Johnny Coli Posted November 16, 2006 Author Share Posted November 16, 2006 I am hoping the undergrads don't catch on or they will be driving the pickup down to the corner to let term paper writers jump in the back. 839047[/snapback] I'm pretty sure some of the undergrad papers I used to grade were written by someone with a pretty flimsy handle on the english language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 It's a real problem. I had to go to Home Depot over lunch; had to fight my way in through the crowds of illegals hanging around out front frantically reviewing Pelosi's speech today... 839056[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Not just that. He's also saying that total productivity is calculated by P = LKT. If you hold capital K and technology T constant, then personal productivity decreases...except that personal productivity is calculated by dividing your total productivity by your labor pool - P/L. From which we then find that personal productivity is determined simply by KT - which is defined as a constant, not declining, according to the equation he says shows it declines. Genius can't even do simple algebra. 839032[/snapback] Since I was unsuccessful in my attempt to explain basic statistical fact to you, I don't know how I'll be when it comes to economics. But I'll give it a try. The P in the equation refers to total national productivity. If you increase L, while holding K and T constant, the P will obviously go up in an absolute sense. But the amount of P available per person will decline, because the somewhat higher level of production is being spread among a much greater number of people. Consider a factory. With 100 people, it can produce 100 units. With 200 people, it can produce 150 units. So by adding people, you're increasing the overall production level, and the wealth of the factory owner. But wages have to come down, because each individual person is now producing less than before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Peer reviewed liberal propaganda, no less. I had no idea your party's propaganda arm was so well organized. When'd the Democrats start doing peer review? 839035[/snapback] I'm sorry, I didn't realize every peer-reviewed study ever published was automatically exempt from bias. I'm sure political forces have no influence at all on peer-reviewed journals. The researchers aren't the slightest bit concerned about where their next funding source is coming from. Even if they were, nobody who funds anything has the slightest interest in promoting massive immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Since I was unsuccessful in my attempt to explain basic statistical fact to you, I don't know how I'll be when it comes to economics. But I'll give it a try. Fantasy. Not fact. Fantasy. There is not one single mathematical source in the world that supports your drivel. Not one. Period. For the simple reason that "luck" is not a mathematical concept. The P in the equation refers to total national productivity. If you increase L, while holding K and T constant, the P will obviously go up in an absolute sense. But the amount of P available per person will decline, because the somewhat higher level of production is being spread among a much greater number of people. Consider a factory. With 100 people, it can produce 100 units. With 200 people, it can produce 150 units. So by adding people, you're increasing the overall production level, and the wealth of the factory owner. But wages have to come down, because each individual person is now producing less than before. 839096[/snapback] Except that the number of people it's spread among is...L. Therefore P/L is, by your equation, KT...which you defined as constant. And your factor example doesn't fit the equation. So either your example's wrong, or your equation's wrong. Either way, you're a complete ass - again - because you're trying to use a nonlinear relation (your example) to prove a strictly linear one (your equation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 So either your example's wrong, or your equation's wrong. Either way, you're a complete ass - again - because you're trying to use a nonlinear relation (your example) to prove a strictly linear one (your equation). 839130[/snapback] Neither example is wrong. You're just failing to understand a concept most entry-level economics students find quite simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 So either your example's wrong, or your equation's wrong. Either way, you're a complete ass - again - because you're trying to use a nonlinear relation (your example) to prove a strictly linear one (your equation). 839130[/snapback] No, the math is wrong, he's right. Output increases with supply of cheap labor only if they carry more productive machinery with them over the border. Hey genius, ever think of calculating the model to see what happens to L when the K is not a constant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 No, the math is wrong, he's right. Output increases with supply of cheap labor only if they carry more productive machinery with them over the border. Hey genius, ever think of calculating the model to see what happens to L when the K is not a constant? 839178[/snapback] Everything you know about math could be written on the back of a 3' x 5' card--using an unsharpened pencil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Everything you know about math could be written on the back of a 3' x 5' card--using an unsharpened pencil. 839182[/snapback] He stupidly says to a CFO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 He stupidly says to a CFO. 839188[/snapback] I guess in a world where someone of W's intelligence gets to be president of the U.S, someone of GG's intelligence gets to be CFO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Neither example is wrong. You're just failing to understand a concept most entry-level economics students find quite simple. 839168[/snapback] They can't both be right. I just demonstrated they can't both be right. It's very easy. P = LKT. K and T are constant. You divide both sides by L to get P/L = KT. P/L is your personal productivity. KT is a constant. If L increases, by your own mathematical definition it has no effect on personal productivity, because by your own mathematical definition you've defined personal productivity to be A CONSTANT. You can't define something to be a constant, and they say your definition causes it to vary... Conversely, if you take your example and plug them into the equation: 100 workers make 100 widgets; taking 'widgets' as an arbitrary unit of measure for P, that's 100 = 100KT, where KT is a constant - specifically, it's a constant equal to 1 widget per laborer. Now if you increase L to 200, you're saying that P only increases to 150...so 150 = 200KT, and KT is now 0.75 widgets/laborer. But you already said that KT is a constant, so how can it change??? Your example and your math do not match. One of them is wrong. But that's not my point. My real point is: you have got to be the dumbest !@#$ing spud on face of the planet if you can't see that the example and the math do not match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 They can't both be right. I just demonstrated they can't both be right. It's very easy. P = LKT. K and T are constant. You divide both sides by L to get P/L = KT. P/L is your personal productivity. KT is a constant. If L increases, by your own mathematical definition it has no effect on personal productivity, because by your own mathematical definition you've defined personal productivity to be A CONSTANT. You can't define something to be a constant, and they say your definition causes it to vary... Conversely, if you take your example and plug them into the equation: 100 workers make 100 widgets; taking 'widgets' as an arbitrary unit of measure for P, that's 100 = 100KT, where KT is a constant - specifically, it's a constant equal to 1 widget per laborer. Now if you increase L to 200, you're saying that P only increases to 150...so 150 = 200KT, and KT is now 0.75 widgets/laborer. But you already said that KT is a constant, so how can it change??? Your example and your math do not match. One of them is wrong. But that's not my point. My real point is: you have got to be the dumbest !@#$ing spud on face of the planet if you can't see that the example and the math do not match. 839206[/snapback] I think I am going to print this on a 3"X 5" card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 They can't both be right. I just demonstrated they can't both be right. It's very easy. P = LKT. K and T are constant. You divide both sides by L to get P/L = KT. P/L is your personal productivity. KT is a constant. If L increases, by your own mathematical definition it has no effect on personal productivity, because by your own mathematical definition you've defined personal productivity to be A CONSTANT. You can't define something to be a constant, and they say your definition causes it to vary... Conversely, if you take your example and plug them into the equation: 100 workers make 100 widgets; taking 'widgets' as an arbitrary unit of measure for P, that's 100 = 100KT, where KT is a constant - specifically, it's a constant equal to 1 widget per laborer. Now if you increase L to 200, you're saying that P only increases to 150...so 150 = 200KT, and KT is now 0.75 widgets/laborer. But you already said that KT is a constant, so how can it change??? Your example and your math do not match. One of them is wrong. But that's not my point. My real point is: you have got to be the dumbest !@#$ing spud on face of the planet if you can't see that the example and the math do not match. 839206[/snapback] You win. I messed up the formula. The example, however, is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 You win. I messed up the formula. The example, however, is correct. 839235[/snapback] THAT is correct. That I had to explain something so outlandishly simple TWICE is...unsurprising, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I guess in a world where someone of W's intelligence gets to be president of the U.S, someone of GG's intelligence gets to be CFO. I don't know exactly what GG does for a living, but your suggestion that he lacks intelligence sheds a lot more light on you than it does him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike1011 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Neither example is wrong. You're just failing to understand a concept most entry-level economics students find quite simple. 839168[/snapback] My friend, don't you understand: THE BLIND HAVE EYES BUT CANNOT SEE! I will not waste my time with such idiots. I get paid a lot just to pay Luis & Molina Rodriguez lifestyle as they break into our borders. I love the bumper sticker: WORK HARDER MILLIONS ON WELFARE ON COUNTING ON YOU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Well you're just full of little sayings and "quirks" (as one poster put it here) which don't have too much meaning, aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 My friend, don't you understand: THE BLIND HAVE EYES BUT CANNOT SEE! I will not waste my time with such idiots. I get paid a lot just to pay Luis & Molina Rodriguez lifestyle as they break into our borders. I love the bumper sticker: WORK HARDER MILLIONS ON WELFARE ON COUNTING ON YOU 839281[/snapback] This could be a hunch, but the folks who've been arguing for immigration reform probably contribute much more tax revenue to the welfare state than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I want my $11 back, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I want my $11 back, please. 839328[/snapback] Isn't that what it really boils down to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts