Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Supply and Demand

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 9:38:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
...is a theory explaining the interaction between the supply of a resource and the demand for that resource. The law of supply and demand defines the effect that the availability of a particular product and the desire (or demand) for that product has on price. Generally, if there is a low supply and a high demand, the price will be high. In contrast, the greater the supply and the lower the demand, the lower the price will be.

The law of supply and demand is not an actual law but it is well confirmed and understood realization that if you have a lot of one item, the price for that item should go down. At the same time you need to understand the interaction; even if you have a high supply, if the demand is also high, the price could also be high. In the world of stock investing, the law of supply and demand can contribute to explaining a stocks price at any given time. It is the base to any economic understanding.
http://www.investopedia.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Leanin_on_Slick
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 10:48:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 9:38:19 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
...is a theory explaining the interaction between the supply of a resource and the demand for that resource. The law of supply and demand defines the effect that the availability of a particular product and the desire (or demand) for that product has on price. Generally, if there is a low supply and a high demand, the price will be high. In contrast, the greater the supply and the lower the demand, the lower the price will be.

The law of supply and demand is not an actual law but it is well confirmed and understood realization that if you have a lot of one item, the price for that item should go down. At the same time you need to understand the interaction; even if you have a high supply, if the demand is also high, the price could also be high. In the world of stock investing, the law of supply and demand can contribute to explaining a stocks price at any given time. It is the base to any economic understanding.
http://www.investopedia.com...


Cool.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 8:31:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 9:38:19 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
...is a theory explaining the interaction between the supply of a resource and the demand for that resource. The law of supply and demand defines the effect that the availability of a particular product and the desire (or demand) for that product has on price. Generally, if there is a low supply and a high demand, the price will be high. In contrast, the greater the supply and the lower the demand, the lower the price will be.

The law of supply and demand is not an actual law but it is well confirmed and understood realization that if you have a lot of one item, the price for that item should go down. At the same time you need to understand the interaction; even if you have a high supply, if the demand is also high, the price could also be high. In the world of stock investing, the law of supply and demand can contribute to explaining a stocks price at any given time. It is the base to any economic understanding.
http://www.investopedia.com...


To build off the OP; the price aka the cost of acquisition is represented by the y axis, and the quantity supplied/demanded is represented by the x axis. The supply and demand curve represents the supply and demand for each given price. The supply curve is a positive function of price, and the demand curve is a negative function of price. The supply and demand also have varying degrees of elasticity, which is a measure of how much they are effected by the price level. If a curve is perfectly inelastic the quantity will be unaffected by the price, and if it is perfectly elastic it will be heavily determined by the price.

The long term supply is inelastic, and is equivalent to the potential output. The difference between the short term supply and the long term supply equals a constant greater than 0 multiplied by the difference between the expected price and the actual price. The expected price is the price level where the short term supply curve and the long term supply curve intersect. The equilibrium price is where the short term supply and the demand curve meet. The actual price in a free-market economy would be at equilibrium, but when the market is effected by external factors, like taxes and regulations, it pushes the price out of equilibrium.

In the short term the supply curve rarely moves, unless altered by external factors. The demand curve can move freely in the short term, unlike the supply curve. It is easier to consume than it is to produce a good or service, because the production of a good or service requires time, capital, and labor.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 5:59:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 8:31:08 AM, DanT wrote:

To build off the OP; the price aka the cost of acquisition is represented by the y axis, and the quantity supplied/demanded is represented by the x axis. The supply and demand curve represents the supply and demand for each given price. The supply curve is a positive function of price, and the demand curve is a negative function of price. The supply and demand also have varying degrees of elasticity, which is a measure of how much they are effected by the price level. If a curve is perfectly inelastic the quantity will be unaffected by the price, and if it is perfectly elastic it will be heavily determined by the price.

The long term supply is inelastic, and is equivalent to the potential output. The difference between the short term supply and the long term supply equals a constant greater than 0 multiplied by the difference between the expected price and the actual price. The expected price is the price level where the short term supply curve and the long term supply curve intersect. The equilibrium price is where the short term supply and the demand curve meet. The actual price in a free-market economy would be at equilibrium, but when the market is effected by external factors, like taxes and regulations, it pushes the price out of equilibrium.

In the short term the supply curve rarely moves, unless altered by external factors. The demand curve can move freely in the short term, unlike the supply curve. It is easier to consume than it is to produce a good or service, because the production of a good or service requires time, capital, and labor.

Erm, pretty sure you're confusing supply and demand in microeconomics and Aggregate Supply/Aggregate Demand in macroeconomics. Your first paragraph was about the microeconomic model; your second paragraph was about the macroeconomic one.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 7:26:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Supply and demand is, unfortunately, outdated in the field of Economics. Microeconomics is all Game Theory now, really has been for about 20-30 years now. AS-AD has been largely replaced by Rational Expectations Theory. They teach Marshallian Supply and Demand in undergrad, same with Keynesian AS-AD, but really no one uses them outside undergrad.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:05:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 5:59:09 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/7/2014 8:31:08 AM, DanT wrote:

To build off the OP; the price aka the cost of acquisition is represented by the y axis, and the quantity supplied/demanded is represented by the x axis. The supply and demand curve represents the supply and demand for each given price. The supply curve is a positive function of price, and the demand curve is a negative function of price. The supply and demand also have varying degrees of elasticity, which is a measure of how much they are effected by the price level. If a curve is perfectly inelastic the quantity will be unaffected by the price, and if it is perfectly elastic it will be heavily determined by the price.

The long term supply is inelastic, and is equivalent to the potential output. The difference between the short term supply and the long term supply equals a constant greater than 0 multiplied by the difference between the expected price and the actual price. The expected price is the price level where the short term supply curve and the long term supply curve intersect. The equilibrium price is where the short term supply and the demand curve meet. The actual price in a free-market economy would be at equilibrium, but when the market is effected by external factors, like taxes and regulations, it pushes the price out of equilibrium.

In the short term the supply curve rarely moves, unless altered by external factors. The demand curve can move freely in the short term, unlike the supply curve. It is easier to consume than it is to produce a good or service, because the production of a good or service requires time, capital, and labor.

Erm, pretty sure you're confusing supply and demand in microeconomics and Aggregate Supply/Aggregate Demand in macroeconomics. Your first paragraph was about the microeconomic model; your second paragraph was about the macroeconomic one.

Macro is aggregated micro; they are not distinct, they are interdependent. The first paragraph I was talking about individual prices, the second paragraph I was talking about prices in general.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:16:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 8:05:14 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/22/2014 5:59:09 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/7/2014 8:31:08 AM, DanT wrote:

To build off the OP; the price aka the cost of acquisition is represented by the y axis, and the quantity supplied/demanded is represented by the x axis. The supply and demand curve represents the supply and demand for each given price. The supply curve is a positive function of price, and the demand curve is a negative function of price. The supply and demand also have varying degrees of elasticity, which is a measure of how much they are effected by the price level. If a curve is perfectly inelastic the quantity will be unaffected by the price, and if it is perfectly elastic it will be heavily determined by the price.

The long term supply is inelastic, and is equivalent to the potential output. The difference between the short term supply and the long term supply equals a constant greater than 0 multiplied by the difference between the expected price and the actual price. The expected price is the price level where the short term supply curve and the long term supply curve intersect. The equilibrium price is where the short term supply and the demand curve meet. The actual price in a free-market economy would be at equilibrium, but when the market is effected by external factors, like taxes and regulations, it pushes the price out of equilibrium.

In the short term the supply curve rarely moves, unless altered by external factors. The demand curve can move freely in the short term, unlike the supply curve. It is easier to consume than it is to produce a good or service, because the production of a good or service requires time, capital, and labor.

Erm, pretty sure you're confusing supply and demand in microeconomics and Aggregate Supply/Aggregate Demand in macroeconomics. Your first paragraph was about the microeconomic model; your second paragraph was about the macroeconomic one.

Macro is aggregated micro; they are not distinct, they are interdependent. The first paragraph I was talking about individual prices, the second paragraph I was talking about prices in general.

Macro is not aggregated micro (unless I'm wrong in my understanding of the word 'aggregate'). AD is not the aggregation of all market demands and AS is not the aggregation of all market supplies. The two models are distinct from each other. You cannot use micro concepts to explain macro. For example, the Law of Supply (which is about microeconomics) is derived from the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns, and the individual supply schedule of a firm is derived from its short-run production schedule. The short-run aggregate supply doesn't follow the Law of Supply but the Sticky Wage, Sticky Price, Misperceptions and Imperfect Information Models, none of which have anything to do with the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns or production schedules.

When the demand for a good increases, its price and quantity increase, while the demand for its substitutes decrease. The general price level and real output level are not affected.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:18:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 7:26:15 AM, blaze8 wrote:
Supply and demand is, unfortunately, outdated in the field of Economics. Microeconomics is all Game Theory now, really has been for about 20-30 years now. AS-AD has been largely replaced by Rational Expectations Theory. They teach Marshallian Supply and Demand in undergrad, same with Keynesian AS-AD, but really no one uses them outside undergrad.

Supply and Demand is still useful in some aspects of economics. It is not outdated; it still serves a practical purpose, but it has taken a back seat to game theory. The reason it is still taught to undergrads but not to graduates, is because after the basic understanding of economics (supply and demand), you must then learn how to find the underlining causes of economic behavior.

The point of college is not to teach you facts, but rather to teach you how to find facts and reach conclusions. At the undergraduate level you are a novice, and once you graduate you have learned the basics of the trade. If you have a masters, it means you have "mastered" your trade, and at the doctorate's level you have honed your trade even further. This is why most masters and doctorates degree programs require a thesis.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:36:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 8:16:45 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/22/2014 8:05:14 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/22/2014 5:59:09 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/7/2014 8:31:08 AM, DanT wrote:

To build off the OP; the price aka the cost of acquisition is represented by the y axis, and the quantity supplied/demanded is represented by the x axis. The supply and demand curve represents the supply and demand for each given price. The supply curve is a positive function of price, and the demand curve is a negative function of price. The supply and demand also have varying degrees of elasticity, which is a measure of how much they are effected by the price level. If a curve is perfectly inelastic the quantity will be unaffected by the price, and if it is perfectly elastic it will be heavily determined by the price.

The long term supply is inelastic, and is equivalent to the potential output. The difference between the short term supply and the long term supply equals a constant greater than 0 multiplied by the difference between the expected price and the actual price. The expected price is the price level where the short term supply curve and the long term supply curve intersect. The equilibrium price is where the short term supply and the demand curve meet. The actual price in a free-market economy would be at equilibrium, but when the market is effected by external factors, like taxes and regulations, it pushes the price out of equilibrium.

In the short term the supply curve rarely moves, unless altered by external factors. The demand curve can move freely in the short term, unlike the supply curve. It is easier to consume than it is to produce a good or service, because the production of a good or service requires time, capital, and labor.

Erm, pretty sure you're confusing supply and demand in microeconomics and Aggregate Supply/Aggregate Demand in macroeconomics. Your first paragraph was about the microeconomic model; your second paragraph was about the macroeconomic one.

Macro is aggregated micro; they are not distinct, they are interdependent. The first paragraph I was talking about individual prices, the second paragraph I was talking about prices in general.

Macro is not aggregated micro (unless I'm wrong in my understanding of the word 'aggregate').

" aggregate
adjective
[attributive]
Formed or calculated by the combination of several separate elements; total: the aggregate amount of grants made."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

AD is not the aggregation of all market demands and AS is not the aggregation of all market supplies. The two models are distinct from each other.
"Definition of 'Aggregate Demand'

The total amount of goods and services demanded in the economy at a given overall price level and in a given time period. It is represented by the aggregate-demand curve, which describes the relationship between price levels and the quantity of output that firms are willing to provide. Normally there is a negative relationship between aggregate demand and the price level. Also known as 'total spending'. "

Aggregate Demand = Private Consumption + Investments + Government Spending
or alternatively Private Consumption + Investments + Government Spending + Net Exports.
In other words, the Aggregate Demand is the total demand within the economy.
You cannot use micro concepts to explain macro. For example, the Law of Supply (which is about microeconomics) is derived from the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns, and the individual supply schedule of a firm is derived from its short-run production schedule. The short-run aggregate supply doesn't follow the Law of Supply but the Sticky Wage, Sticky Price, Misperceptions and Imperfect Information Models, none of which have anything to do with the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns or production schedules.

When the demand for a good increases, its price and quantity increase, while the demand for its substitutes decrease. The general price level and real output level are not affected.

First off, there is a clear distinction between the supply & demand curves when affected by market imperfections and the supply & demand curves in its natural state.
Furthermore, sticky wages/prices affect the price level, thus throwing supply and demand out of equilibrium; it does not change the nature of the supply curve.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:37:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 8:36:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/22/2014 8:16:45 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/22/2014 8:05:14 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/22/2014 5:59:09 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/7/2014 8:31:08 AM, DanT wrote:

To build off the OP; the price aka the cost of acquisition is represented by the y axis, and the quantity supplied/demanded is represented by the x axis. The supply and demand curve represents the supply and demand for each given price. The supply curve is a positive function of price, and the demand curve is a negative function of price. The supply and demand also have varying degrees of elasticity, which is a measure of how much they are effected by the price level. If a curve is perfectly inelastic the quantity will be unaffected by the price, and if it is perfectly elastic it will be heavily determined by the price.

The long term supply is inelastic, and is equivalent to the potential output. The difference between the short term supply and the long term supply equals a constant greater than 0 multiplied by the difference between the expected price and the actual price. The expected price is the price level where the short term supply curve and the long term supply curve intersect. The equilibrium price is where the short term supply and the demand curve meet. The actual price in a free-market economy would be at equilibrium, but when the market is effected by external factors, like taxes and regulations, it pushes the price out of equilibrium.

In the short term the supply curve rarely moves, unless altered by external factors. The demand curve can move freely in the short term, unlike the supply curve. It is easier to consume than it is to produce a good or service, because the production of a good or service requires time, capital, and labor.

Erm, pretty sure you're confusing supply and demand in microeconomics and Aggregate Supply/Aggregate Demand in macroeconomics. Your first paragraph was about the microeconomic model; your second paragraph was about the macroeconomic one.

Macro is aggregated micro; they are not distinct, they are interdependent. The first paragraph I was talking about individual prices, the second paragraph I was talking about prices in general.

Macro is not aggregated micro (unless I'm wrong in my understanding of the word 'aggregate').

" aggregate
adjective
[attributive]
Formed or calculated by the combination of several separate elements; total: the aggregate amount of grants made."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


AD is not the aggregation of all market demands and AS is not the aggregation of all market supplies. The two models are distinct from each other.
"Definition of 'Aggregate Demand'

The total amount of goods and services demanded in the economy at a given overall price level and in a given time period. It is represented by the aggregate-demand curve, which describes the relationship between price levels and the quantity of output that firms are willing to provide. Normally there is a negative relationship between aggregate demand and the price level. Also known as 'total spending'. "

http://www.investopedia.com...
Aggregate Demand = Private Consumption + Investments + Government Spending
or alternatively Private Consumption + Investments + Government Spending + Net Exports.
In other words, the Aggregate Demand is the total demand within the economy.
You cannot use micro concepts to explain macro. For example, the Law of Supply (which is about microeconomics) is derived from the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns, and the individual supply schedule of a firm is derived from its short-run production schedule. The short-run aggregate supply doesn't follow the Law of Supply but the Sticky Wage, Sticky Price, Misperceptions and Imperfect Information Models, none of which have anything to do with the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns or production schedules.

When the demand for a good increases, its price and quantity increase, while the demand for its substitutes decrease. The general price level and real output level are not affected.

First off, there is a clear distinction between the supply & demand curves when affected by market imperfections and the supply & demand curves in its natural state.
Furthermore, sticky wages/prices affect the price level, thus throwing supply and demand out of equilibrium; it does not change the nature of the supply curve.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:57:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 8:36:55 AM, DanT wrote:
Macro is not aggregated micro (unless I'm wrong in my understanding of the word 'aggregate').

" aggregate
adjective
[attributive]
Formed or calculated by the combination of several separate elements; total: the aggregate amount of grants made."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Then I was not wrong.

AD is not the aggregation of all market demands and AS is not the aggregation of all market supplies. The two models are distinct from each other.
"Definition of 'Aggregate Demand'

The total amount of goods and services demanded in the economy at a given overall price level and in a given time period. It is represented by the aggregate-demand curve, which describes the relationship between price levels and the quantity of output that firms are willing to provide. Normally there is a negative relationship between aggregate demand and the price level. Also known as 'total spending'. "
;
Aggregate Demand = Private Consumption + Investments + Government Spending
or alternatively Private Consumption + Investments + Government Spending + Net Exports.
In other words, the Aggregate Demand is the total demand within the economy.

AD is not the total demand within the economy. Demand is about the quantity demanded of a single good or service at different prices. AD is the real output level of all goods and services of an economy at different general price levels. They are affected by different mechanisms.

C+I+G+NX is measured in terms of real value against price. They are different from demand, which are measured in terms of quantity against general price level (either CPI or GDP deflator).

First off, there is a clear distinction between the supply & demand curves when affected by market imperfections and the supply & demand curves in its natural state.
This is where I believe your confusion arose. This statement is relevant only to microeconomics. 'Market imperfections' are a micro concept, not a macro concept.

Furthermore, sticky wages/prices affect the price level, thus throwing supply and demand out of equilibrium; it does not change the nature of the supply curve.
It throws the AS and AD out of the long-run equilibrium. The economy is still in short-run equilibrium, and either a deflationary gap or inflationary gap occurs. In the absence of fiscal and monetary policies, the downward-sloping SRAS curve will eventually adjust (as prices and wages become flexible and information becomes perfect) so that the SRAS, LRAS and AD curves meet at the same point.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:58:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just to clarify - my point is that micro supply/demand and macro AS/AD are distinct concepts and it is misleading to treat the latter as simply the aggregate of the former.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 10:57:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 8:57:56 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/22/2014 8:36:55 AM, DanT wrote:
Macro is not aggregated micro (unless I'm wrong in my understanding of the word 'aggregate').

" aggregate
adjective
[attributive]
Formed or calculated by the combination of several separate elements; total: the aggregate amount of grants made."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Then I was not wrong.

So what is the issue? If your definition of aggregate is the total sum of its individual components, why do you insist aggregates are not comprised of individual components?
AD is not the aggregation of all market demands and AS is not the aggregation of all market supplies. The two models are distinct from each other.
"Definition of 'Aggregate Demand'

The total amount of goods and services demanded in the economy at a given overall price level and in a given time period. It is represented by the aggregate-demand curve, which describes the relationship between price levels and the quantity of output that firms are willing to provide. Normally there is a negative relationship between aggregate demand and the price level. Also known as 'total spending'. "
;
Aggregate Demand = Private Consumption + Investments + Government Spending
or alternatively Private Consumption + Investments + Government Spending + Net Exports.
In other words, the Aggregate Demand is the total demand within the economy.

AD is not the total demand within the economy. Demand is about the quantity demanded of a single good or service at different prices. AD is the real output level of all goods and services of an economy at different general price levels. They are affected by different mechanisms.

AD is not real output. AD is the demand for the aggregate real output, and AS is the supply of real output. Real Output is the quantity not the demand curve.
I am truly surprised by how many people open their mouths without knowing what they are talking about, then defend to the death their absurd claims.
C+I+G+NX is measured in terms of real value against price. They are different from demand, which are measured in terms of quantity against general price level (either CPI or GDP deflator).

The aggregate price (or as you called it, "the general price") is dependent on individual prices, because the aggregate supply and demand are dependent on individual supplies and demands. If oil prices skyrocket it will effect the aggregate price level.
First off, there is a clear distinction between the supply & demand curves when affected by market imperfections and the supply & demand curves in its natural state.
This is where I believe your confusion arose. This statement is relevant only to microeconomics. 'Market imperfections' are a micro concept, not a macro concept.

For the love of god please research the topic before you speak!
I am starting to think you don't know what micro and macro economics is. They are not economic schools of thought, they are two sides of the same coin. Microeconomics deals with individual buyers and sellers, while macroeconomics deals with the aggregate economy.

Furthermore, sticky wages/prices affect the price level, thus throwing supply and demand out of equilibrium; it does not change the nature of the supply curve.
It throws the AS and AD out of the long-run equilibrium. The economy is still in short-run equilibrium, and either a deflationary gap or inflationary gap occurs.
No sticky prices hurts the short run market, because the prices are set for the long run through contracts and legal obligations. For example; minimum wage laws set minimum wage to a wage they believe would be most beneficial in the long run, because otherwise they would have to pass a new law every month or so. As a result fluctuations in the short run equilibrium wage results in labor surpluses aka unemployment.
In the absence of fiscal and monetary policies, the downward-sloping SRAS curve will eventually adjust (as prices and wages become flexible and information becomes perfect) so that the SRAS, LRAS and AD curves meet at the same point.

In other words, market imperfections hurt the short term not the long term. This is why interventionists like Keynes ignored the long run when advocating economic solutions; thus the short run fixes today would create new problems in the short run tomorrow, while a laissez faire policy would cause the market to correct itself in the long run.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:23:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry I made a mistake there. I meant 'AD is the real output demanded of all goods and services of an economy at different general price levels.'

At 3/22/2014 10:57:23 AM, DanT wrote:
So what is the issue? If your definition of aggregate is the total sum of its individual components, why do you insist aggregates are not comprised of individual components?
It's because AD is composed by summing up C, I, G and NX, not by summing up all market demands.

First off, there is a clear distinction between the supply & demand curves when affected by market imperfections and the supply & demand curves in its natural state.
This is where I believe your confusion arose. This statement is relevant only to microeconomics. 'Market imperfections' are a micro concept, not a macro concept.

For the love of god please research the topic before you speak!
I am starting to think you don't know what micro and macro economics is. They are not economic schools of thought, they are two sides of the same coin. Microeconomics deals with individual buyers and sellers, while macroeconomics deals with the aggregate economy.
I'm not saying they're different schools of thought? I'm saying the micro supply-demand MODEL and the macro AS-AD MODEL are separate, and the curves act according to different rules.

Furthermore, sticky wages/prices affect the price level, thus throwing supply and demand out of equilibrium; it does not change the nature of the supply curve.
It throws the AS and AD out of the long-run equilibrium. The economy is still in short-run equilibrium, and either a deflationary gap or inflationary gap occurs.
No sticky prices hurts the short run market, because the prices are set for the long run through contracts and legal obligations. For example; minimum wage laws set minimum wage to a wage they believe would be most beneficial in the long run, because otherwise they would have to pass a new law every month or so. As a result fluctuations in the short run equilibrium wage results in labor surpluses aka unemployment.
The principle behind the Sticky Wage model in the explanation of the upward-sloping SRAS curve is that when contracts between firms and workers are settled, they were based on expected, not actual, price levels. As nominal wage is held constant by the contracts, the real wage of workers will increase when the price level decreases and vice versa. in the former case, firms will decrease output while in the latter case, firms will increase output.

The definition of the long-run is a period of time that allows all prices and wages to readjust against (i.e. the contracts are terminated, the firms finally adjust prices despite menu costs, etc.) and price level information to become perfect to all firms and workers again.

The minimum wage is a different thing; it permanently decreases the labour supply of an economy and, in doing so, increases the LRAS and SRAS by the same amount. It is independent of price level; it moves the AS curves themselves, unlike sticky prices, which move ALONG the SRAS curve.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:29:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry - I missed this part of the post.

At 3/22/2014 10:57:23 AM, DanT wrote:
The aggregate price (or as you called it, "the general price") is dependent on individual prices, because the aggregate supply and demand are dependent on individual supplies and demands. If oil prices skyrocket it will effect the aggregate price level.

Yes, but the reason is because skyrocketing oil prices is a cost shock, which decreases the SRAS and creates a deflationary gap and unemployment. The short-run equilibrium will fall below the potential output level. This explains the drop in general price level. Later, however, wages will have time to drop and the SRAS will return to the original. Both real output and general price will return to the original level.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 12:15:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 8:18:31 AM, DanT wrote:

Supply and Demand is still useful in some aspects of economics. It is not outdated; it still serves a practical purpose, but it has taken a back seat to game theory. The reason it is still taught to undergrads but not to graduates, is because after the basic understanding of economics (supply and demand), you must then learn how to find the underlining causes of economic behavior.

Some aspects, but by and large, Game Theory is taking over. Both views have problems, but Partial Equilibrium Theory as laid out by Marshall and taught in College is of limited practical use.

The point of college is not to teach you facts, but rather to teach you how to find facts and reach conclusions. At the undergraduate level you are a novice, and once you graduate you have learned the basics of the trade. If you have a masters, it means you have "mastered" your trade, and at the doctorate's level you have honed your trade even further. This is why most masters and doctorates degree programs require a thesis.

I wish it were as you say for your first sentence. Most colleges teach Neoclassical economics without explaining how Utility theory came to supersede substantive value theories, or why we even speak of combining supply and demand on one graph, let alone why Keynesian economics and AS-AD models are to be preferred over others. They just teach the curves, how to derive them, and what they mean. Almost none stop to ask their students to think about why we model supply and demand in such a way, or why we model supply and demand to begin with.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 3:45:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 12:15:56 PM, blaze8 wrote:
At 3/22/2014 8:18:31 AM, DanT wrote:

Supply and Demand is still useful in some aspects of economics. It is not outdated; it still serves a practical purpose, but it has taken a back seat to game theory. The reason it is still taught to undergrads but not to graduates, is because after the basic understanding of economics (supply and demand), you must then learn how to find the underlining causes of economic behavior.

Some aspects, but by and large, Game Theory is taking over. Both views have problems, but Partial Equilibrium Theory as laid out by Marshall and taught in College is of limited practical use.

I really hate it when people on this site use assertions as a means of backing their assertions; even more common is for people to reassert their original assertion as a means of supporting their assertion. I also hate it when people make vague references to outside sources, without listing their sources. Don't assume I or anyone reading this conversation knows the quote you are referring to, without actually quoting or citing the source.

The point of college is not to teach you facts, but rather to teach you how to find facts and reach conclusions. At the undergraduate level you are a novice, and once you graduate you have learned the basics of the trade. If you have a masters, it means you have "mastered" your trade, and at the doctorate's level you have honed your trade even further. This is why most masters and doctorates degree programs require a thesis.

I wish it were as you say for your first sentence. Most colleges teach Neoclassical economics without explaining how Utility theory came to supersede substantive value theories, or why we even speak of combining supply and demand on one graph, let alone why Keynesian economics and AS-AD models are to be preferred over others.
Keynesian models are not necessarily preferred. Sometimes Keynesian models are superior sometimes they are inferior.
They just teach the curves, how to derive them, and what they mean. Almost none stop to ask their students to think about why we model supply and demand in such a way, or why we model supply and demand to begin with.
Professors should encourage their students to think about the subject, so they can understand the subject. There is a huge difference between knowing something and understanding it.
This is more of a commentary about the current quality of higher education rather than the purpose of higher education.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 3:55:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 11:23:32 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Sorry I made a mistake there. I meant 'AD is the real output demanded of all goods and services of an economy at different general price levels.'

At 3/22/2014 10:57:23 AM, DanT wrote:
So what is the issue? If your definition of aggregate is the total sum of its individual components, why do you insist aggregates are not comprised of individual components?
It's because AD is composed by summing up C, I, G and NX, not by summing up all market demands.

C+I+G+NX is the sum of market demand. Demand is consumption and C+I+G+NX is a measure of the total consumption in the economy. The only reason output is measured as C+I+G+NX is because we are working under the assumption that the market is in equilibrium.

I have to get ready for work, I'll respond to the rest later.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 3:57:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 3:45:53 PM, DanT wrote:

I really hate it when people on this site use assertions as a means of backing their assertions; even more common is for people to reassert their original assertion as a means of supporting their assertion. I also hate it when people make vague references to outside sources, without listing their sources. Don't assume I or anyone reading this conversation knows the quote you are referring to, without actually quoting or citing the source.

I don't need to quote it. Just pick up a graduate level Micro text book. They're riddled with Game Theory.

Professors should encourage their students to think about the subject, so they can understand the subject. There is a huge difference between knowing something and understanding it.
This is more of a commentary about the current quality of higher education rather than the purpose of higher education.

I absolutely agree. It's just that in my experience, professors are more concerned with making sure we get the derivations down than critically examining the theory behind them. That's all I was saying.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 10:00:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 3:57:16 PM, blaze8 wrote:
At 3/23/2014 3:45:53 PM, DanT wrote:

I really hate it when people on this site use assertions as a means of backing their assertions; even more common is for people to reassert their original assertion as a means of supporting their assertion. I also hate it when people make vague references to outside sources, without listing their sources. Don't assume I or anyone reading this conversation knows the quote you are referring to, without actually quoting or citing the source.

I don't need to quote it. Just pick up a graduate level Micro text book. They're riddled with Game Theory.

-_-'
1st off, I was referring to the claim that "both views have problems". Secondly, game theory is more useful in Microeconomics while supply and demand is more useful in Macro. I was actually going to mention this earlier, but didn't want to tangent. The nature of the supply and demand curves can also be derived from economic game theories.
Professors should encourage their students to think about the subject, so they can understand the subject. There is a huge difference between knowing something and understanding it.
This is more of a commentary about the current quality of higher education rather than the purpose of higher education.

I absolutely agree. It's just that in my experience, professors are more concerned with making sure we get the derivations down than critically examining the theory behind them. That's all I was saying.
That is because the quality of educational institutions is on a downward spiral.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 10:10:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 10:00:38 AM, DanT wrote:

-_-'
1st off, I was referring to the claim that "both views have problems". Secondly, game theory is more useful in Microeconomics while supply and demand is more useful in Macro. I was actually going to mention this earlier, but didn't want to tangent. The nature of the supply and demand curves can also be derived from economic game theories.

-_-
Allow me to explain why I believe both views have problems. Game Theory assumes everyone acts rationally to maximize their own interests, and requires the rules of the game to be elucidated before it can actually take place, thus making all the rules inherent assumptions which can be questioned. Keynesian Macroeconomics assumes it's possible to add Consumption, Investment, Government Expenditures, and Net Exports to correctly gauge the health of the economy. It also assumes many other things, like MPC even exists, APC exists, etc. These are just a few examples of why both views have problems in real world application. This isn't coming from a specific quote or source. It's coming from my own observations on the two schools of thought.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 10:44:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 10:10:37 AM, blaze8 wrote:
At 3/24/2014 10:00:38 AM, DanT wrote:

-_-'
1st off, I was referring to the claim that "both views have problems". Secondly, game theory is more useful in Microeconomics while supply and demand is more useful in Macro. I was actually going to mention this earlier, but didn't want to tangent. The nature of the supply and demand curves can also be derived from economic game theories.

-_-
Allow me to explain why I believe both views have problems. Game Theory assumes everyone acts rationally to maximize their own interests, and requires the rules of the game to be elucidated before it can actually take place, thus making all the rules inherent assumptions which can be questioned.
They are not necessarily assumptions. Economics is a social science, and so economist study human nature. Using what we know of human nature, we can form game theory models.
Keynesian Macroeconomics assumes it's possible to add Consumption, Investment, Government Expenditures, and Net Exports to correctly gauge the health of the economy.
I'm not a Keynesian, and GPD is not an accurate means of measuring economic welfare, as I already stated in reply to another post.
It also assumes many other things, like MPC even exists, APC exists, etc. These are just a few examples of why both views have problems in real world application. This isn't coming from a specific quote or source. It's coming from my own observations on the two schools of thought.

This says nothing of the Supply/Demand model.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 10:59:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 10:44:21 AM, DanT wrote:

They are not necessarily assumptions. Economics is a social science, and so economist study human nature. Using what we know of human nature, we can form game theory models.

They're often huge assumptions. The more complex and complicated Game Theory models adjust to allow for non-zero-sum games, or unspecified payoffs, but the most basic assumptions are:

(1) Each decision maker ["PLAYER"] has available to him two or more well-specified choices or sequences of choices (called "PLAYS").

(2) Every possible combination of plays available to the players leads to a well-defined end-state (win, loss, or draw) that terminates the game.

(3) A specified payoff for each player is associated with each end-state (a [ZERO-SUM game] means that the sum of payoffs to all players is zero in each end-state).

(4) Each decision maker has perfect knowledge of the game and of his opposition; that is, he knows in full detail the rules of the game as well as the payoffs of all other players.

(5) All decision makers are rational; that is, each player, given two alternatives, will select the one that yields him the greater payoff.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be...

These are basic assumptions, but you'll find that certain assumptions are constant throughout Game Theory, especially the assumption of rationality, let alone the definition of rational. Are you saying that these assumptions are perfectly reasonable for practical use?

I'm not a Keynesian, and GPD is not an accurate means of measuring economic welfare, as I already stated in reply to another post.

I know, but you asked me to provide clarification on why both views have problems. So I explained why I believe both views have problems.

It also assumes many other things, like MPC even exists, APC exists, etc. These are just a few examples of why both views have problems in real world application. This isn't coming from a specific quote or source. It's coming from my own observations on the two schools of thought.

This says nothing of the Supply/Demand model.

MPC and APC are components of the Consumption function. Consumption is part of the AD function. Thus the reason for my referencing of whether or not APC or MPC even exist as a problem with AS-AD models.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 11:26:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 10:59:24 AM, blaze8 wrote:
At 3/24/2014 10:44:21 AM, DanT wrote:

They are not necessarily assumptions. Economics is a social science, and so economist study human nature. Using what we know of human nature, we can form game theory models.

They're often huge assumptions. The more complex and complicated Game Theory models adjust to allow for non-zero-sum games, or unspecified payoffs, but the most basic assumptions are:

(1) Each decision maker ["PLAYER"] has available to him two or more well-specified choices or sequences of choices (called "PLAYS").

If they didn't, it would be a very short game, leading to things like Keynes's MPC.
(2) Every possible combination of plays available to the players leads to a well-defined end-state (win, loss, or draw) that terminates the game.

The end state, depends on where you end the timeline. If the timeline was extended to infinity, the game would never end.
(3) A specified payoff for each player is associated with each end-state (a [ZERO-SUM game] means that the sum of payoffs to all players is zero in each end-state).

Not every economic choice or policy is zero sum. For example market barriers can turn a zero sum game into a positive sum game.
(4) Each decision maker has perfect knowledge of the game and of his opposition; that is, he knows in full detail the rules of the game as well as the payoffs of all other players.

If the rules of the game is designed based on how each individual makes choices, than this would be self evident.
(5) All decision makers are rational; that is, each player, given two alternatives, will select the one that yields him the greater payoff.

The one that yields him the greater perceived payoff. Economic choices are made based on perceived utility not actual utility.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be...

These are basic assumptions, but you'll find that certain assumptions are constant throughout Game Theory, especially the assumption of rationality, let alone the definition of rational. Are you saying that these assumptions are perfectly reasonable for practical use?


It all depends on the design of the game. I am not going to make blanket statements about nonspecific games.

I'm not a Keynesian, and GPD is not an accurate means of measuring economic welfare, as I already stated in reply to another post.

I know, but you asked me to provide clarification on why both views have problems. So I explained why I believe both views have problems.

You didn't say anything about Supply and Demand.
It also assumes many other things, like MPC even exists, APC exists, etc. These are just a few examples of why both views have problems in real world application. This isn't coming from a specific quote or source. It's coming from my own observations on the two schools of thought.

This says nothing of the Supply/Demand model.

MPC and APC are components of the Consumption function. Consumption is part of the AD function. Thus the reason for my referencing of whether or not APC or MPC even exist as a problem with AS-AD models.

It is components of Keynes's consumption function. Keynes did not invent the equation Y+C+I+G+NX , Simon Kuznets did 2 years prior to Keynes' General Theory.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 11:49:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 11:26:33 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/24/2014 10:59:24 AM, blaze8 wrote:
At 3/24/2014 10:44:21 AM, DanT wrote:

They are not necessarily assumptions. Economics is a social science, and so economist study human nature. Using what we know of human nature, we can form game theory models.

They're often huge assumptions. The more complex and complicated Game Theory models adjust to allow for non-zero-sum games, or unspecified payoffs, but the most basic assumptions are:

(1) Each decision maker ["PLAYER"] has available to him two or more well-specified choices or sequences of choices (called "PLAYS").

If they didn't, it would be a very short game, leading to things like Keynes's MPC.

The issue here is "well-specified." In real life, what does "well-specified" mean? How well can we truly specify a sequence of choices?
(2) Every possible combination of plays available to the players leads to a well-defined end-state (win, loss, or draw) that terminates the game.

The end state, depends on where you end the timeline. If the timeline was extended to infinity, the game would never end.

Certain games have a specific end-state and cannot extend to infinity. But this variation proves my point. Game Theory is not practically useful outside of mathematical models and economic theories.
(3) A specified payoff for each player is associated with each end-state (a [ZERO-SUM game] means that the sum of payoffs to all players is zero in each end-state).

Not every economic choice or policy is zero sum. For example market barriers can turn a zero sum game into a positive sum game.

Exactly my point. But even if you created rules based around a non-zero-sum game (which exist in Game Theory), you still make a basic assumption on what constitutes rationality (seeking to maximize profits, whatever their definition), and assume all players are rational in this sense. This doesn't hold up in real world application.

(4) Each decision maker has perfect knowledge of the game and of his opposition; that is, he knows in full detail the rules of the game as well as the payoffs of all other players.

If the rules of the game is designed based on how each individual makes choices, than this would be self evident.

Not necessarily. The requirement of perfect knowledge is not self-evident. Perfect knowledge means not only does the player know the end game of all his possible choices and the end-game of his opponents possible choices, but each player is aware of the other's perfect knowledge. There are Games that account for imperfect knowledge, but again, they are all based around certain assumptions which are themselves questionable.

(5) All decision makers are rational; that is, each player, given two alternatives, will select the one that yields him the greater payoff.

The one that yields him the greater perceived payoff. Economic choices are made based on perceived utility not actual utility.

Perceived by whom? Take the Prisoner's Dilemma, for example. Following the rules of Game Theory, the Nash EQ is to rat out the other player. But that isn't the best overall outcome, both players not saying a word yields a smaller overall sentence for them than the Nash EQ. So we have a problem then. Perceived Utility is extremely subjective. But if you are going to assume perfect knowledge, you can't distinguish between perceived and actual utility, because the players are supposed to be aware of both perfectly.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be...

These are basic assumptions, but you'll find that certain assumptions are constant throughout Game Theory, especially the assumption of rationality, let alone the definition of rational. Are you saying that these assumptions are perfectly reasonable for practical use?


It all depends on the design of the game. I am not going to make blanket statements about nonspecific games.

Right. But you can make statements about the five basic assumptions of Game Theory, as listed above. Like it or not, individual games may tweak them, but the general assumption of rationality and maximization is consistent throughout.

I'm not a Keynesian, and GPD is not an accurate means of measuring economic welfare, as I already stated in reply to another post.

I know, but you asked me to provide clarification on why both views have problems. So I explained why I believe both views have problems.

You didn't say anything about Supply and Demand.

But I did. The AD function is C+I+G+NX. AD-AS relies on the assumption that you can even add these together. That was what I said, and that is a statement on Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply. Or, are you talking about Market Supply and Demand? In which case, name one company who looks at a Market Supply and Demand graph in order to determine it's firm level output and firm demand. No business does this. Or, how about the basic assumption that firms seek to maximize profit? We could call that assumption into question as well, and in so doing, we would undermine Supply and Demand on the Market and Firm Level.

It also assumes many other things, like MPC even exists, APC exists, etc. These are just a few examples of why both views have problems in real world application. This isn't coming from a specific quote or source. It's coming from my own observations on the two schools of thought.

This says nothing of the Supply/Demand model.

MPC and APC are components of the Consumption function. Consumption is part of the AD function. Thus the reason for my referencing of whether or not APC or MPC even exist as a problem with AS-AD models.

It is components of Keynes's consumption function. Keynes did not invent the equation Y+C+I+G+NX , Simon Kuznets did 2 years prior to Keynes' General Theory.

And yet, I've always mentioned solely Keynesian Macroeconomics. So bringing Kuznets into the discussion, which has always been about Keynesian Macroeconomics, doesn't undermine my position. I've been consistently discussing Keynesian Macroeconomics. Thus, my statements are consistent.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
Linkish1O2
Posts: 2,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 8:17:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
huzzah
"I am a mystery and to unlock the mystery at my core, one must simply embrace slendermans hug with no fear."- me

"I hearby declare myself a phantom in the darkness."-me