> On Jun 5, 2:00 pm, "Mike Schilling" hotmail.com>
>> "Shawn Wilson" gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> On Jun 5, 10:11 am, "Mike Schilling" hotmail.com>
>>>>>> A demand curve has to be derived from information on the
>>>>>> commodity, retardo. You know what information is -- it's that
>>>>>> stuff that you don't have any of.
>>>>> You have ALL the information necessary in my little problem. You
>>>>> don't need anything more. Well, YOU need rather a lot more,
>>>>> with intelligence and an education, but actual economists don't.
>>>> Shawn, what is it exactly that entitles you to patronize people who
>>>> better educated, smarter, and more successful than you are?
>>> Nothing, which is why I only patronize people like you.
>> Explain why Giffen goods act that way.
> There are no substitutes, so right away you're seeing where this is
> going to be unrealistic, since the monopoly rents required for this to
> work imply substitutes, and its hard to separate the coercion required
> to maintain price floors required to raise the price of your most
> inferior good so as to show giffen behavior from more direct coercion,
> which wouldn't be giffen behavior at all.
>> Use terms like "income effect".
> Changes in purchasing power mean changes in purchasing habits. As
> your income declines, you'd substitute luxury goods with normal goods
> and normal goods with inferior goods. You'd go from shopping at Whole
> Foods to shopping at Walmart and from shopping at Walmart to shopping
> at a dollar store, as economic theory predicts and as we see in real
> life. You don't see real giffen goods in real life because there's
> almost always some kind of substitute, and if you don't think of a
> given good as a substitute, well, that just means you've never been
> that poor.
Talking around the problem rather than answering it. C+.
>> prove that there are more real numbers than rational ones.
> Let's say I have a hotel where all the rational numbers are staying
> in rooms with their names on the door, and then the real numbers show
> up demanding accomodation.
That's a start. You get maybe 20%% credit.
>> Last, explain
>> why the halting problem is insoluble.
> Any axiomatic system robust enough to refer to itself can also be
> used to generate paradox or indeterminable statements. Now, show us
> some interesting existential implications of all that, Kurt.
Nope, it's much simpler than that. In fact, the proof is very similar to
the proof you didn't get in problem 1.
> It's easy to patronize you, Mike...you make statements without really
> understanding them, and them bluster and blather when asked to explain
> what any of that means.
Talk about projection.