Re: The economic whole equals the sum of its parts.

["John O'Donnell" <jackodonnell@xxxxxxx>]

John Vertegaal wrote:
>
> John O'Donnell wrote in response:
>
> >>The macro economy is not as simple as you make it out to be.
>
> >No, it is not a simple as you ASSUME I make it out to be,
> >not "not as simple as I make it out to be."
>
> Don't agree, see below
>
> >>It is a dynamic circular flow system that moreover is complex,
> >>because of overlapping horizontally flowing components (profits).
> >>And at no time can it be represented by a single equation as the
> >>sum of its parts, because complexity results in the values of all
> >>those parts not being determinate at the same time.
>
> >Not "at no time" but only at very limited times, such as the
> >simple statement that the whole consists of the sum of all
> >its parts.
>
> Determinate quantities are a sine qua non for doing a meaningful
> summation.  Your approach is simplistic, as in truly not getting it
> why you cannot jump to macro conclusions from your micro reasoning,
> and/or sophistic.

You're arguing against your own straw man of your liking,
not challenging my argument. See
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

> >>If you try to build a system integrally, from what are
> >>essentially "elastic" components, then the outcome is either
> >>meaningless or contradictory EVERY TIME.
>
> >Not "EVERY TIME" but perhaps MOST times and in any case that
> >is NOT what I have done. I have demonstrated that a few
> >particular macro policies affect micro decision making and
> >that those affected decisions will lead to beneficial macro
> >outcomes.
>
> When you reason about the benefit of taxing capital instead of
> taxing remuneration at the micro level, you have to assume
> determinate capital values. It's the path you have chosen to take,
> and there is no way around that.  As far as I've gathered from your
> numerous posts - taxing capital means higher output, lower prices
> and thus greater demand.  And I'm simply not interested in such a
> bootstrap approach.

Not "determinate" values, only necessary typical values for
illustrative purposes.

If you truly doubt that changing the distribution of the
total cost of production by reducing the "variable" portion
and raising the "fixed" portion at the point of maximum
profit then demonstrate that. Otherwise I can only assume
your beliefs have created a dissonance for you and you
simply are incapable or unwilling to face the truth.

> >>You presuppose microeconomic values before they are
> >>systematically ascertained,
>
> >Where? be specific.
>
> See above

I looked and still haven't seen anything specific.

> >>and your model asserts that by manipulating micro
> >>supply-side components, macroeconomic demand can be determined.
>
> >Not "determined", AFFECTED.
>
> Your approach is entirely deterministic and supply-side to boot, by
> assuming causality where there isn't any.

There's that straw man again.

> >>As a deduced conclusion this is fallacious, because there is no
> >>way to independently determine the value of microeconomic
> >>components in terms of the systematic outcome.
>
> >True, but the outcome based on a set of assumptions does
> >determine the direction of the impetus for change and use of
> >a particular set of assumptions only provides the vehicle to
> >demonstrate that impetus.
>
> Your set of assumptions is too profuse for me to even become the
> slightest bit interested.

Profuse? Try attacking the two significant ones reached as
conclusions from the demonstrations --

(1) Changing the distribution of total costs of production
to decrease the "variable" portion and increase the "fixed"
portion at the point of maximum profit will impel producers
to lower prices to increase production and profits.

(2) Increasing the purchasing power of consumers will
increase demand.

Any others are trivial compared to these two.

<<SNIP>>

--
			-- jbod

		Tax Privilege, Not People
___________________________________________________
Come visit and see a new economic perspective --
       http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1067
           Comments/arguments welcome.
.