Lib Dems prove once again they are not fit to govern

[Mich the Tester]

HTH

IDI

[doodab]

Ok then, "rip to shreds" what i was saying about a monopoly when there is an inelastic supply? I notice you were confused about that at first, but now have conveniently forgotten about it.

What, that no monopoly is possible? Or your statement that the landlord will charge "what the market will bear" which seems to be a statement of the inverse elasticity rule that applies in monopoly situations?

Rip to shreds the theory that is someone is made unemployed working for an unviable company, they will eventually get another job for a viable company, and society will benefit.

Will a single counterexample suffice? How about the thousands of long term unemployed counterexamples? How about the social disintegration in towns where mines or factories were closed and you have multiple generations who have never worked? Did society benefit there?

Anyway, back to the statements you have singularly failed to back up. When are you going to "run the equations"? Or are we still supposed to "trust you" and your wibbleheaded assertions?

[doodab]

Liverpool

Bit harsh on Andy Carroll but fair enough

[Mich the Tester]

Will a single counterexample suffice? How about the thousands of long term unemployed counterexamples? How about the social disintegration in towns where mines or factories were closed and you have multiple generations who have never worked? Did society benefit there?

In a proper science, yes. But in economics, probably not.

[Robinho]

What, that no monopoly is possible? Or your statement that the landlord will charge "what the market will bear" which seems to be a statement of the inverse elasticity rule that applies in monopoly situations?

A monopoly is possible, but it won't effect the prices if all the actors are acting rationally. Are you still disputing this?

Will a single counterexample suffice? How about the thousands of long term unemployed counterexamples? How about the social disintegration in towns where mines or factories were closed and you have multiple generations who have never worked? Did society benefit there?

Eventually yes, the problem with that was that the free market was never allowed to kill off these mines, and as such maggie came along and did it all at once, creating a glut of unemployment which had returned to normal by the end of her term.

[Mich the Tester]

if all the actors are acting rationally

Humans don't act rationally.

In fact, some philosophers will tell you that we don't really even know what 'rational' means.

[Robinho]

Humans don't act rationally.

Which is exactly why the market should decide things, and not the government.

[Mich the Tester]

Which is exactly why the market should decide things, and not the government.

You said 'A monopoly is possible, but it won't effect the prices if all the actors are acting rationally.'

The sole fact that humans don't act rationally makes it impossible for a monopoly to not affect prices.

[Robinho]

You said 'A monopoly is possible, but it won't effect the prices if all the actors are acting rationally.'

The sole fact that humans don't act rationally makes it impossible for a monopoly to not affect prices.

How do you know the monopolist is acting rationally? He might make all the rent free, so how have you come to the conclusion that a monopoly a bad thing?

[Mich the Tester]

How do you know the monopolist is acting rationally? He might make all the rent free, so how have you come to the conclusion that a monopoly a bad thing?

You're arguing against yourself now. I simply pointed out that your condition 'if all actors are acting rationally' will never be met, thereby invalidating your proposition that a monopoly won't affect prices'. You now suggest that a monopolist might decide to make all the rent free; if that isn't 'affecting prices', I don't know what is.