What words would you like me to use that you will not feel is an ad hominem m, to express the fact that you are mischaracterizing what supply and demand means, either willfully or through lack of understanding?

Your pointing to a source that does NOT address my question is not a satisfactory answer. Do YOU have an answer, do YOU understand it? This is an economics debate forum, can you lay out your argument rhetorically?

@Acacia poor? oo

kinda

you need money?

@Acacia

sure

-_-

then work @Acacia

ok

@Green Syndicalism again, let’s walk through this

Labor supply curves: you did not provide a labor supply curve. You provided an efficiency curve for ONE INDIVIDUAL

But when you increase the amount of labor you’re using, you don’t just make your existing workforce work more hours

You hire more people

So yes, if you tell one person to work 16 hours a day, they will decrease efficiency

But you can hire another 8 hour worker without that decrease in efficiency

This is so obvious I have to believe you’re being disingenuous.

B) “empirical evidence from firms themselves”

Yes, individual firms cannot produce infinitely

This is why, in the aggregate, supply curves are typically drawn with a steeper curve on the right side

Because as you get to the total upward limits of production of the market as a whole, increases in price still can’t produce infinite more goods

If the prices stay at that level though, people will open new factories and invest in new technologies, which is why long term curves are different than short term curves

Your own source SUPPORTS the way supply curves are drawn

c) of course supply curves exist. You’re not even proposing that they don’t.

I read your source. Please explain what zero he’s talking about in this section:

Conversely, neoclassical economists love the market structure they call ‘perfect competition,’ because it guarantees that profit­maximizing behavior will cause firms to produce an output at which marginal cost equals price.
Only it won’t. The manner in which neoclassical economics derives the result that profit­maximizing behavior by competitive firms means that they will produce where marginal cost equals price commits one of the simplest mathematical mistakes possible: it confuses a very small quantity – an ‘in­ finitesimal,’ as mathematicians describe it – with zero.
When that error is corrected, it is easily shown that a competitive market will also set price above marginal cost, and therefore a supply curve that is independent of the demand curve can’t be drawn. The other half of the ‘Totem of the Micro’ disappears.

Based

<:GWjiangoNoice:402866539491229696>

I’d add that when he says “the supply curve doesn’t exist” what he’s saying is that a large majority of supply firms are price takers

So he’s saying that the shape of the supply curve is dependent on the shape of the demand curve, not that the supply curve literally doesn’t exist

He says that in his book

Tl;dr

Sophesticated says to have sex

Sex is a demand and supply curve

Yup he’s got it

@Dr.Cosby every counterargument she made literally ignored the points of mine

she thinks the labour supply curve bending backwards was about efficiency of your labour, when it was actually about how higher wages bring enough happiness that you feel less inclination to supply your labour, *this isnt actually what economists mean by efficiency, which is to do with pareto equilibria measurements*. its very easy to conflate these as equivalent, but even if you suppose they were equivalent, this is still a supply curve and if you aggregate the market you will still get a backward bending curve, so its direct evidence for my point. Again though, to focus on this tiny microcosm instead of addressing the fundamental issues behind the model is a bit absurd in the face of all its other problems, this is a very minor issue to contend with in comparison

her reasoning about the upward curvature of a supply curve is that it must bend upwards due to increasing marginal costs, but i provided a study that showed firms have decreasing marginal costs, and perhaps at infinity they all must bend upward, but we dont operate at infinity, we operate at 80% capacity at most, so any real world supply curve would not show strictly upward curvature, there would be kinks *at the minimum* but most of the time it would curve flat or downwards

and whats more, in those 3 chapters, S/D is attacked from perhaps 10+ different angles, and she has done nothing but verify one of those arguments in my favour, while ignoring the multiplicity of other arguments in that source which corroborate my position and failing to understand the basics of another argument

is there even any point in engaging at this point? her entire position is completely debunked

>So he’s saying that the shape of the supply curve is dependent on the shape of the demand curve, not that the supply curve literally doesn’t exist

this has been my point all along. supply and demand are *interdependent* so you can't isolate one and say "well in a vacuum it does this" when in reality, if you alter one curve, you affect the other in a way that is hard to ascertain without extreme levels of empirical data, *which you almost never, ever have*. And if you alter one, which alters the other, which alters the original one again, which alters the other, you have a fucking feedback loop. But you're not even at that level, you just want to reason from first principles without even considering the reality of the situation, *so this doesn't even bother you*. Thus the idea of an independent supply curve is one that *does not exist in reality*