tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post2881049490188955750..comments2023-08-29T01:27:13.772-07:00Comments on Magpie's Asymmetric Warfare: Cogito Ergo Sum (ii)Magpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-47914274300034570562015-12-08T16:04:03.948-08:002015-12-08T16:04:03.948-08:00Hi Larry.
"Sadly, the Freiberger link appear...Hi Larry.<br /><br /><i>"Sadly, the Freiberger link appears to be broken."</i><br /><br />It worked for me just a moment ago. Maybe the server sometimes gets slow?<br /><br /><i>"You don't actually assume your conclusion: you don't take (1) as true. You start with (2) and use deduction to get to (1). You just state (1) as uncertain, as a goal. There's nothing even resembling circularity."</i><br /><br />The fact one is not assuming one's conclusion has never stopped Keynesian economists from accusing one of that. So, one might as well enjoy the ride. :-)<br /><br />----------<br /><br />I was being ironic, my friend. <br /><br />Seriously now. I have been thinking about this:<br /><br /><i>"(...) I do see a problem with your analysis.<br />"You partly assume your conclusion to start: revenues are fixed at Y. If you cut wages and did not increase dividends, and kept your other assumptions the same, your revenue would fall short of Y and profits would not rise. Indeed, it is the increase in dividends—a profit source—that creates additional profits, not the wage cut. This can be seen if you rerun your example with a raise in dividends without any wage cuts. Thus, all you prove is that increasing dividends increases profits."</i><br /><br />(You might remember that from a previous post).<br /><br />I find it amazing how painfully unprepared to argue logically economists in general are and how oblivious they are of that.<br /><br />Particularly economists of the Keynesian variety. And I wonder if the examples Keynes and Robinson set are not at least partly behind that.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-4791655916189973312015-12-08T04:13:32.317-08:002015-12-08T04:13:32.317-08:00I'm not sure where you're going here.
Yo...I'm not sure where you're going here. <br /><br />You don't actually assume your conclusion: you don't take (1) as true. You <i>start</i> with (2) and use deduction to get to (1). You just state (1) as uncertain, as a goal. There's nothing even resembling circularity.<br /><br />Sadly, the Freiberger link appears to be broken.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com