A debate with LK

Here is a debate I had with LK. On this post: http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-is-vulgar-internet-austrianism.html

ME:

LK,

Please help me understand where you are coming from.

To say the market clearing price (MCP) exists does not exclude the likely possibility that the current prices are not at MCP. The difference between the MCP and the current prices causes a market force to act upon the current prices pushing them toward MCP. Only at the instantaneous moments where the current prices and MPC cross do are the forces of supply and demand balanced. Since both current prices and MCP are constantly dynamic, the times at which these cross is instantaneous, occurring for at a non extended time point.

Therefore, there is always a difference between MCP and current prices, and there is always a force acting upon current prices toward MCP. So when you say:

“If… “market-clearing prices” in this sense existed… then there could not have been any excess demand or excess supply of goods in markets”

I don’t understand how MCP ever did not exist. Of course MCP always existed, and the difference between current prices and MCP is caused by excess demand or supply. Surpluses and shortages can only exist if MCP exists.

LK:

“Since both current prices and MCP are constantly dynamic, the times at which these cross is instantaneous, occurring for at a non extended time point.”

One wonders what this gibberish even means — just as the rest of this comment.

Do you, as roddis, think that during a boom market clearing prices exist everywhere?

ME:

Do you not speak English? Was every word I wrote incomprehensible? Perhaps you can be more specific.

Imagine a graph where the y-axis is the difference in the MCP and the current price and the x-axis is time. There is never a point where this settles at y=0, because the current price and MCP are always changing (dynamic). Of course, it crosses at instantaneous points on the x-axis.

“a boom market clearing prices exist everywhere”

This implies a location in space. I assume this is not what you mean, but I have no idea since you seem to enjoy being cryptic. A boom is caused by an excess of demand or a shortage of supply, also causing prices to be pushed further from MCP. This increases the difference between MCP and current prices ceteris paribus.

I am not going to give in to your antagonism, because I am genuinely wondering why I am incorrect according to you.

LK:

(1) “There is never a point where this settles at y=0, because the current price and MCP are always changing (dynamic).”

No, this is just stupid. You are saying a market clearing price can ever be attained at any time ever. And yet some flexprice markets do clear for brief periods. This is enough to damn for rubbish here.

There is no theoretical or empirical reason to think that, if a demand curve for some product is well behaved, that the hypothetical market clearing price is literally constantly changing.

Sometimes there will be such a price and it will be stable for some period of time, however brief.

Think of markets for fresh seafood or vegetables where merchants/sellers may well need to clear their stock to prevent spoilage.

(2) I asked you a plain question: do you, as roddis, think that during a boom all or most prices are market clearing prices? (this was what I meant)

Anyone who understands economics can clearly answer this question with a decisive “no”.

That you refuse to answer simply shows us that you here to be an idiot, halfwit troll.

ME:

If this is in fact what Roddis means, then I agree with you. You should calm down.

(1) “You are saying a market clearing price can ever be attained at any time ever.”

This is not what I am saying, LK. I indeed think that the graph I illustrated does cross y=0. I just assumed it never SETTLED at y=0 for any extended period of time.

Perhaps this assumption is incorrect. I admit and agree that I have no argument to say its IMPOSSIBLE for “such a price… [to be] stable for some period of time.” Therefore, I have no reason to deny this possibility.

(2) How did I not answer this question?

“A boom is caused by an excess of demand or a shortage of supply, also causing prices to be pushed further from MCP. This increases the difference between MCP and current prices ceteris paribus.”

Notice how I said the difference is increased. Therefore, are you going to revoke your name calling?

LK:

Correction:

“You are saying a market clearing price can never be attained at any time ever. ”

That is the plain import of your words above. If you are saying now you do not think this, it just reinforces how incoherent your comments are.

ME:

I may admit I could have been more clear, but I didn’t say that. I said:

“There is never a point where this settles at y=0.”

I also said:

“Of course, it crosses at instantaneous points on the x-axis.”

Whenever this graph crosses the x-axis, AKA y=0, the market clearing price is attained. So therefore, “the plain import of [my] words” is clear to me. I am sorry if its not clear to you.

I was assuming that it didn’t SETTLE at y=0, or anywhere. Settlement implies more than just attainment I hope you can see. However, I admitted to you that I have no reason (on hand at least) to say its impossible, so I merely conceded your point. I have no problem doing this because I am not “vulgar.”

You attack vulgar Austrians, but when I concede a point, you attack me. My purpose was only to learn your point of view. I don’t really see any disagreement I have with anything you have said. I can only guess that you have been nitpicking at me because you are venting.

LK:

If y = 0 at some point, then it must do so for some length of actual real time.

But you say:

“Since both current prices and MCP are constantly dynamic, the times at which these cross is instantaneous, occurring for at a non extended time point.”

The notion of a “non extended time point” is bizarre, incoherent and stupid — all real time events perceptible to humans must be extended in time.

And as I said, there is reason to think that some markets — even if local ones — might very well attain equilibrium for some short but extended period of time.

ME:

LK, points are by definition non extended. If a the line of the graph crosses the line making y=0, this occurs at a single point according to Euclid. I was not attempting to transpose this in the context of the physical world. I guess the lowest amount of extension possible is a Plank length? I am not entirely sure. I don’t even understand what you are trying to argue.

A point is when two lines on the graph cross. All lines are made up of an infinite amount of points. These are common notions I think would waste much time “proving” them.

So when you say “If y = 0 at some point” and “it must do so for some length.” These, I hope you can see, are contradictions because a point by definition lacks any length.

Do points exist? I don’t know. My purpose was to express a common notion, not to debate philosophy. I guess this makes me “bizarre, incoherent and stupid?”

“all real time events perceptible to humans must be extended in time.”

I was not talking about an event. Indeed all events occur in time, why would I ever deny this? I was talking about change. Change is mathematically expressed as a derivative involving the concept of an infinitesimally small point.

All in all I was talking about a mathematical concept, which you hold does not necessarily apply to the real world. Is this what you want to talk about?

Also, I conceded the point, yet you still feel impelled to argue with a person has conceded your point. I don’t see the point in talking about points.

LK:

“I was not attempting to transpose this in the context of the physical world. …All in all I was talking about a mathematical concept, which you hold does not necessarily apply to the real world.”

This says it all.

My original points about market clearing are concerned **with the real world** — even roddis’ idiot comments also refer to the real world.

If we are not talking of the real world, then we are not having a serious argument about real world economics.

This debate is over.

END

He then proceeded to block my comments I think. I think this is the most revealing argument I have ever had. Why would someone want to bring up an argument about points and lines? Because they have no argument. Here is the reply that won’t get posted:

Does that mean you are blocking me? I would like to get a few things straight since you apparently never give me any benefit of doubt. You are making this up I never said.

When a person uses math, do you automatically come to the conclusion they cannot be talking about the real world?

Mathematics can express concepts which are abstractions of real things having physical existence.

I was saying the mathematics BY ITSELF does not apply to the real world, because mathematics by itself does not express anything unless we attribute the qualities to physical objects.

By “instantaneous” I can mean “approximately instantaneous” if this suits you, or perhaps “a very very short amount of time” if this suit you.

When I said “non extended time point” I was strictly referring to the graph. Anything in reality is probabilistic according to the philosophy you subscribe too, so literally everything must contain the implied caveat of approximate probability.

END

The last point actually cuts the core of his philosophical system. There is something fundamentally wrong when someone subscribes to the idea that the law of non-contradiction is probabilistic. Notice he skimmed over his blatant contradiction. There ya have it folks.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s