Lib Dems prove once again they are not fit to govern

[Robinho]

But you said you could run the equations. Now you're saying there aren't any. How can you say you understand market dynamics? You have nothing more than a handwaving argument about how they might work and zero evidence to back it up.

You seem to believe they are hand-waving but they aren't they are pretty basic principles. I said run the equation figuratively. I am not saying we calculate all the costs of everything to do with this shop and the house and etc. Just look at a few basic rules of economics and draw some pretty standard conclusions.

[sasguru]

You seem to believe they are hand-waving but they aren't they are pretty basic principles. I said run the equation figuratively. I am not saying we calculate all the costs of everything to do with this shop and the house and etc. Just look at a few basic rules of economics and draw some pretty standard conclusions.

And one of your "standard conclusions" is that we should go back to the gold standard and abol,ish fractional reserve banking?

[sasguru]

No i have an understanding of market dynamics. I don't claim there to be an exact mathematical equation. But there is a reason the shop went out of business, and essentially it is because it has become an inefficient way of buying food.

So you don't believe monopolies can distort the free market and cause inefficiencies?

[Robinho]

Again you are simply insulting me without offering anything intelligent to say.

It's like it is the only thing you can do.

[doodab]

You seem to believe they are hand-waving but they aren't they are pretty basic principles. I said run the equation figuratively. I am not saying we calculate all the costs of everything to do with this shop and the house and etc. Just look at a few basic rules of economics and draw some pretty standard conclusions.

But these 'basic principles' and 'standard conclusions' are unproven conjecture and not only are you treating them as established fact you're applying macroeconomic generalizations (i presume when you talk about things becoming more efficient overall you're referring to general equilibrium theory though i doubt you know what that is) to a specific microeconomic happening. It's as if a logical tour de force has been pressed into a blob of blu tac leaving a perfect negative image.

[sasguru]

Again you are simply insulting me without offering anything intelligent to say.

It's like it is the only thing you can do.

Where have I insulted you? I see a series of questions. I can't help chuckling though.
PS It seems that you have nothing intelligent to say. If that is the case then calling you an idiot is a simple statement of fact, not an insult. Mind you I haven't done that. Yet.

[Robinho]

But these 'basic principles' and 'standard conclusions' are unproven conjecture and not only are you treating them as established fact you're applying macroeconomic generalizations (i presume when you talk about things becoming more efficient overall you're referring to general equilibrium theory though i doubt you know what that is) to a specific microeconomic happening. It's as if a logical tour de force has been pressed into a blob of blu tac leaving a perfect negative image.

Sorry but what is so hard to understand that a business disappeared because it was no longer economically viable?

Why are you finding this so hard to accept?

[Robinho]

Where have I insulted you? I see a series of questions. I can't help chuckling though.
PS It seems that you have nothing intelligent to say. If that is the case then calling you an idiot is a simple statement of fact, not an insult. Mind you I haven't done that. Yet.

You are insulting my intelligence by putting words in my mouth and then laughing at me.

[sasguru]

Sorry but what is so hard to understand that a business disappeared because it was no longer economically viable?

Why are you finding this so hard to accept?

Sometimes businesses collapse because they aren't economically viable.
Sometimes because of monopolistic price fixing, or the increased ability to bear losses for long periods of time by monopolies, sometimes because of cartels. The list of non-free market jiggery pokery is endless.

Why are you finding this so hard to accept?

[Robinho]

Sometimes businesses collapse because they aren't economically viable.
Sometimes because of monopolistic price fixing, or the increased ability to bear losses for long periods of time by monopolies, sometimes because of cartels. The list of non-free market jiggery pokery is endless.

Why are you finding this so hard to accept?

There was no monopolistic influence in this case though.