tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post9013829278910199038..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Pronoun MadnessUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-83147171817150315152017-06-03T10:05:05.205-04:002017-06-03T10:05:05.205-04:00When's the last time you got laid, Petey ?When's the last time you got laid, Petey ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-19019487308190306332017-06-03T09:43:26.152-04:002017-06-03T09:43:26.152-04:00Yeah but,
what word are you going to use? Does he...Yeah but,<br /> what word are you going to use? Does he/she/it become shit?=)reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-71311625043148028182017-06-02T20:17:05.397-04:002017-06-02T20:17:05.397-04:00I often felt that way, Barkley.I often felt that way, Barkley.john c. halaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17176419625607679150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-41979266989186314422017-06-02T13:46:59.341-04:002017-06-02T13:46:59.341-04:00LOL, Egmont, just LOL.LOL, Egmont, just LOL.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-52329846150585139202017-06-02T05:43:09.592-04:002017-06-02T05:43:09.592-04:00Barkley Rosser
You say: “So, the problem is not p...Barkley Rosser<br /><br />You say: “So, the problem is not profit theory and the failure to distinguish retained profits from distributed ones, it is capital theory and the failure to distinguish unrealized capital gains and realized ones.”<br /><br />In fact, it is BOTH. Profit theory, as it is taught since 200+ years, fails to axiomatically distinguish between (i) monetary profit and distributed profit and (ii) monetary and nonmonetary profit. Issue (ii) has been dealt with elsewhere.* Your wow-yippee argument proves that you are ill-informed.<br /><br />Capital is NOT in the axiom set of the pure consumption economy which explicitly defines the MINIMUM set. Capital has to be DERIVED from the minimum set and comes logically in a later step. Capital has been dealt with elsewhere.* You are simply ill-informed.<br /><br />You say: “Oh, and make that second axiom be about output equals per capital output times population. That is even more general, and thus more scientific than your second axiom.”<br /><br />The relationship between total labor input L and population is given with this formula<br />https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AXEC93.png<br /><br />The differentiated individual labor time Li is formally split into the norm time U, e.g. 8 hours per day times working days per period, and an individual factor l1, l2 … li … ln, such that Li=Uli. A value of li=0 means that the person is not in the labor force, li=1 means that the i-th worker works full-time, li=0.5 means half-time, and li greater1 means overtime. This gives the relationship between total labor input L in the axioms and total population n. The issue has been dealt with elsewhere.* You are simply ill-informed.<br /><br />In sum: Nice try to filibuster away the fact that economists do NOT know until this day what profit is and that Econ 101 is axiomatically false and beyond repair.** Filibuster, though, does not help: “What is now taught as standard economic theory will eventually disappear, no trace of it will remain in the universities or boardrooms because it simply doesn’t work: were it engineering, the bridge would collapse.” (McCauley)<br /><br />Whatever it is that Peter Dorman (he/him), Sandwichman and you are doing on this blog, it is NOT economics and it is NOT science.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />* See blog<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.de/<br />or working papers<br />https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1210665<br /><br />** For details see ‘The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids’<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/11/the-father-of-modern-economics-and-his.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-7265099447472121542017-06-02T01:42:35.487-04:002017-06-02T01:42:35.487-04:00Given the situation, maybe it would be easier to u...Given the situation, maybe it would be easier to use "this person" rather than he or she. And you could use it for all of your students and maybe they will think you are just a little eccentric like most professors.Jerry Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-83183397626620248052017-06-01T21:11:34.077-04:002017-06-01T21:11:34.077-04:00Wow, yippee, Egmont, you turning up lets me post o...Wow, yippee, Egmont, you turning up lets me post on economics and provide an even better universal theory better than even yours! So, the problem is not profit theory and the failure to distinguish retained profits from distributed ones, it is capital theory and the failure to distinguish unrealized capital gains and realized ones. So, you need to replace the second term in your first Axiom with NG where N is the number of capital sales and G is the average realized net capital gain. You can keep all your denunciations of all previous schools of economic thought and even be more scientific than you already are.<br /><br />Oh, and make that second axiom be about output equals per capital output times population. That is even more general, and thus more scientific than your second axiom. So, see, I can be more scientific than you in helping you improve your wonderful theory.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-69413443400968309182017-06-01T06:31:49.937-04:002017-06-01T06:31:49.937-04:00Peter Dorman (he/him)
Whatever this is, it is NOT...Peter Dorman (he/him)<br /><br />Whatever this is, it is NOT economics.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-67929020699563375872017-06-01T01:17:08.760-04:002017-06-01T01:17:08.760-04:00Needless ambiguity, leading to confusion, is creat...Needless ambiguity, leading to confusion, is created when the same pronoun is used for singular and plural reference. Formerly English had "thou, thee, thine" as singular and "you, ye, your" as plurual. Now that the singular has been discarded, and the plural has been made to do double duty, "you" can be unclear about whom "you" refers to in some contexts--you as an indvidual, you as a group?--unless you speak a Southern dialect in which the plural is "you all", or an Indiana dialect in which the plural is "you uns"; both of these solutions lack felicity.<br /><br />For the same reasons, I am not happy with the proposal to make "they" and "them" do double duty as singular and plural. The fact that it is being done already doesn't make it a good idea. <br /><br />Les Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09135351117302579525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-88078445886379747112017-06-01T00:47:34.891-04:002017-06-01T00:47:34.891-04:00The most widely spoken language on Earth, Chinese,...The most widely spoken language on Earth, Chinese, handles the matter this way.<br /><br />Ta = the singular personal pronoun, which refers to male persons and female persons without distinction. Chinese does not have nominative or objective case. "Ta" would therefore be the Chinese rendering for English pronouns "he", "him", "she" and "her", when "her" is used in the objective case, but not when "her" is possessive.<br /><br />Chinese forms the plural by adding the particle "men" to the noun or pronoun in questions. Therefore, English "they" and "them", when used in reference to plural persons, would be rendered in Chinese as "tamen."<br /><br />Chinese forms the possessive by adding the particle "de" to the noun or pronoun in question. Therefore, English "his," "hers", and "her", when "her" is possessive, would all be rendered in Chinese as "tade"; English "their" and "theirs" would be rendered as "tamende".Les Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09135351117302579525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-10865162139607001322017-05-31T17:48:54.895-04:002017-05-31T17:48:54.895-04:00Change the language? Use the language we have. Eng...Change the language? Use the language we have. English adopted the singular usage of the plural form, "you", long ago. And we already use the plural form, "they", as singular, informally. Just say, "they". :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-78709544186091560122017-05-31T16:26:56.803-04:002017-05-31T16:26:56.803-04:00Everybody knows that you are an "it," Jo...Everybody knows that you are an "it," John, :-).rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-24594649296374054322017-05-31T15:07:34.645-04:002017-05-31T15:07:34.645-04:00My father was Hungarian and in Hungarian there is ...My father was Hungarian and in Hungarian there is no distinction between he, she and it, so I grew up considerably confused, never quite sure which one I was.john c. halaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17176419625607679150noreply@blogger.com