Originally posted by PalynkaLMFAO! You claimed my example wasn't Pareto Efficient when it clearly is. Obviously the one who needs to learn about the concept is YOU. Now go back to school before running your mouth about things you'd don't know the basics about.
Go read about libertarianism, the welfare theorems, the Coase theorem, etc. Pareto efficiency is a fundamental concept in libertarianism (hence one of Amartya Sen's criticisms of libertarianism went into attacking the idea that libertarianism leads to Pareto efficiency).
I'm sorry you decided to be a child about it and rave about it being an unimportant c ...[text shortened]... ou to get it, you're too much of a moron to stop two seconds to think about what others say.
Originally posted by no1marauderOh dear. Repeating yourself?
LMFAO! You claimed my example wasn't Pareto Efficient when it clearly is. Obviously the one who needs to learn about the concept is YOU. Now go back to school before running your mouth about things you'd don't know the basics about.
That wouldn't be Pareto Efficient because all other individuals can work, therefore the individual with all the donuts would have an interest in exchanging his donuts for some work from the other individuals.
Got it now? You're making a fool of yourself for both:
- Defending your doughnut example.
- Denying the importance of Pareto optimality in measuring efficiency.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat part of the word "equilibrium" don't you understand? You would have actually come across that word if you had ever actually read any economics literature. Do try reading some.
Oh dear. Repeating yourself?
That wouldn't be Pareto Efficient because all other individuals can work, therefore the individual with all the donuts would have an interest in exchanging his donuts for some work from the other individuals.
Got it now? You're making a fool of yourself for both:
- Defending your doughnut example.
- Denying the importance of Pareto optimality in measuring efficiency.
Originally posted by no1marauderRead my last posts. I've addressed your points.
I do make spelling mistakes and when I do, I correct them. I don't do what you do: make a mistake using a term and when I do insist that others who use the term correctly "don't know crap".
Read your last posts. You've addressed none of my points at all.
It's not my fault you're wrong here and just playing the "I know but you don't" card without actually saying anything.
Originally posted by PalynkaHow am I wrong? Is the equilibrium situation I gave at Pareto Efficiency, Yes or No?
Read my last posts. I've addressed your points.
Read your last posts. You've addressed none of my points at all.
It's not my fault you're wrong here and just playing the "I know but you don't" card without actually saying anything.
You have no "points" to address. Basically you're throwing anything at the wall to evade the fact that you apparently don't know what Pareto Efficiency means. I'm sorry you're both stubborn and wilfully ignorant but that's really your problem, not mine.
Originally posted by no1marauderI already showed you why not. The doughnut individual would exchange donuts for work. Haven't you read it? I'm not surprised.
How am I wrong? Is the equilibrium situation I gave at Pareto Efficiency, Yes or No?
You have no "points" to address. Basically you're throwing anything at the wall to evade the fact that you apparently don't know what Pareto Efficiency means. I'm sorry you're both stubborn and wilfully ignorant but that's really your problem, not mine.
Originally posted by PalynkaThen you don't know what you're talking about. NO situation would EVER be Pareto Efficient using such "logic". Pareto Efficency supposes an equilibrium position, a fact you keep ignoring or can't understand. Please actually read an Economics text before spewing such nonsense.
I already showed you why not. The doughnut individual would exchange donuts for work. Haven't you read it? I'm not surprised.
Originally posted by no1marauderlol, that's why your example ISN'T Pareto efficient. Because it cannot be an equilibrium since there are exchanges that are profitable for both.
Then you don't know what you're talking about. NO situation would EVER be Pareto Efficient using such "logic". Pareto Efficency supposes an equilibrium position, a fact you keep ignoring or can't understand. Please actually read an Economics text before spewing such nonsense.
You've finally discovered the problem with your example. Congratulations.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou're an idiot. By that moronic definition there can NEVER EVER be any equilibriums at all! You've never actually taken a Economics course, have you? Since in the example the only resource is doughnuts, there is nothing the guy with all the doughnuts can profit by any exchanges. This is soooooooooooo basic that I'm flabbergasted you keep trying to say otherwise.
lol, that's why your example ISN'T Pareto efficient. Because it cannot be an equilibrium since there are exchanges that are profitable for both.
You've finally discovered the problem with your example. Congratulations.
When you're done making a complete fool out of yourself, let me know. Or you could try to find an Economics text or even an on-line Economics article that says the example I gave wouldn't be considered a Pareto Efficient one. Good luck; you'lll need it for such a quixotic search.
Originally posted by no1marauderLol, you read economics 101 and thought economics was finding the equilibrium in a market with one good and where nobody can work? That's not an economy to me, it's a fairy-tale.
You're an idiot. By that moronic definition there can NEVER EVER be any equilibriums at all! You've never actually taken a Economics course, have you? Since in the example the only resource is doughnuts, there is nothing the guy with all the doughnuts can profit by any exchanges. This is soooooooooooo basic that I'm flabbergasted you keep trying to say o ...[text shortened]... considered a Pareto Efficient one. Good luck; you'lll need it for such a quixotic search.
No wonder some people think economists are useless. There are some pseudo-intelligent people that think it can be something that stupid.
I'm sure your one of the person that thinks the law of supply and demand is automatically valid in general equilibrium. Am I right?
[queue hysterical reaction here from my favourite pet]
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaIf you don't know what a term means, you shouldn't use it. When somebody else uses the term in a correct manner, you shouldn't pretend that they don't know "crap about it" when they are right and you are wrong. I already said, in first post, that Pareto Efficiency is a worthless concept in the real world, but apparently you're tooooooooo stupid to understand that. If you don't understand the basic principles of economics, then maybe you should stop ridiculously playing like you're some kind of expert when you're just a loudmouth, simpleton jerk.
Lol, you read economics 101 and thought economics was finding the equilibrium in a market with one good and where nobody can work? That's not an economy to me, it's a fairy-tale.
No wonder some people think economists are useless. There are some pseudo-intelligent people that think it can be something that stupid.
I'm sure your one of the person that t ...[text shortened]... in general equilibrium. Am I right?
[queue hysterical reaction here from my favourite pet]