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?

@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.