>moves the goalpost again

Oh boy

Its funny because I know that anyone with a brain can tell you're embarrassing yourself at this moment

You cant answer simple questions, and when you cant answer them, you resort to moving the goal post

You must be the only one with a brain then which is ironic because all you’ve done is show you don’t know the theory

^

Again, quote me where marx defined the equilibrium

I thought you knew the theory?

I know the theory and based on my knowledge hes never stated it

And you're saying he has stated it

So IM asking for evidence

If you read harry potter and I said that genocide of minorities is advocated in one of the books, you'd ask me for evidence, that doesn't mean you haven't read harry potter, it just means that based on your knowledge and memory, the book doesn't advocate it

Same applies here

Quote me where marx defined the equilibrium of supply and demand

You can't. Because you made a bs claim, and are going to move the goal post again i assume

I don’t get it. You’ve read Marx but you don’t know that he talks about it?

I never said he doesn't talk about it.. I said that from my memory, he never provides a definition in terms of which units he's talking about when speaking of the equilibrium, is it service/products and currency respectively? Which units

Now stop moving the goal post and answer the question I've been asking for the past 40 minutes, when you say equilibirum is when supply and demand are equal, which units are you referring to

Just to be clear. Your claim is that you have read Marx?

Yes

Ok, but you don’t know the theory?

Yes that's definitely what I had said. Me negating that marx provided a unitary definition of the equilibrium within his works because from my memory, I don't recall anything of the sort, is definitely me not knowing the theory

You're embarrassing yourself at this point

Well you seem to be saying “I don’t know what is meant by x in the theory”

If you know the theory, you are free to explain it here. If you think my question is answered on the theory, you can simply answer it here, assuming there is an answer

And if you cannot answer it, the only rational presumption i can make is that there is no answer

I don’t see how that answers my question

You didn't propose a question, you made a statement, to which I made a statement myself

No the question was about you not knowing the theory

Then I offered some considerations that support you not knowing the theory

Again this is just ludicrous. You cant answer basic questions, when i ask you to quote marx where he addresses my question, you resort to saying "oh well then you havent read him"
If he HAS addressed what I'm asking, QUOTE HIM. I know he hasn't because I've read him and he never defines the term unitarily

Even if your goal here is to "destroy me", and you're right, you can literally quote marx where he defines it. It would demonstrate I haven't read him, instead of doing this rhetorical game

But you cannot, why? Because He has never provided a definition unitarily

It’s not a rhetorical game I’m just trying to understand why you’d claim you knew the theory if you didn’t?

So ill have to restate myself, cool

"If you read harry potter and I said that genocide of minorities is advocated in one of the books, you'd ask me for evidence, that doesn't mean you haven't read harry potter, it just means that based on your knowledge and memory, the book doesn't advocate it"

You don’t seem to know anything about the theory though

LOOL moves the goal post again, yikes dude

Why lie?

I don’t get it

Oh I lied? You know i made a false statement? Quote marx where he says what I said he doesn't say