Streve, better living through elasticity. Can't see a shred of difference in
what you say about economics and what I said or what was said earlier.
Consumers [unless they are the Sultan of Brunei] limit consumption to what
they can afford, on the other hand expanding populations and a consumer
base, and the drive for ever more profits leads to growth in the bottom line
for firms, and nations. Firms tend to maximize profits, consumers tend to
maximize the value of their spending either by working more to earn more, or
by shopping for a bargain. Congradulations!

Jason Friendly Bear
 

Jason Friendly Bear.

At 03:56 PM 11/12/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>John,
>
>I would argue exactly the opposite. If the consumer does not want
>something then he (or she) does not have to buy it. Also, firm's in
>general do not always want to sell more, they want to maximize profits
>and as such they will choose the level of production that achieves
>this. To go beyond this point will almost surely result in a decrease
>in profits which is in direct contradicition of the profit
>maximization hypothesis.
>
>Also I do not recommend that individuals should always want more
>(where you got that idea from I don't know--I couldn't follow your
>arguments below). I was merely pointing out that this is an
>assumption in economics (i.e. economists assume people want more and
>from there derive testable results). Part of the reason for these
>assumptions is mathematical tractibility, but they also lead to some
>testable results. Such as demand curves having non-positive slopes
>with regards to price of the good. Now there seems to be considerable
>evidence supporting the notion that demand curves are downwards
>sloping with regard to price. However, I have yet to see a text book
>that says "People should want more."
>
>As for changing peoples values that is what I said she was lacking in
>her essay (at least that was the intent of my second post on what she
>wrote). Merely declaring the laws of supply and demand null and void
>because we don't like them most likely wont change the behavior of too
>many people. Further, I would see changing a person's values as
>changing the "shape" of the utility function (from an economists'
>perspective) and would trace out that change in terms of impact on
>demand and consumption behavior.
>
>As to why I disagree, I think she does not have a very good grasp of
>modern economics. She makes overly simple blanket statements. I am
>sure you would take me to task if I were to make overly simple blanket
>statements about forestry.
>
>A simple statement that "this is technically incorrect"
>> can be ignored by the reader when the reader believes that they have
>found
>> something completely false or hurtful in other statements made by
>the same
>> writer.
>
>What exactly are you talking about here? I went on to explain why I
>thought it was incorrect, also there was nothing hurtful in the rest
>of the paragraph. (Nice example of selective quoting.)
>
>> I guess you didn't really mean then what you said because the logical
>> implications of what you said are that people "should" want more
>because the
>> way things are they cannot get enough of want they need and desire.
>
>John you are incorrect here. I did not claim that people should not
>want more or should want more. I pointed out that economics assumes
>that people DO want more and procedes from there to derive testable
>hypotheses.
>
>it appears
>> that you support the assumption that people prefer more than less by
>> reinforcement of the "should" in consuming products and services.
>
>No, this is your conclusion of my position [and incidentally it is
>wrong]. My response was to point out the lack of understanding of
>economics she had. What she wrote was not designed as a constructive
>criticism of economics but a witty attack that would try to convince
>the reader that there is something inherently bad about economics as
>opposed to pointing out the short commings of the theory, failed
>predicitons or what not. Instead it relies on half truths and
>inaccurate information.
>
>Steve
>P.S. As for couples wanting only one wedding, well my boss had two.
>One was a tradtitional Burmese ceremony the other your typical Western
>ceremony (and no he did not marry two women). I would suspect that
>this situation happens more than one might think.
>
>
>
>---John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Steve,
>>
>> You are supporting what the researchers do in generating the body of
>> knowledge called economics. In your previous post you disagreed with
>some
>> statements made in the Darmoth professor's article but you haven't
>explained
>> why you disagree. Whether a person 'should' want more [presumptive
>evidence
>> of consumption], as you recommended, or whether a person 'always'
>wants more
>> [empirical evidence of consumption] is really adding more support to
>her
>> statements. It really depends on the service and the good who much one
>> really wants. For example, weddings: does the person who is about to
>be
>> married want more than one wedding or do they want only one wedding?
>Only
>> the catering companies, the dress manufacturing company, and the
>> photographic company want more weddings, and as everyone knows the
>chances
>> are that yes the company's want more weddings. The case here applies
>to
>> funerals. Funeral companies want more funerals [not more deaths in the
>> world] but more pieces of the pie and action in the event of dying.
>But the
>> consumer does not want this. So there are generalizations regarding
>"the
>> pleasure principle" and human celebrations and human rites of
>passage for
>> instance. We always want more of the fun stuff, but less of the sad
>stuff.
>> My arguement is that we need to re-evaluate all our values that we
>believe
>> in from the perspective of environmental and social sustainability.
>We
>> should be able to find "pleasure" in the pursuit of happiness that is
>> sensitive to earth and cultures. Peace be With All of Us When We Get
>There.
>>
>> I guess you didn't really mean then what you said because the logical
>> implications of what you said are that people "should" want more
>because the
>> way things are they cannot get enough of want they need and desire. I
>> "should" want more skiing in the backcountry this winter, but it
>does not
>> add to the GNP because I am not working or consuming in the
>mountains. I
>> only need my climbing skins on my skiis and my friends. But if I
>went lift
>> skiing at a resort, then it would add to the GNP and to the
>consumption of
>> energy from fossil fuels.
>>
>> You have added ethical support to traditional economic thinking:
>that not
>> only do people want more, they "should" also want more. I am confused
>> ....because you appear to be in disagreement with the paper, you may
>be
>> contradicting yourself. But that's okay too... "A foolish
>consistency is the
>> hobgoblin of little minds." [R.W. Emerson].
>>
>> One word of advise in commenting on papers that use "vague
>language": be
>> careful who your audience is before you rely on assumptions. State
>them
>> first, then argue. Avoid personal attacks and attack the issue not the
>> person. The technical aspects you alluded to need to be explained
>within an
>> ethical framework. A simple statement that "this is technically
>incorrect"
>> can be ignored by the reader when the reader believes that they have
>found
>> something completely false or hurtful in other statements made by
>the same
>> writer. Clever writers can use vague language that conveys nothing or
>> conveys a lot depending on the subject and the circumstances. It is an
>> "ought" statement to convey an opinion that something "should" be
>rather
>> than should not be the case; and framed in the comments made, it
>appears
>> that you support the assumption that people prefer more than less by
>> reinforcement of the "should" in consuming products and services.
>You have
>> supported the paper's premise, while making inappropriate comments
>on this
>> list that includes some 250 partners. If could imagine yourself as a
>> partner, then you would not make inappropriate comments to your
>partners.
>> This list is getting to be a good learning environment.
>>
>> John Foster
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
        



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%