Total Posts:110|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

DDO prom king/queen selection

thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 2:26:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Vote for prom king/queen here!
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 6:33:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
King- Endark!
Queen- GCL/Kitty
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 9:43:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 9:32:44 AM, YYW wrote:
King- Bsh1
Queen - Thett

My psychic powers has predicted bsh's voting:

King-YYW
Queen-Thett
praise the lord Chin Chin
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 9:50:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 9:48:59 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
King - Dennis

Queen - Kitty

vice versa, I swear.
praise the lord Chin Chin
MonetaryOffset
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 9:52:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 9:50:58 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:48:59 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
King - Dennis

Queen - Kitty

vice versa, I swear.

Justify, good sir.
~JMK

9:43 P.M. EST, Nov 5, 2014: I became a basic white girl.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 9:53:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 9:52:01 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:50:58 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:48:59 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
King - Dennis

Queen - Kitty

vice versa, I swear.

Justify, good sir.

Dennis-Typo of Denise, def
Kitty-Name I give for cute little boys
praise the lord Chin Chin
MonetaryOffset
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 9:54:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 9:53:26 AM, 18Karl wrote:
Dennis-Typo of Denise, def

Ok, this one I can slightly see.

Kitty-Name I give for cute little boys

This one I don't get at all.
~JMK

9:43 P.M. EST, Nov 5, 2014: I became a basic white girl.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 9:56:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 9:54:43 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:53:26 AM, 18Karl wrote:
Dennis-Typo of Denise, def

Ok, this one I can slightly see.

Kitty-Name I give for cute little boys

This one I don't get at all.

You don't use REASONING. You just use faith! God, can it not be seen ontologically!

Kitty-5 Characters; axiom of the fvcking world, boys are cute at 5, girls at 7.
praise the lord Chin Chin
MonetaryOffset
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:03:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 9:56:39 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:54:43 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:53:26 AM, 18Karl wrote:
Dennis-Typo of Denise, def

Ok, this one I can slightly see.

Kitty-Name I give for cute little boys

This one I don't get at all.

You don't use REASONING. You just use faith! God, can it not be seen ontologically!

Kitty-5 Characters; axiom of the fvcking world, boys are cute at 5, girls at 7.

I'm an economist, man. That's gibberish to me!
~JMK

9:43 P.M. EST, Nov 5, 2014: I became a basic white girl.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:04:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:03:28 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:56:39 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:54:43 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:53:26 AM, 18Karl wrote:
Dennis-Typo of Denise, def

Ok, this one I can slightly see.

Kitty-Name I give for cute little boys

This one I don't get at all.

You don't use REASONING. You just use faith! God, can it not be seen ontologically!

Kitty-5 Characters; axiom of the fvcking world, boys are cute at 5, girls at 7.

I'm an economist, man. That's gibberish to me!

Economists pfft.
praise the lord Chin Chin
NiamC
Posts: 905
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:04:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 9:56:39 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:54:43 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:53:26 AM, 18Karl wrote:
Dennis-Typo of Denise, def

Ok, this one I can slightly see.

Kitty-Name I give for cute little boys

This one I don't get at all.

You don't use REASONING. You just use faith! God, can it not be seen ontologically!

Kitty-5 Characters; axiom of the fvcking world, boys are cute at 5, girls at 7.

Saying boys are cute at 5, is merely subjective and baseless. Justify, good sir
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Niam est amor, vita Niam
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
MonetaryOffset
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:07:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:04:04 AM, NiamC wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:56:39 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:54:43 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:53:26 AM, 18Karl wrote:
Dennis-Typo of Denise, def

Ok, this one I can slightly see.

Kitty-Name I give for cute little boys

This one I don't get at all.

You don't use REASONING. You just use faith! God, can it not be seen ontologically!

Kitty-5 Characters; axiom of the fvcking world, boys are cute at 5, girls at 7.

Saying boys are cute at 5, is merely subjective and baseless. Justify, good sir

This man knows what's up!
~JMK

9:43 P.M. EST, Nov 5, 2014: I became a basic white girl.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:10:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:04:04 AM, NiamC wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:56:39 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:54:43 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:53:26 AM, 18Karl wrote:
Dennis-Typo of Denise, def

Ok, this one I can slightly see.

Kitty-Name I give for cute little boys

This one I don't get at all.

You don't use REASONING. You just use faith! God, can it not be seen ontologically!

Kitty-5 Characters; axiom of the fvcking world, boys are cute at 5, girls at 7.

Saying boys are cute at 5, is merely subjective and baseless. Justify, good sir

Firstly, to object to this point is to object to the fundamental law of esthetics; that odd numbers are always in a sense, more preferred than even numbers. Take for example the rule of three: the objections are x, y and henceforth z. Every law at coming to certainties are reached via odd numbers; syllogisms are reached only with a major, minor and conclusive premise. But you may reason, why 5? Well, take the major song "Take 5" for example. It is a common knowledge that the song "Take 5" was written in 5/4 time. Then if it esthetically justified to believe that 5 y-o boys are cute, then take this justification; the song "Take 5" is esthetically pleasing only because (1) it uses a weird time signature, and (2) it is mellow. That is what a 5 y-o boy exactly is; it is here that all his senses of time, place and reason start to develop, and his innocence is mellow, but yet esthetically Platonically pleasing to the mind of the reasoned man.
praise the lord Chin Chin
MonetaryOffset
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:11:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:10:25 AM, 18Karl wrote:

Professor Pigou in his Theory of Unemployment makes the volume of employment to depend on two fundamental factors, namely (1) the real rates of wages for which workpeople stipulate, and (2) the shape of the Real Demand Function for Labour. The central sections of his book are concerned with determining the shape of the latter function. The fact that workpeople in fact stipulate, not for a real rate of wages, but for a money-rate, is not ignored; but, in effect, it is assumed that the actual money-rate of wages divided by the price of wage-goods can be taken to measure the real rate demanded.

The equations which, as he says, "form the starting point of the enquiry" into the Real Demand Function for Labour are given in his Theory of Unemployment, p. 90. Since the tacit assumptions, which govern the application of his analysis, slip in near the outset of his argument, I will summarise his treatment up to the crucial point.

Professor Pigou divides industries into those "engaged in making wage-goods at home and in making exports the sale of which creates claims to wage-goods abroad" and the "other" industries: which it is convenient to call the wage-goods industries and the non-wage-goods industries respectively. He supposes x men to be employed in the former and y men in the latter. The output in value of wage-goods of the x men he calls F(x); and the general rate of wages F'(x). This, though he does not stop to mention it, is tantamount to assuming that marginal wage-cost is equal to marginal prime cost.[1] Further, he assumes that x + y = `6;(x), i.e. that the number of men employed in the wage-goods industries is a function of total employment. He then shows that the elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate (which gives us the shape of our quaesitum, namely the Real Demand Function for Labour) can be written

Er = (`6;'(x)/`6;(x)) . (F'(x)/F'(x))

So far as notation goes, there is no significant difference between this and my own modes of expression. In so far as we can identify Professor Pigou"s wage-goods with my consumption-goods, and his "other goods" with my investment-goods, it follows that his (F(x)/F'(x)), being the value of the output of the wage-goods industries in terms of the wage-unit, is the same as my Cw. Furthermore, his function `6; is (subject to the identification of wage-goods with consumption-goods) a function of what I have called above the employment multiplier k'. For

[6;x = k'[6;y ,

so that

`6;'(x) = 1 + (1/k') .

Thus Professor Pigou"s "elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate" is a concoction similar to some of my own, depending partly on the physical and technical conditions in industry (as given by his function F) and partly on the propensity to consume wage-goods (as given by his function `6;); provided always that we are limiting ourselves to the special case where marginal labour-cost is equal to marginal prime cost.

To determine the quantity of employment, Professor Pigou then combines with his "real demand for labour", a supply function for labour. He assumes that this is a function of the real wage and of nothing else. But, as he has also assumed that the real wage is a function of the number of men x who are employed in the wage-goods industries, this amounts to assuming that the total supply of labour at the existing real wage is a function of x and of nothing else. That is to say, n = `7;(x), where n is the supply of labour available at a real wage F'(x).

Thus, cleared of all complication, Professor Pigou"s analysis amounts to an attempt to discover the volume of actual employment from the equations

x + y = `6;(x)

and

n = `7;(x) .

But there are here three unknowns and only two equations. It seems clear that he gets round this difficulty by taking n = x + y. This amounts, of course, to assuming that there is no involuntary unemployment in the strict sense, i.e. that all labour available at the existing real wage is in fact employed. In this case x has the value which satisfies the equation

`6;(x) = `7;(x) ;

and when we have thus found that the value of x is equal to (say) n1, y must be equal to `7;(n1) - n1, and total employment n is equal to `7;(n1).

It is worth pausing for a moment to consider what this involves. It means that, if the supply function of labour changes, more labour being available at a given real wage (so that n1+dn, is now the value of x which satisfies the equation `6;(x) =`7;(x)), the demand for the output of the non-wage-goods industries is such that employment in these industries is bound to increase by just the amount which will preserve equality between `6;(n1 + dn1) and `7;(n1+dn1). The only other way in which it is possible for aggregate employment to change is through a modification of the propensity to purchase wage-goods and non-wage-goods respectively such that there is an increase of y accompanied by a greater decrease of x.

The assumption that n = x + y means, of course, that labour is always in a position to determine its own real wage. Thus, the assumption that labour is in a position to determine its own real wage, means that the demand for the output of the non-wage-goods industries obeys the above laws. In other words, it is assumed that the rate of interest always adjusts itself to the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital in such a way as to preserve full employment. Without this assumption Professor Pigou"s analysis breaks down and provides no means of determining what the volume of employment will be. It is, indeed, strange that Professor Pigou should have supposed that he could furnish a theory of unemployment which involves no reference at all to changes in the rate of investment (i.e. to changes in employment in the non-wage-goods industries) due, not to a change in the supply function of labour, but to changes in (e.g.) either the rate of interest or the state of confidence.

His title the "Theory of Unemployment" is, therefore, something of a misnomer. His book is not really concerned with this subject. It is a discussion of how much employment there will be, given the supply function of labour, when the conditions for full employment are satisfied. The purpose of the concept of the elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate is to show by how much full employment will rise or fall corresponding to a given shift in the supply function of labour. Or " alternatively and perhaps better " we may regard his book as a non-causative investigation into the functional relationship which determines what level of real wages will correspond to any given level of employment. But it is not capable of telling us what determines the actual level of employment; and on the problem of involuntary unemployment it has no direct bearing.

If Professor Pigou were to deny the possibility of involuntary unemployment in the sense in which I have defined it above, as, perhaps, he would, it is still difficult to see how his analysis could be applied. For his omission to discuss what determines the connection between x and y, i.e. between employment in the wage-goods and non-wage-goods industries respectively, still remains fatal.
~JMK

9:43 P.M. EST, Nov 5, 2014: I became a basic white girl.
MonetaryOffset
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:12:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:10:44 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
umm why is there even any disagreement over this?
King Maikuru + Queen Tulle ftw

Good point.
~JMK

9:43 P.M. EST, Nov 5, 2014: I became a basic white girl.
NiamC
Posts: 905
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:12:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:10:25 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:04:04 AM, NiamC wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:56:39 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:54:43 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:53:26 AM, 18Karl wrote:
Dennis-Typo of Denise, def

Ok, this one I can slightly see.

Kitty-Name I give for cute little boys

This one I don't get at all.

You don't use REASONING. You just use faith! God, can it not be seen ontologically!

Kitty-5 Characters; axiom of the fvcking world, boys are cute at 5, girls at 7.

Saying boys are cute at 5, is merely subjective and baseless. Justify, good sir

Firstly, to object to this point is to object to the fundamental law of esthetics; that odd numbers are always in a sense, more preferred than even numbers. Take for example the rule of three: the objections are x, y and henceforth z. Every law at coming to certainties are reached via odd numbers; syllogisms are reached only with a major, minor and conclusive premise. But you may reason, why 5? Well, take the major song "Take 5" for example. It is a common knowledge that the song "Take 5" was written in 5/4 time. Then if it esthetically justified to believe that 5 y-o boys are cute, then take this justification; the song "Take 5" is esthetically pleasing only because (1) it uses a weird time signature, and (2) it is mellow. That is what a 5 y-o boy exactly is; it is here that all his senses of time, place and reason start to develop, and his innocence is mellow, but yet esthetically Platonically pleasing to the mind of the reasoned man.
fvcking hell, what is this sht? tl;dr

have you ever considered a grown man finding a little 5 yo boy to "cute" being due to sexual attraction/ paedophilia?
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Niam est amor, vita Niam
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:13:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:11:45 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:10:25 AM, 18Karl wrote:

Professor Pigou in his Theory of Unemployment makes the volume of employment to depend on two fundamental factors, namely (1) the real rates of wages for which workpeople stipulate, and (2) the shape of the Real Demand Function for Labour. The central sections of his book are concerned with determining the shape of the latter function. The fact that workpeople in fact stipulate, not for a real rate of wages, but for a money-rate, is not ignored; but, in effect, it is assumed that the actual money-rate of wages divided by the price of wage-goods can be taken to measure the real rate demanded.

The equations which, as he says, "form the starting point of the enquiry" into the Real Demand Function for Labour are given in his Theory of Unemployment, p. 90. Since the tacit assumptions, which govern the application of his analysis, slip in near the outset of his argument, I will summarise his treatment up to the crucial point.

Professor Pigou divides industries into those "engaged in making wage-goods at home and in making exports the sale of which creates claims to wage-goods abroad" and the "other" industries: which it is convenient to call the wage-goods industries and the non-wage-goods industries respectively. He supposes x men to be employed in the former and y men in the latter. The output in value of wage-goods of the x men he calls F(x); and the general rate of wages F'(x). This, though he does not stop to mention it, is tantamount to assuming that marginal wage-cost is equal to marginal prime cost.[1] Further, he assumes that x + y = `6;(x), i.e. that the number of men employed in the wage-goods industries is a function of total employment. He then shows that the elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate (which gives us the shape of our quaesitum, namely the Real Demand Function for Labour) can be written

Er = (`6;'(x)/`6;(x)) . (F'(x)/F'(x))

So far as notation goes, there is no significant difference between this and my own modes of expression. In so far as we can identify Professor Pigou"s wage-goods with my consumption-goods, and his "other goods" with my investment-goods, it follows that his (F(x)/F'(x)), being the value of the output of the wage-goods industries in terms of the wage-unit, is the same as my Cw. Furthermore, his function `6; is (subject to the identification of wage-goods with consumption-goods) a function of what I have called above the employment multiplier k'. For

[6;x = k'[6;y ,

so that

`6;'(x) = 1 + (1/k') .

Thus Professor Pigou"s "elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate" is a concoction similar to some of my own, depending partly on the physical and technical conditions in industry (as given by his function F) and partly on the propensity to consume wage-goods (as given by his function `6;); provided always that we are limiting ourselves to the special case where marginal labour-cost is equal to marginal prime cost.

To determine the quantity of employment, Professor Pigou then combines with his "real demand for labour", a supply function for labour. He assumes that this is a function of the real wage and of nothing else. But, as he has also assumed that the real wage is a function of the number of men x who are employed in the wage-goods industries, this amounts to assuming that the total supply of labour at the existing real wage is a function of x and of nothing else. That is to say, n = `7;(x), where n is the supply of labour available at a real wage F'(x).

Thus, cleared of all complication, Professor Pigou"s analysis amounts to an attempt to discover the volume of actual employment from the equations

x + y = `6;(x)

and

n = `7;(x) .

But there are here three unknowns and only two equations. It seems clear that he gets round this difficulty by taking n = x + y. This amounts, of course, to assuming that there is no involuntary unemployment in the strict sense, i.e. that all labour available at the existing real wage is in fact employed. In this case x has the value which satisfies the equation

`6;(x) = `7;(x) ;

and when we have thus found that the value of x is equal to (say) n1, y must be equal to `7;(n1) - n1, and total employment n is equal to `7;(n1).

It is worth pausing for a moment to consider what this involves. It means that, if the supply function of labour changes, more labour being available at a given real wage (so that n1+dn, is now the value of x which satisfies the equation `6;(x) =`7;(x)), the demand for the output of the non-wage-goods industries is such that employment in these industries is bound to increase by just the amount which will preserve equality between `6;(n1 + dn1) and `7;(n1+dn1). The only other way in which it is possible for aggregate employment to change is through a modification of the propensity to purchase wage-goods and non-wage-goods respectively such that there is an increase of y accompanied by a greater decrease of x.

The assumption that n = x + y means, of course, that labour is always in a position to determine its own real wage. Thus, the assumption that labour is in a position to determine its own real wage, means that the demand for the output of the non-wage-goods industries obeys the above laws. In other words, it is assumed that the rate of interest always adjusts itself to the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital in such a way as to preserve full employment. Without this assumption Professor Pigou"s analysis breaks down and provides no means of determining what the volume of employment will be. It is, indeed, strange that Professor Pigou should have supposed that he could furnish a theory of unemployment which involves no reference at all to changes in the rate of investment (i.e. to changes in employment in the non-wage-goods industries) due, not to a change in the supply function of labour, but to changes in (e.g.) either the rate of interest or the state of confidence.

His title the "Theory of Unemployment" is, therefore, something of a misnomer. His book is not really concerned with this subject. It is a discussion of how much employment there will be, given the supply function of labour, when the conditions for full employment are satisfied. The purpose of the concept of the elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate is to show by how much full employment will rise or fall corresponding to a given shift in the supply function of labour. Or " alternatively and perhaps better " we may regard his book as a non-causative investigation into the functional relationship which determines what level of real wages will correspond to any given level of employment. But it is not capable of telling us what determines the actual level of employment; and on the problem of involuntary unemployment it has no direct bearing.

If Professor Pigou were to deny the possibility of involuntary unemployment in the sense in which I have defined it above, as, perhaps, he would, it is still difficult to see how his analysis could be applied. For his omission to discuss what determines the connection between x and y, i.e. between employment in the wage-goods and non-wage-goods industries respectively, still remains fatal.

This, my friend, illustrates the failure of economists to apply their theories of money to real life.
praise the lord Chin Chin
MonetaryOffset
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:13:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:13:03 AM, 18Karl wrote:

Pfffffft. This is ALL real life, young simpleton.
~JMK

9:43 P.M. EST, Nov 5, 2014: I became a basic white girl.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:13:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:12:58 AM, NiamC wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:10:25 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:04:04 AM, NiamC wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:56:39 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:54:43 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 9:53:26 AM, 18Karl wrote:
Dennis-Typo of Denise, def

Ok, this one I can slightly see.

Kitty-Name I give for cute little boys

This one I don't get at all.

You don't use REASONING. You just use faith! God, can it not be seen ontologically!

Kitty-5 Characters; axiom of the fvcking world, boys are cute at 5, girls at 7.

Saying boys are cute at 5, is merely subjective and baseless. Justify, good sir

Firstly, to object to this point is to object to the fundamental law of esthetics; that odd numbers are always in a sense, more preferred than even numbers. Take for example the rule of three: the objections are x, y and henceforth z. Every law at coming to certainties are reached via odd numbers; syllogisms are reached only with a major, minor and conclusive premise. But you may reason, why 5? Well, take the major song "Take 5" for example. It is a common knowledge that the song "Take 5" was written in 5/4 time. Then if it esthetically justified to believe that 5 y-o boys are cute, then take this justification; the song "Take 5" is esthetically pleasing only because (1) it uses a weird time signature, and (2) it is mellow. That is what a 5 y-o boy exactly is; it is here that all his senses of time, place and reason start to develop, and his innocence is mellow, but yet esthetically Platonically pleasing to the mind of the reasoned man.
fvcking hell, what is this sht? tl;dr

have you ever considered a grown man finding a little 5 yo boy to "cute" being due to sexual attraction/ paedophilia?

Excuse me? Did I not say Platonically cute?
praise the lord Chin Chin
NiamC
Posts: 905
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:14:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:11:45 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:10:25 AM, 18Karl wrote:

Professor Pigou in his Theory of Unemployment makes the volume of employment to depend on two fundamental factors, namely (1) the real rates of wages for which workpeople stipulate, and (2) the shape of the Real Demand Function for Labour. The central sections of his book are concerned with determining the shape of the latter function. The fact that workpeople in fact stipulate, not for a real rate of wages, but for a money-rate, is not ignored; but, in effect, it is assumed that the actual money-rate of wages divided by the price of wage-goods can be taken to measure the real rate demanded.

The equations which, as he says, "form the starting point of the enquiry" into the Real Demand Function for Labour are given in his Theory of Unemployment, p. 90. Since the tacit assumptions, which govern the application of his analysis, slip in near the outset of his argument, I will summarise his treatment up to the crucial point.

Professor Pigou divides industries into those "engaged in making wage-goods at home and in making exports the sale of which creates claims to wage-goods abroad" and the "other" industries: which it is convenient to call the wage-goods industries and the non-wage-goods industries respectively. He supposes x men to be employed in the former and y men in the latter. The output in value of wage-goods of the x men he calls F(x); and the general rate of wages F'(x). This, though he does not stop to mention it, is tantamount to assuming that marginal wage-cost is equal to marginal prime cost.[1] Further, he assumes that x + y = `6;(x), i.e. that the number of men employed in the wage-goods industries is a function of total employment. He then shows that the elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate (which gives us the shape of our quaesitum, namely the Real Demand Function for Labour) can be written

Er = (`6;'(x)/`6;(x)) . (F'(x)/F'(x))

So far as notation goes, there is no significant difference between this and my own modes of expression. In so far as we can identify Professor Pigou"s wage-goods with my consumption-goods, and his "other goods" with my investment-goods, it follows that his (F(x)/F'(x)), being the value of the output of the wage-goods industries in terms of the wage-unit, is the same as my Cw. Furthermore, his function `6; is (subject to the identification of wage-goods with consumption-goods) a function of what I have called above the employment multiplier k'. For

[6;x = k'[6;y ,

so that

`6;'(x) = 1 + (1/k') .

Thus Professor Pigou"s "elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate" is a concoction similar to some of my own, depending partly on the physical and technical conditions in industry (as given by his function F) and partly on the propensity to consume wage-goods (as given by his function `6;); provided always that we are limiting ourselves to the special case where marginal labour-cost is equal to marginal prime cost.

To determine the quantity of employment, Professor Pigou then combines with his "real demand for labour", a supply function for labour. He assumes that this is a function of the real wage and of nothing else. But, as he has also assumed that the real wage is a function of the number of men x who are employed in the wage-goods industries, this amounts to assuming that the total supply of labour at the existing real wage is a function of x and of nothing else. That is to say, n = `7;(x), where n is the supply of labour available at a real wage F'(x).

Thus, cleared of all complication, Professor Pigou"s analysis amounts to an attempt to discover the volume of actual employment from the equations

x + y = `6;(x)

and

n = `7;(x) .

But there are here three unknowns and only two equations. It seems clear that he gets round this difficulty by taking n = x + y. This amounts, of course, to assuming that there is no involuntary unemployment in the strict sense, i.e. that all labour available at the existing real wage is in fact employed. In this case x has the value which satisfies the equation

`6;(x) = `7;(x) ;

and when we have thus found that the value of x is equal to (say) n1, y must be equal to `7;(n1) - n1, and total employment n is equal to `7;(n1).

It is worth pausing for a moment to consider what this involves. It means that, if the supply function of labour changes, more labour being available at a given real wage (so that n1+dn, is now the value of x which satisfies the equation `6;(x) =`7;(x)), the demand for the output of the non-wage-goods industries is such that employment in these industries is bound to increase by just the amount which will preserve equality between `6;(n1 + dn1) and `7;(n1+dn1). The only other way in which it is possible for aggregate employment to change is through a modification of the propensity to purchase wage-goods and non-wage-goods respectively such that there is an increase of y accompanied by a greater decrease of x.

The assumption that n = x + y means, of course, that labour is always in a position to determine its own real wage. Thus, the assumption that labour is in a position to determine its own real wage, means that the demand for the output of the non-wage-goods industries obeys the above laws. In other words, it is assumed that the rate of interest always adjusts itself to the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital in such a way as to preserve full employment. Without this assumption Professor Pigou"s analysis breaks down and provides no means of determining what the volume of employment will be. It is, indeed, strange that Professor Pigou should have supposed that he could furnish a theory of unemployment which involves no reference at all to changes in the rate of investment (i.e. to changes in employment in the non-wage-goods industries) due, not to a change in the supply function of labour, but to changes in (e.g.) either the rate of interest or the state of confidence.

His title the "Theory of Unemployment" is, therefore, something of a misnomer. His book is not really concerned with this subject. It is a discussion of how much employment there will be, given the supply function of labour, when the conditions for full employment are satisfied. The purpose of the concept of the elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate is to show by how much full employment will rise or fall corresponding to a given shift in the supply function of labour. Or " alternatively and perhaps better " we may regard his book as a non-causative investigation into the functional relationship which determines what level of real wages will correspond to any given level of employment. But it is not capable of telling us what determines the actual level of employment; and on the problem of involuntary unemployment it has no direct bearing.

If Professor Pigou were to deny the possibility of involuntary unemployment in the sense in which I have defined it above, as, perhaps, he would, it is still difficult to see how his analysis could be applied. For his omission to discuss what determines the connection between x and y, i.e. between employment in the wage-goods and non-wage-goods industries respectively, still remains fatal.

tl;dr... tl;dr...tl;dr...
...
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Niam est amor, vita Niam
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:14:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:13:40 AM, MonetaryOffset wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:13:03 AM, 18Karl wrote:

Pfffffft. This is ALL real life, young simpleton.

Under the assumption that real life means everything is based on money, of course?
praise the lord Chin Chin