On Nov 1, 4:12 am, Robert Vienneau
notthis.dreamscape.com>
wrote:> On 10/31/2007 21:28:01 Lysander
comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Economists do seriously look at income
>> distribution but try to stay away from normative statements.
>
> False.
>
> Most mainstream economists make no effort to keep up on the
> philosophy, methodology, or sociology of science. If they
> did, they would know how naive the following distinction
> would sound to many:
>
>> We try to
>> discuss what is whether than what should be.
>
> --
> Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or virtue,
> are found in proportion to the power or wealth of a man is
> a question fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the
> hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming to
> reasonable and free men in search of the truth.
> -- Jean Jacques Rousseau
Note Rob styles himself to be a self taught economist and an
independent researcher.
>Most mainstream economists make no effort to keep up on the
> philosophy, methodology, or sociology of science.
Rob has no clue here because he doesn't do much mainstream reading.
Translation is most economist have no interest in what Rob tries to
do. Rob didn't realize that mainstream economics can not predict if
employment will rise or fall in the long run after wages rises so he
tried to claim a model where capital allocation was a choice variable
was short run after the mainstream result was pointed out to him. When
the paper was published the abstract said nothing about overturning
the result just that labor demand could predict employment or another
method but they both couldn't be used in conjuction. Rob has a tough
time admitting he is wrong which is often.
Here is the abstract
On Labour Demand and Equilibria of the Firm
ROBERT L. VIENNEAU
Independent
Manchester School, Vol. 73, No. 5, pp. 612-619, September 2005
Abstract:
This note considers a linear programming formulation of the problem of
the firm. A neoclassical non-increasing labour demand function is
derived from the solution of the linear program. Only a set of measure
zero on this function, one or two points in the examples examined,
provides equilibria of the representative firm. Equilibria of the
representative firm are characterized by decisions of its managers
that allow the same decisions to be made in successive periods. Hence,
one can explain the quantity of labour that firms desire to hire
either by a traditional neoclassical labour demand function or by
equilibria of the firm, but generally not both.
Rob claims he shows the long run mainstream idea of substitution
between capital and labor to be false in this paper yet, he clearly
says "Hence, one can explain the quantity of labour that firms desire
to hire either by a traditional neoclassical labour demand function or
by equilibria of the firm, but generally not both."
So Rob if you prove the traditional neoclassical labor demand function
wrong why do you conclude that it can be used to determine who many
people a firm will want to hire?
Rob is a liar.
