons. It was not what you and "modern" economics claim it is.
Every post that you give that has zero content proves otherwise! This is just emotive rant. There is no corruption of the original analysis. There is merely a means to ensure the well-being loss is quantifiable. And, as illustrated by my fishing example, the real problem is the extent that we obsess over the commons when it is the anti-commons that distorts the market result
Again you struggle. The fellow made a statement over equality/equity and fairness that was quite valid and consistent with the literature provided in modern economics. You may hate modern economics as its inconsistent with your bluster, but that's a "couldn't care less" moment. Your ideological rant cannot make the fellow wrong. He's simply able to embed his argument within valid economic analysis. You again only show that you do not understand basic economics. Free trade necessarily refers to no hindrance to the specialisation process (thus specialisation will continue until the price difference is no larger than the existing transportation costs). Clueless again! This is about the fellows use of fairness. You decided he was wrong, as you do, despite the fact that his comment is consistent with modern economics. You've achieved no relevant counter to that consistency. You cannot deny that fair trade focuses on discriminatory treatment because of the error in the standard Ricardian approach. Your attack on the fellow's comment is therefore based purely on your own ignorance of how these terms are used in economic analysis
If you were spending 50% more than you made, would you get an additional job, or cut spending? Clinton's balanced budget in 2001 was $1.8T. Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, so lets call it an even $2T. What is the other $1.8T being spent on?
Again you lie in order to gain a false sense of self-worth. Garbage. I hate it because it provides rationalizations for privilege, justifications for injustice and excuses for evil that permanently impoverish billions of innocent human beings and kill millions of them EVERY YEAR. I am aware that you couldn't care less that your precious "modern economics" provides plausible cover for two Holocausts a year. Because the facts already make him wrong. The very same "valid" analysis that lays millions of human sacrifices on the altar of the Great God Property every year... I understand that what you call "basic economics" is a fallacious, corrupt, absurd and dishonest exercise in propaganda. Nonsense. Income tax is a hindrance to the specialization process -- it imposes an additional cost on division of labor -- but its international abolition is not contemplated in the literature on free trade. Boring again! No, it's about his false claim that fairness is the opposite of equality. Lots of stupid garbage is consistent with modern economics. You've still not managed to provide any reason why I would be interested in countering it. It's irrelevant. I've said so. No; as I've explained to you before, it's a simple question of his inaccurate use of English.
It is unfortunately true that every institutionalized evil requires a rationale, a plausible justification. Certain people choose to provide those rationalizations, thus making themselves evil, despicable, subhuman filth. Already refuted. Hardin himself said so. The real problem is the dishonesty of those who seek to rationalize privilege, justify injustice, and excuse evil.
[FONT=&]Its nothing to do with me. Youve just been caught out ranting again. You attacked the fellow despite his statement over equality/equity and fairness being quite valid and consistent with the literature provided in modern economics. Theres no debate in that! Weve seen that with the concept of fair trade and how new trade theory provides a justification through both an understanding of imperfect competition and the dynamic nature of comparative advantage. You may want to deny the existence of that literature in order to maintain the integrity of your rant, but that would just be an exercise in low brow plunder.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Theres very little to reply in your one liners (which you always provide when youve lost an argument). Theyre even more ranting than usual though.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]This is utter drivel. Income tax impacts on post-production compensation and therefore has no direct impact on the isoquant and therefore the profit maximisation decision of the firm. Great to see you trying to contribute though! The best you could hope for is some cross-country wedge in taxes that encourages international labour mobility (although technically that is no hindrance to specialisation; its just a realistion that the assumptions in Heckscher-Ohlin are overly simplistic). We do have issues summed up by the brain drain. However, that reflects wage differentials that continue because of the distinction between static and dynamic comparative advantage. Wed be back to reference to fair trade and therefore advertising the original fellows distinction was correct and youve just ranted without merit.[/FONT] [FONT=&] [/FONT] [FONT=&]Youve been shown to be completely wrong. Free trade refers to equal treatment by definition; fair trade refers to discriminatory treatment. And what did the fellow say? He stated Equality means treating people equally... Fairness is the concept of evening the score by treating people unequally. That is consistent with how the terms are used in trade. You lose![/FONT]
No, he has made some comment that you find useful in your rant. He cannot reject the analysis used in the references I've provided. It describes over-exploitation, by definition. It enables quantification of the costs, by definition. Again, your reaction has been purely based on not knowing the nature of the economic analysis on the topic. Your knowledge hole simply makes you more cranky than usual. Calm down dear fellow. Do some reading. Learn!
That is a lie. You are just lying, and you know it. You are lying your head off, as usual. And also proves that you are wrong, and lying. He has. You are lying. By a false definition, not a correct one. Only by a false definition, not a correct one. No, that's just another stupid lie from you. I know the nature of the analysis very well. It is just fallacious, absurd and dishonest. That is why you prefer it to the truth.
Again you provide nothing but empty one liners designed to hide. Stop hiding dear chap! Your stance is based on a "the whole literature is wrong cos I say so", even though it describes the over-exploitation perfectly as it enables quantification (a crucial aspect if one really is interested in how the social optimal isn't achieved). That the analysis is based on simple rationality (i.e. when it is no longer profitable to further exploit the resource) only advertises how far you go in your non-economic rant. But, as I remarked, anti-commons is much more interesting (and pertinent)
