-
Why would it be ok to own, say a chimp, but not own a human? What are your own opinions on the subject?
-
I think that, while this would have a different sort of affect, that in the end you'd probably have similar results. Why so? I'm also sure that you could do a lot of interesting things with expectations here too. I think you're probably right. So many variables, so many possibilities; it is for this reason I think computer simulation might
-
double post.
-
Austrians don't simply use "ceteris paribus clauses" - the analysis of the economy as a whole is performed with the aid of the Evenly Rotating-Economy concept. This is a kind of ceteris paribus, but it is much more elaborate than a simple "ceteris paribus" in that it permits us to circumscribe the generality of the conclusions
-
I'm not sure that the "what if the MW was £10 billion and hour?" argument works, tbh. Works for what ?? What exactly is the "it" here?? What are you, EmbraceLiberty et. al. trying to prove? What exactly is your claim? Works to prove that unemployment is an inevitable result of the implementation of a MW. The claim is that
-
However, this does not demean the fact that any significant increase (I'll arbitarily call it a 50 cent increase or more) will force have some combination of increased unemployment alongside increased prices. I'd certainly agree with this; or at least this would be the immediate response to such a change. Whether or not the situation in the
-
I'm not sure that the "what if the MW was £10 billion and hour?" argument works, tbh. Obviously, the aggregate outcome of an economy is a result of the micro-level behaviours of the various actors, and the behavioural responses that would accompany a giant increase in the MW would be different from the behavioural responses that
-
Think of it this way. Leisure is a good that has to be bought with money. If you're on a low income you can't afford to buy as much.
-
This kind of proves my point though. For labour supply curves to slope upwards [in a given area] it requires that people have an alternate means of supporting themselves other than via work [in that given area]. With my clarification, sure. So now you're assuming people can simply get a higher paid job elsewhere if they wish? Nonsense. From the
-
Exactly, they don't have to (always) work to survive. They get government assistance. If they get laid off, they get unemployment insurance. They get food subsidies etc etc. If their wages drop, they usually qualify for even more free stuff (in the present world we live in). You can't say that this category of people will work more when they