Re: marginalism

["Barkley Rosser" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

      "The new approach to economics"???  Is
this something you cooked up or something you
picked up from reading the late Julian Simon?
Very simply, in the short run many resources are
limited.  It takes time to drill new oil wells or increase
output rates from old ones.  It takes time to dig new
coal mines or other mines.  So, marginalism is
certainly relevant in the short run.
     It becomes less so in the long run, although
even there, it is false that resources are "unlimited,"
although many that may be constrained in the short
run are not very constrained in the longer run.  Ironically
those that are really in the shortest supply are not the
non-renewable ones, but the so-called renewable ones.
Once you have driven a species to extinction it is gone
forever.  Unlike methane, we will not find it on Jupiter.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 10:56 AM
Subject: marginalism


> ***>Price is where marginal benefits + utility (aka
> market cost) = cost. (The whole point of marginalism
> and STV) Cost is another term for price.  So...price
> + utility = cost is circular logic.  Circular logic
> is impossible, therefore supply and demand is
> junk.<***
>
> Your argument is invalid not because marginalism is
> not invalid, but because you have falsely described
> marginalism.  Marginalism is invalid because it is
> premised on the false assumptions that resources are
> scarce and demand is unlimited, so the two must
> intersect.  Marginalism is perfectly logical premised
> on those assumptions.
>
> The new approach to economics is premised on the
> facts that resources are permanently abundant and the
> physical capacity to consume is permanently limited.
>
> Resources become abundant through continuing
> discovery, development and innovation.
>
> And it is physically possible to consume only so much
> per unit time.  The limit to consumption is the point
> of satiation.
>
> --
>
> "smithaa02" <sadf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >"Capitalist Pig" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> >news:lnfipvksijllub6jk84ucisvlb8anmdj92@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:32:23 -0500, "smithaa02" <sadf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I've debunked marginalism, STV, and supply and demand all
> >> >in one.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Wow, I'm impressed!
> >
> >You should be...
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Price + utility can't equal price for that is circular logic.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I wouldn't call it circular logic, I would call it a mistake. I have
> >> no idea how you could come up with such silly definition.
> >Price is where marginal benefits + utility (aka market cost) = cost. (The
> >whole point of marginalism and STV) Cost is another term for price.
So...
> >price + utility = cost is circular logic.  Circular logic is impossible,
> >therefore supply and demand is junk.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Enter for a chance to win one year's supply of allergy relief!
>
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;6413623;3807821;f?http://mocda3.com/1/c/563632
/125699/307982/307982
> This offer applies to U.S. Residents Only
>