Maximum inequalities ensue from free markets
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
kynes, can you describe to me more about this "radical homosexual agenda" and how it is tied to communism and "anti-christianity"?
because right now, all i can picture when i think of you is this:
the funny thing is that all you have are your conspiracy theory charts, while i have historical photos showing what a joke you will be in another 40 years.
maybe less.
because right now, all i can picture when i think of you is this:
the funny thing is that all you have are your conspiracy theory charts, while i have historical photos showing what a joke you will be in another 40 years.
maybe less.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Not bears.kynes, can you describe to me more about this "radical homosexual agenda" and how it is tied to communism and "anti-christianity"?
because right now, all i can picture when i think of you is this:
the funny thing is that all you have are your conspiracy theory charts, while i have historical photos showing what a joke you will be in another 40 years.
maybe less.
They were mountain lions, bro, mountain lions.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Equal isn't necessarily better.
IE: We could all be living in caves still. It would be more equal. Would it be better?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Are you sure about that?
It's not exactly equal exchanges. It is mostly gambling which is the essence of exchange in the model, as I see it.
But it is something the authors say near the end which is most telling of what they were trying to show,
This wasn't meant to be an accurate model of the macroeconomy; it was made to demonstrate a specific outcome that is counter-intuitive to some theories of wealth distribution.
They didn't even try modeling credit, which would have thrown the whole thing into another dimension.
I guess what they really did was to reprove the axiom, wealth attracts wealth, in a roundabout and imaginative way.
Or in their words,
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yeah, with enough bullshit and screwy math you can "prove" anything you like.
they still assumed that all transactions were "fair" and "equal", and most tellingly they believe you can "win" a transaction.
the only way to "win" a transaction is to trade something you value less for something you value more.
since both sides of every non-coercive transaction are doing this, BOTH "win", which means neither "won" over the other.
trading my extra bison pelts for your excess flint spearheads doesnt make me the winner and you the loser. unless these bison pelts are somehow defective, or your spearheads are really made of shale and i'm too stupid to realize it.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
the chart demonstrates this clearly. it's not my fault youre too stupid to read.
And always has existed in every system.
A healthy and vibrant system is able to tolerate a bit of it. The problem is the graft has grown so large and persistent that it is suffocating economic activities.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
I don't believe you are grasping what the modelers were doing.
First, take two agents, and let w'=10 and w"=100
dw = (10*100)/(10+100)=9.091
This means, before the exchange happens, some quasi-random amount which is no greater than the min{w',w"} will be exchanged. This has nothing to do with the subjective value of pelts and spearheads. It is a strictly objective analysis into how wealth moves.
What they show, in the long run, is wealth under strict boundaries will aggregate in few hands. The question I then have is to what extent does this finding play out in more complex models where credit, banks, etc. are included?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, the chart read like one of your long winded, purple prose rants, randomly tying together buzz words that make john birch types shit themselves in fear.
the "radical homosexual agenda" and "multiculturalism" and "marxism", oh my!
i imagine you probably asked your mom to wash your skid-marked tighty whiteys after you first glanced at that chart.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Or where wealth is created...
Why are we listening to a bunch of physicists about economics anyway. Is this the best we got???
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'd much rather take my advice from the folks who tell me that trickle down works and forest fires cause global cooling.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Where the wealth was created is irrelevant to the experiment.
What is key to it, however, is that total wealth is fixed. That is why it is not to be confused as being an accurate model of a macroeconomy. It is merely showing what happens in an extreme case with finite boundaries but the scenario postulated is possible as a subset.
As for being the best, of course not. It is a far better explication versus the hand-waving of most economists and critics, though.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
To what extent does this finding have any application in the real world? These people are confused about what wealth is and what actually creates it.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Close only counts in hand grenades. This study is embarrasing.... The fact that people treat it as an explanation for economics is embarassing.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
oh, so you are indeed familiar with this phenomenon called embarrassment!
because for the longest time, i thought you were completely immune from it somehow.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
No, I got the concept. I am embarrassed that you are an American. See?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i had no idea you were capable of that.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I am sorry your mommy didnt pay enough attention to you creating this incessant need to be the center of the universe of attention.
Here is the thing though.. You are not that interesting. And the fact that you add almost nothing to the conversation gets old really quick.
So I am gonna wait until you get drunk and pass out again and continue the conversation with the adults in the room.
Have another beer bucky... I bet they make your wife look better!
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Who really thinks a free market exists anymore? Besides the black market that is.