How noble of you to put the quest for the eradication of misinformation above your own health.

its also just an addiction to conflict

who knew adrenaline could be addictive lmao

<:yus:538083968881524747>

<:political_thinking:583244726040264704> Im bored lol

that germany pinned message is gold

if only we had a betting mechanism in this discord

It was a mistake @Green Syndicalism

A mistake I tell you

its not you is it?

leroy sinclair?

Reeeeeeeewwe

@Green Syndicalism you have yet to address my points.

So one more time, and please try to remain civil and rational

@Green Syndicalism So here’s my challenge to you- without getting upset or calling me names, what situation in the market would cause a supply curve not to have a positive curve?

So far you haven’t provided anything that would debunk s/d curves. Yes, I have tried to remain civil, and you have made that difficult. I mean this as no ad hominem- you seem not to understand some fundamental things about what supply and demand curves represent. You’ve presented 2 actual sources so far, one of which is an individual labor curve that doesn’t apply, because it’s possible the hire more people. The other is a set of production curves for individual firms, that aggregate to a positive sloping supply curve.

I honestly do not know whether you are a. Willfully obstinate out of pride
b. Don’t understand the basics, or
c. Are just trolling

Please answer my question. It is a reasonable question, and one that is core to your attacks on economic orthodoxy. If you can’t answer it, you may have to re-examine your theory, even if your pride won’t let you.

Lmao

Damn it got real quiet in this chat

We are waiting for our economist @Green Syndicalism to come respond

To those not in the know, @Platinum Spark seems to know some stuff...but so does Green...so we need to wait and see

@Dr.Cosby Indeed

this is so ironic

"no ad homs, im being fully serious"

*this is an ad hom*

i have also provided you with 3 full chapters worth of an economist completely tearing apart S/D models from every single aspect of their construction

the fact you completely ignored *that particular source* shows your unwillingness to actually examine your own position, preferring to resort to shallow readings and compartmentalisations of the problem

Not only that, but my other source shows *empirically* that supply curves will not shape upwards most of the time

Given the absolute deadlock in discussion, and your inability to see how the entirety of my essaying attacks S/D from a multiplicity of different angles, for you to focus on a particular aspect of the supply curve, *for which i have already provided evidence on how it is the case*, is tantamount to how little standing you have, not only on this point, but on every other one brought up, *i will refer you once again to chapters 3-5 of this book so that you can re-learn, not only the basics, but the reasons why those basics are extremely flawed*, and i shall re-state that until you do so, you are conversing in bad faith, refusing to be privy to the foundational elements of the other side of the argument.

For anyone interested in why I haven't answered her particular question, *its because i've done it multiple times* in other debates already and its clear she has nothing else to do except *pretend that i havent answered it*

a) labour supply curve
b) empirical evidence from the firms themselves
c) supply curves dont even exist

if you want to understand these 3 points, read chapters 3-5 of that pdf

its lengthy and uses long-winded technical arguments, so i should expect an actual "economist" to enjoy it, but given sophiesticated has already refused to do this on my previous request, is there any hope that she'll actually put in the leg work this time?

<:epic:583660735402475563>

It is not an ad hominem. That is an honest assessment of your argument.

You have not provided a source that answers my question. Why are you unable to answer it?

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?