So, basically, you've abandoned your argument about what economics say about supply, and substituted it with a form of "economics is dumb." LOL.
So, basically, you've abandoned your argument about what economics say about supply, and substituted it with a form of "economics is dumb." LOL.
Hardly. Economics is a collection of theories that attempt to describe economic reality (human market behavior) as accurately as possible. A theory may actually be accurate to the degree it proves itself to be within its intended scope, leaving the "dumb" component to the one who misapplies it.Originally Posted by MattintheCrown
But once again, you didn't really argue anything, did you? Did you actually have something substantive to offer, or are you just drive-by trolling?
Here you go, Matt - for you as well. Refute the following, and not just with blanket ad hominem dismissals and rejections, but actually employing reason, logic, common sense, specific arguments, sources, etc.,
What say you about the following:
You really are off the deep end, Roy. Historical supply curves are created all the time. How else can supply curve analysis models be empirically tested, except in hindsight? Here is but one of a zillion examples:
Figure 2.2 illustrates the basic model of a perfectly competitive market. The horizontal axis depicts the total quantity Q of a particular good -- in this case corn -- that is supplied and demanded in this market. The vertical axis depicts the price P at which this good is sold. A market can be characterized along three dimensions:
commodity––the product bought and sold (corn);
geography––the location in which purchases are being made (the United States); and
time––the period of time during which transactions are occurring (the year 2009, when corn prices were about $4 per bushel).
That's not available supply NOW. Only THEN. A model using historical data. Real world.
Market supply curves as hypothetical models are not ever assumed to be prophetic or infallible by nature, nor are they created purely out of a vacuum. Otherwise they would be even more meaningless than many of them already are. The price and quantity components on every supply curve are derived using real world numbers, real world approximations, which is why you will not see a supply curve like the one above for the year 2013 showing trillions of bushels of wheat trading at thousands of dollars per bushel. Only real world numbers need apply, and those real world numbers are derived ONLY from real world historical data.
Which are often wrong, of course - as revealed when a supply curve analysis (projection) is later overlain with an actual historical supply curve (thus no "WOULD" to it, as seen only in hindsight)."...supply is based on the assumption of such prices being transaction prices."
Are you under the impression that supply schedule assumptions are real world edicts of some kind? Prophecies? Scripture? Infallible? As it is projected, so let it be assumed as reality?
All goods [out of those that are traded] trade at their price, whatever that is. But that does not mean that all goods in existence trade.All goods trade at their price. If the price a good trades at does not affect the available amount, supply is fixed. As is the case with land.
I find it ironic that you took exception to supply not accounting for goods that are given away for free, and yet you can't even acknowledge goods that aren't traded or given away at all, at any price! Not logical, Roy. Not "real world" at all. In a real world, chock full of "irrational" people, goods are traded, re-traded, given away, thrown away, stored away temporarily, and even hoarded.
1) Gibberish - "able and willing" to sell "all they have at any price" -- is not the definition of supply, and not what happens in the real world. There is ALWAYS a quantity component - a VARIABLE - to supply, which has NOTHING to do with the entire quantity in existence, but only the entire Quantity Supplied at all points on a schedule or curve.They are "able and willing" to sell all they have at any price, by definition, because its price IS by definition what the whole supply sells for.
2) "price is by definition what the whole supply sells for" is a semantics sleight-of-hand and question-begging game on your part. To even refer to something as "whole supply" constrains it, by definition, to only those quantities that owners were actually WILLING to offer for sale at that price. Thus, saying "price is by definition what the whole supply sells for" is like saying "100% of all doctors who agreed were in agreement." Yep. All of them. Every one of them -- out of those who agreed, that is. The doctors who didn't agree are not part of that 100%. They're part of the 100% of doctors who did not agree.
If an owner sells 50 out of 100 widgets at a given price "the whole supply" (of those 50 widgets) indeed sold at that price, because "the whole supply" is the Quantity Supplied. You want "the whole supply", by an impossible leap of logic, to also mean "the entire quantity in existence" - when that is NOT what it means.
Gibberish, incorrect, and has no absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the real world.The whole amount in existence sells for its price.
As of now the spot price of silver is $30.73/oz. - that is its market price. And guess what? I and MILLIONS OF OTHERS were able-but-not-willing to make ANY of our quantities available at or anywhere near that price. All the silver that DID sell at that price did in fact sell at that price (100% of silver that sold at that price sold at that price). But only those quantities at that particular time at that particular price - NOT the "whole amount in existence". It is not even possible for the "whole amount in existence" to be sold at that price. Because that would take time, and that would only be the price on the leading edge, as the FIRST quantities sold and were absorbed at that price. LONG BEFORE the entire quantity sold, however, the price would CRASH. Thus, that would no longer be the price at which the remaining quantities sold. Even then, you COULD fit all of that onto an historical supply curve, which showed the quantities that sold at different prices. But to say that it accounted for the total quantity in existence would require that the total quantity in existence actually be traded. That's not real world at all.
That is true. In the case of produced goods, the total amount in existence will TEND to increase at a higher price. And so will the supply, which we don't ever erroneously conflate with the total amount in existence, since that is not now, nor has it ever been, the economics definition of supply.In the case of produced goods, the amount in existence will increase at a higher price. The amount of land won't.
The total amount extant of land, works of dead artists, historical trading cards, minted coins from other eras, etc., will not and cannot increase, but the SUPPLY will definitely vary - as it does every day - according to price.
Welcome to the world of circulation, Roy, as the same things are CIRCULATED - SUPPLIED AND RESUPPLIED as Quantity Supplied - over and over again, at both quantities and prices that are always variable, never fixed, ceteris paribus.
The quantity of goods produced will tend to vary according to price. However, there are durable "things" that are neither produced nor are they consumed, which are fixed in total quantity extant, but which are not fixed in supply (the economics definition ONLY). These are not produced, but they do circulate, and that supply (which is, at all times, the amount that owners are willing to make available for sale across a range of prices), is ANYTHING BUT FIXED. These quantities can and do vary according to price, and without regard to their deviations from the usual patterns and assumptions of Marshallian or Ricardian supply and demand or price theories as they relate to produced goods.
Last edited by Steven Douglas; 04-30-2012 at 10:27 AM.
So, basically, you've abandoned your argument about what economics say about supply, and substituted it with a form of "economics is dumb." LOL.
Wasted a lot of words saying it.
Well, you didn't waste any words trolling, that's for sure, once your flawed premises were decimated and you found yourself at a loss for any way to argue it any further.
I guess trolling generalities are all that you have left?
What flawed premises were those? Consenting to learn economics, maybe?
Better than making meandering, pointless walls of text in order to avoid knowing facts which prove your beliefs false. Once again, I'll point out that this entire sad diversion of yours is an attempt to avoid the fact that "a single profit-maximizing landowner would behave no differently than a million profit-maximizing owners, because the landowner cannot affect supply."I guess trolling generalities are all that you have left?
Nothing you've said, in many thousands of words, contradicts that, so this whole sidetrack has been both pointless, and stupid.
Again, you said NOTHING. Blanket dismissals and a reassertion of one of your dogmatic, easily-proved-false ideological tenets does not count as a rebuttal.
Already CONCLUSIVELY PROVED FALSE in the very post you are avoiding giving a response to, and have no arguments to offer in rebuttal (which argument you would lose if you did). It's not that you "don't know any economics", Matt. It's that you don't understand it, as clearly shown by what you consistently and ignorantly misapply, as you ERRONEOUSLY conflate the total quantity in existence (which is NOT the definition of supply) with the actual economics definition of supply. As if they were one and the same.
A million profit-maximizing landowners do not affect the aggregate total land in existence. They do, however, VERY MUCH affect "supply" and "quantity supplied" as it is defined in economics. Every single day.
You swallowed a BIG LIE, Matt. Enormous. Swallowed it hard, too. A little critical thinking on your part could have saved you a lot of time and wasted energy. You could still support LVT - just not on that particular (and quite provably false) house-of-cards assumption that you were sucked into believing.
Last edited by Steven Douglas; 04-30-2012 at 01:21 PM.
I'll take this as an admission that you've decimated no false premises.
This is just a lie.Already CONCLUSIVELY PROVED FALSE in the very post you are avoiding giving a response to, and have no arguments to offer in rebuttal (which argument you would lose if you did).
Your exchange with Roy proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that you're making it up as you go along.It's not that you "don't know any economics", Matt.
Economists know that the supply of land is fixed. You refuse to know it. It's just that simple.It's that you don't understand it, as clearly shown by what you consistently and ignorantly misapply, as you ERRONEOUSLY conflate the total quantity in existence (which is NOT the definition of supply) with the actual economics definition of supply. As if they were one and the same.
That's just false. Profit-maximizing landlords will sell or let out land at the highest price they can get. Because the supply of land is fixed, those prices will be determined by demand.A million profit-maximizing landowners do not affect the aggregate total land in existence. They do, however, VERY MUCH affect "supply" and "quantity supplied" as it is defined in economics. Every single day.
I notice that you didn't actually dispute the fact that "a single profit-maximizing landowner would behave no differently than a million profit-maximizing owners, because the landowner cannot affect supply."You swallowed a BIG LIE, Matt. Enormous. Swallowed it hard, too. A little critical thinking on your part could have saved you a lot of time and wasted energy. You could still support LVT - just not on the false house-of-cards assumptions you were sucked into believing.
You don't dispute it, because you know it's true. The fact is, the strategy for maximizing rent is simply to take the highest bid, full stop. It doesn't matter if a million landowners do this, or a single landowner does it.
Last edited by MattintheCrown; 04-30-2012 at 01:25 PM.
They describe what supply WAS, not what it IS.
Bingo.That's not available supply NOW. Only THEN.
Supply is what it is. The fact that an estimate of it may be inaccurate is irrelevant.Which are often wrong, of course - as revealed when a supply curve analysis (projection) is later overlain with an actual historical supply curve (thus no "WOULD" to it, as seen only in hindsight).
All goods are assumed to trade at some price. That's what makes them "goods," and not golf, goiter or girl germs.All goods [out of those that are traded] trade at their price, whatever that is. But that does not mean that all goods in existence trade.
I await your example of goods that won't trade at any price.I find it ironic that you took exception to supply not accounting for goods that are given away for free, and yet you can't even acknowledge goods that aren't traded or given away at all, at any price! Not logical, Roy. Not "real world" at all.
But not no matter the price.In a real world, chock full of "irrational" people, goods are traded, re-traded, given away, thrown away, stored away temporarily, and even hoarded.
Yes, it is. You just refuse to know that "price" in economics is the amount an item DOES TRADE for.1) Gibberish - "able and willing" to sell "all they have at any price" -- is not the definition of supply, and not what happens in the real world.
<sigh> At what price is land not "supplied"?There is ALWAYS a quantity component - a VARIABLE - to supply, which has NOTHING to do with the entire quantity in existence, but only the entire Quantity Supplied at all points on a schedule or curve.
No, it is pointing out to you that you are denying a tautology, a fact that is true by definition. To point out that 2+2=4 is not a question begging fallacy.2) "price is by definition what the whole supply sells for" is a semantics sleight-of-hand and question-begging game on your part.
"Price" means they are willing to sell it.To even refer to something as "whole supply" constrains it, by definition, to only those quantities that owners were actually WILLING to offer for sale at that price.
Right. Just as the land that wouldn't sell at ANY PRICE -- if any such land existed -- would not be part of the supply, and WOULD NOT AFFECT THE FIXITY OF SUPPLY.Thus, saying "price is by definition what the whole supply sells for" is like saying "100% of all doctors who agreed were in agreement." Yep. All of them. Every one of them -- out of those who agreed, that is. The doctors who didn't agree are not part of that 100%. They're part of the 100% of doctors who did not agree.
It means the entire quantity that would exist AT A GIVEN PRICE.If an owner sells 50 out of 100 widgets at a given price "the whole supply" (of those 50 widgets) indeed sold at that price, because "the whole supply" is the Quantity Supplied. You want "the whole supply", by an impossible leap of logic, to also mean "the entire quantity in existence" - when that is NOT what it means.
It is true by definition.Gibberish, incorrect, and has no absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the real world.
Because that is not the price of all the silver, because both demand and supply are elastic.As of now the spot price of silver is $30.73/oz. - that is its market price. And guess what? I and MILLIONS OF OTHERS were able-but-not-willing to make ANY of our quantities available at or anywhere near that price. All the silver that DID sell at that price did in fact sell at that price (100% of silver that sold at that price sold at that price). But only those quantities at that particular time at that particular price - NOT the "whole amount in existence". It is not even possible for the "whole amount in existence" to be sold at that price. Because that would take time, and that would only be the price on the leading edge, as the FIRST quantities sold and were absorbed at that price.You're not getting it. If that's the price, then SOMEBODY IS BUYING AT THAT PRICE.LONG BEFORE the entire quantity sold, however, the price would CRASH. Thus, that would no longer be the price at which the remaining quantities sold.
Wrong. The supply curve never requires that the entire supply actually trade. It simply describes how supply varies with price. The supply of land does not vary with price.Even then, you COULD fit all of that onto an historical supply curve, which showed the quantities that sold at different prices. But to say that it accounted for the total quantity in existence would require that the total quantity in existence actually be traded. That's not real world at all.
It is when supply is fixed.That is true. In the case of produced goods, the total amount in existence will TEND to increase at a higher price. And so will the supply, which we don't ever erroneously conflate with the total amount in existence, since that is not now, nor has it ever been, the economics definition of supply.
Nope. Supply of such items CAN'T vary according to price. Whatever the price those items trade at, supply will not increase.The total amount extant of land, works of dead artists, historical trading cards, minted coins from other eras, etc., will not and cannot increase, but the SUPPLY will definitely vary - as it does every day - according to price.
Sellers and buyers swapping the same inventory of goods around at higher and higher prices does not increase the supply of those goods, sorry.Welcome to the world of circulation, Roy, as the same things are CIRCULATED - SUPPLIED AND RESUPPLIED as Quantity Supplied - over and over again, at both quantities and prices that are always variable, never fixed, ceteris paribus.
Name one.The quantity of goods produced will tend to vary according to price. However, there are durable "things" that are neither produced nor are they consumed, which are fixed in total quantity extant, but which are not fixed in supply (the economics definition ONLY).
You still don't understand: whatever the price is, the owners are by definition willing to make the good available at that price, because that's what price MEANS.These are not produced, but they do circulate, and that supply (which is, at all times, the amount that owners are willing to make available for sale across a range of prices), is ANYTHING BUT FIXED.
No, they don't.These quantities can and do vary according to price, and without regard to their defiance of the usual patterns and assumptions of Marshallian or Ricardian supply and demand or price theories as they relate to produced goods.
None of the above counts as an argument, Matt. You have to actually present and argument. Say WHY it's a lie.
Any "economist" that claims that the supply of land is fixed is NOT referring to economics definition of supply as it relates to a supply curve.Economists know that the supply of land is fixed. You refuse to know it. It's just that simple.
Little attention has been devoted to treatment of theory of supply of and in recent economic literature. From the time of Ricardo, discussion of supply theory has been mainly in connection with or incidental to discussion of theory of rent.
The fact of fixity in land quantity and, stemming from that fixity, the idea of inelasticity for the market supply schedule seems to have been accepted as final. In addition, the general tendency for land to be defined as a natural agent -- "the original and indestructible properties"--has tended to confuse rather than enlighten discussions of land income and valuation problems.
Land differs from other factors, and from the strict definition of capital goods mainly in that it is not reproducible. Although this and other distinctions have clouded discussions of theory, it is not defining the factor that gives rise to difficulties concerning theory of supply. Rather, and more important, is the fact that land, the same as other durable factors, is two-dimensional in its supply character. By two-dimensional I mean that the quantity measurement is both areal and qualitative. Its is not only the geographic area but also the intensity of use that determines the effective supply.
In addition to the problem of defining supply, effective supply, and market supply, and distinguishing between short and long-run schedules. Too often there is confusion between these terms. Admittedly, in the quantity sense, the total geographic area of land (no matter how defined) is fixed. But this does not necessarily mean that the number of tracts or acres to be offered for sale on the market will not vary with price or land or that changes in relative product prices will not enourage changes in products. Furthermore, people buy or rent land for the service it can provide; and that service is part of the service-supply function, whether or not title to the property is exchanged at a price in the market.
In the market-schedule sense of the definition of supply of land follows that of other economic goods: the supply schedule refers to the relation between prices and the quantities (area) that owners are willing to sell. The supply price is the minimum asking price.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...id=56123712173It's self-disputing, because a single profit-maximizing landowner eliminates a Perfectly Competitive Market. A single profit-maximizing landowner can directly affect both supply and price (the amount he is willing to make available at a given price), whereas a million profit-maximizing landowners have only a minimal affect on price, with only total control over the amount they are willing to make available at the prevailing price. So they would indeed behave very differently.I notice that you didn't actually dispute the fact that "a single profit-maximizing landowner would behave no differently than a million profit-maximizing owners, because the landowner cannot affect supply."
We're talking about landowners buying and selling tracts or acres of land, in much the same way art dealers buy and sell works of dead artists - the quantity of which is fixed, but not the supply. The difference with land - works of dead artists can be destroyed. Buying and selling does not INCREASE the quantity of land in existence, but neither does it DECREASE the quantity in existence. It remains constant, as land that IS made available by owners as the supply CIRCULATES.You don't dispute it, because you know it's true. The fact is, the strategy for maximizing rent is simply to take the highest bid, full stop. It doesn't matter if a million landowners do this, or a single landowner does it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote