01-02-2005 05:59									#151
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Of course not. We're looking at the market for one good, that good has a buyer and a seller. The seller buys other goods, yes, but it doesn't by that good.

Producer surplus only has to do with consumers indirectly. When a firm purchases inputs it's the buyer. It gets producer surplus, generally. Perfect competition is a non issue. I'm not sure how you are getting the idea that it is.

	01-02-2005 06:02									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy I think he's talking about a particular instance of a commodity or something I'm old and miserable

You're a smart old miserable bugger.

	01-02-2005 06:06									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

When talking about any good, the buyer is the consumer and the seller the producer. Whatever they go on to produce with it is irrelevant to that good. In perfect competition, for a good, there is no producer surplus. Look at a text book for a mathematical proof of it.

Producer surplus is the amount a company gets above what it's willing to sell each good for. Hence the area under the price but above the supply curve. In perfect competition, is no area above the supply curve but below the price, hence no producer surplus.

Perfect competition is not just to do with consumers, it's to do with producers too. In PC, there is no producer surplus, but pareto efficiency and maximum consumer surplus.

	01-02-2005 06:27									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Drogue When talking about any good, the buyer is the consumer and the seller the producer. Whatever they go on to produce with it is irrelevant to that good. In perfect competition, for a good, there is no producer surplus. Look at a text book for a mathematical proof of it. Producer surplus is the amount a company gets above what it's willing to sell each good for. Hence the area under the price but above the supply curve. In perfect competition, is no area above the supply curve but below the price, hence no producer surplus. Perfect competition is not just to do with consumers, it's to do with producers too. In PC, there is no producer surplus, but pareto efficiency and maximum consumer surplus.

Aye! A producer is not a consumer first of all. You were making perfect sense until a short time ago. What happened? The supply curve is upward sloping. The price intersects it and there is an area above the supply curve and below the price.

	01-02-2005 06:36									#155
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Exactly, price has nothing to do with value to a person (well, psychologically it may have some). However it does have a lot to do with how an economy values something. Value = willingness to pay, which is independant of price. Price in a competative market is the willingness-to-pay of the marginal consumer. SO the phrase "the economy values suchandsuch a good at £5" means that's the price of it, that's what you'd have to give up to obtain it. You're personal value may be higher, which is when you buy it, and if it isn't, then you don't.

How things are valued is a different type of value. Gold is valued at a certain price. Using that definition value is equal to price. But that is not the same thing as the value that you get from consuming something. The value that you get from consuming something is the utility that you get. There is not way to measure it. What we can do is tell what created that utility, labor.

	01-02-2005 06:37									#156
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes a producer is not a consumer, and no, in perfect competition there is no part of the supply curve under the price.

Here's it graphically:


The supply curve is the marginal cost curve above the average cost curve. Notice there is no point where that is below the price. Hence there is no producer surplus.

	01-02-2005 06:39									#157
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious How things are valued is a different type of value. Gold is valued at a certain price. Using that definition value is equal to price. But that is not the same thing as the value that you get from consuming something. The value that you get from consuming something is the utility that you get. There is not way to measure it. What we can do is tell what created that utility, labor.

Utility isn't value, and more importantly, the amount of labour put into something has absolutely no bearing on it's utility. A painting that took 100 hours to paint gives me no more pleasure than exactly the same painting painted in 20 hours, by the same person.

	01-02-2005 06:42									#158
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Yes a producer is not a consumer, and no, in perfect competition there is no part of the supply curve under the price. Here's it graphically: The supply curve is the marginal cost curve above the average cost curve. Notice there is no point where that is below the price. Hence there is no producer surplus.

MC is the supply curve period. AC is something else. MP is the difference between the price and MC, aka producer surplus.

	01-02-2005 06:44									#159
	Put an end to popups!

Look at this one.

Attachment: producersurplus1.gif
This has been downloaded 55 time(s).

	01-02-2005 06:51									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

These graphs don't really demonstrate what I'm saying though, and I don't really want to create my own. Consider the labor market, not the finished goods market. There the producers are the buyers, and represented by the demand curve, and the laborers are the suppliers represented by the supply curve. Producer surplus then is the area between the demand curve and the wage.

	01-02-2005 06:53									#161
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Utility isn't value, and more importantly, the amount of labour put into something has absolutely no bearing on it's utility. A painting that took 100 hours to paint gives me no more pleasure than exactly the same painting painted in 20 hours, by the same person.

Utility is value. I taken you haven't taken any history of economic thought courses yet. There's a good website to get historical arguments on value. Just search 'history of economic thought or something like that.'

	01-02-2005 08:02									#162
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious MC is the supply curve period. AC is something else. MP is the difference between the price and MC, aka producer surplus.

No, you're wrong. If supply is below AC, the firm is losing money, and thus will shutdown. It's known as the shutdown condition. Please, if you want to discuss economics, at least make sure you're preliminary understanding is correct. Even my basic intro to microeconomics covered that.

The supply curve is only the MC curve above the AC curve. Hence, in PC, there is no supply curve above the price.

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Look at this one.

That's a firms supply curve, not the industry supply curve. That doesn't show producer surplus.

I'm sorry, but first you're whole argument about perfect competition is based on something that perfect competition is. Please red even a basic microeconomics textbook to see that producer surplus is 0 in the long run. It's really not that hard to see, it's logical. If there are infinite firms, each has to produce at the lowest average cost, and all economic profits will be competed away. Thus P=MC=AC. Since a firm will never sell anything when AC>P in the long run, as it would lose money, there is no supply curve below that. Thus there is only one possible production point, and no producer surplus.

	01-02-2005 08:09									#163
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Look at this one.

That's a firms supply curve, not the industry supply curve. That doesn't show producer surplus.

I'm sorry, but first you're whole argument about perfect competition is based on something that perfect competition is. Please red even a basic microeconomics textbook to see that producer surplus is 0 in the long run. It's really not that hard to see, it's logical. If there are infinite firms, each has to produce at the lowest average cost, and all economic profits will be competed away. Thus P=MC=AC. Since a firm will never sell anything when AC>P in the long run, as it would lose money, there is no supply curve below that. Thus there is only one possible production point, and no producer surplus.

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Utility is value. I taken you haven't taken any history of economic thought courses yet. There's a good website to get historical arguments on value. Just search 'history of economic thought or something like that.'

Utility is not value, at least not in an economic definition. In economics, utility is the benefit from a good. Value is the monetary value of that utility.

Moreover, in economics, utility is ordinal, not cardinal, and thus cannot represent a value, just a set of preferences.

Yes, I've studied economic history, at least during the indistrial revolution and 20th century. Classical economic thought has generally been superceeded, including both Marx and Smith. A few theories still stand, but their definition of value isn't one of them. Value in economics is a monetary value.

If you want to argue philosophically, that utility should be what is refered to as value, then go ahead. That would just take out the monetary aspect, and I suspect is the crux of the matter. However if we're talking economics here, value is a monetary term.

	01-02-2005 09:06									#164
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Drogue No, you're wrong. If supply is below AC, the firm is losing money, and thus will shutdown. It's known as the shutdown condition. Please, if you want to discuss economics, at least make sure you're preliminary understanding is correct. Even my basic intro to microeconomics covered that. The supply curve is only the MC curve above the AC curve. Hence, in PC, there is no supply curve above the price.

Absolutely not. The firm produces to a point where MC = MR. That's the point of profit maximization. That can be anywhere on the MC curve. Where the intersection occurs is at the price. MR = price for the competitive firm. If you assume that a firm will always produce where AC is lowest than you think a firm produces at the same level regardless of price, which is clearly wrong for obvious reasons.

quote: That's a firms supply curve, not the industry supply curve. That doesn't show producer surplus.

No. It's a firms supply curve. That's why the demand curve is downward sloping. It does show producer surplus. I got that graph off the internet. They're all over the place. Do a google search for yourself.

quote: I'm sorry, but first you're whole argument about perfect competition is based on something that perfect competition is. Please red even a basic microeconomics textbook to see that producer surplus is 0 in the long run. It's really not that hard to see, it's logical. If there are infinite firms, each has to produce at the lowest average cost, and all economic profits will be competed away. Thus P=MC=AC. Since a firm will never sell anything when AC>P in the long run, as it would lose money, there is no supply curve below that. Thus there is only one possible production point, and no producer surplus.

Huh? How can you have producer surplus in the short run, but not in the long run? It accumulates obviously. You really are making less sense as we go forward. That's not good.

	01-02-2005 09:10									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Utility is not value, at least not in an economic definition. In economics, utility is the benefit from a good. Value is the monetary value of that utility. Moreover, in economics, utility is ordinal, not cardinal, and thus cannot represent a value, just a set of preferences. Yes, I've studied economic history, at least during the indistrial revolution and 20th century. Classical economic thought has generally been superceeded, including both Marx and Smith. A few theories still stand, but their definition of value isn't one of them. Value in economics is a monetary value. If you want to argue philosophically, that utility should be what is refered to as value, then go ahead. That would just take out the monetary aspect, and I suspect is the crux of the matter. However if we're talking economics here, value is a monetary term.

You're just defining value as price, which is clearly wrong and doesn't make any sense. I think that I've shown that pretty well. If a hurricane wipes out half of the orange crop you would say that it created value because the price of oranges is higher. Do you make such a claim with a straight face?

	01-02-2005 09:38									#166
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Yes, I've studied economic history, at least during the indistrial revolution and 20th century. Classical economic thought has generally been superceeded, including both Marx and Smith. A few theories still stand, but their definition of value isn't one of them. Value in economics is a monetary value.

Has it now?

quote: Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.

-Warren Buffet

The idea that price = value is completely absurd. It's only purpose was to fool people. You see, as I said, economists do not care about truth, only saving capitalism.

Marshall could not say that value = utility, even though it is quite obvious. He didn't have a logical argument that price = value. The logical conclusion of his little graphs is the Marxist theory of labor value.

Pretend that price = value all you want, but labor creates all utility, which is all that Marx claimed. Marshall just played games with words.

	01-02-2005 10:16									#167
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious If a hurricane wipes out half of the orange crop you would say that it created value because the price of oranges is higher. Do you make such a claim with a straight face?

I'd say that the hurricane destroyed value. It reduced half the orange crop to a zero value

but you cannot deny that the price of the other half of the orange crop will increase somewhat and that some owners of oranges may make more money. You can say that the value of their oranges didn't increase or play any other theoretical or word games you choose BUT some orange owners might perhaps get richer. Although most larger owners would share in the hurricane damages and would likely make less profit even with a higher price ( for fewer oranges)

	01-02-2005 10:34									#168
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Flubber,

Explain to me how philosophers from Locke up until Marshall realize that value is utility, and then Marshall comes and says that value is price without an argument at all, and I'm playing word games. Excuse me, but that's horse ****.

Price is commonly misunderstood for value. This is because of people like Marshall. I'm not playing word games. I'm just trying to explain what is going on.

	01-02-2005 11:02									#169
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I know I'm spamming now, but no one really seems to want to give an argument that value is equal to price. I don't think anyone has ever really tried to.

But for those of you who blindly believe the horse ****, let me ask you something.

How much do you value seeing the valley from the mountain? Isn't it the amount of hiking you are willing to do to get to the top? Probably you won't have to hike that far, but the value of the view is not determined by how far you have to walk, but by how much you enjoy the view. This has nothing to do with exchange, and likewise value has nothing to do with exchange either.

	01-02-2005 11:25									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Absolutely not. The firm produces to a point where MC = MR. That's the point of profit maximization. That can be anywhere on the MC curve. Where the intersection occurs is at the price. MR = price for the competitive firm. If you assume that a firm will always produce where AC is lowest than you think a firm produces at the same level regardless of price, which is clearly wrong for obvious reasons.

Please read what I've written. I never said a firm would produce at the point where AC is lowest. I said the firm will not produce beneath that point in the long term, since if it does, it will lose money. This is clearly the case, and any decent micro course would go that far. The supply curve is the MC curve above the AC curve, in the long run (and the AVC curve in the short run).

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Huh? How can you have producer surplus in the short run, but not in the long run? It accumulates obviously. You really are making less sense as we go forward. That's not good.

Please, learn some basic economics. In the short run some factors are fixed, such as plant size, thus not all firms can produce on the minimum efficient scale. This means firms can both make supernormal profit and gain a producer surplus in the short run.

You are not making any sense. Please learn some basic economics before trying to tell people what is and is not correct economics. You talk about reasonable people, read Varian, or Frank, or any standard undergrad micro textbook. It soon becomes obvious how astoundingly little you seem to know about basic economic concepts. These aren't differences of opinion, they're blatant falsehoods. A firm will not produce at a point where it's losing money in the long term, and is able to gain a producer surplus in the short term (but only in the short term) under perfect competition.

When you know some basic economics, feel free to debate the application and how it relates to different economic structures. But until then, please stick to arguments about things where you at least know the construct or the basis for the discussion.

	01-02-2005 15:25									#171
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Again, what does it matter to anyone whether value is equal to price, or to the amount of labour put in, or the moon's angle above the horizon?

	01-02-2005 17:27									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious You're just defining value as price, which is clearly wrong and doesn't make any sense. I think that I've shown that pretty well. If a hurricane wipes out half of the orange crop you would say that it created value because the price of oranges is higher. Do you make such a claim with a straight face?

Of course not. The value of each orange is higher, but the total value of oranges will drop. Similarly, price will do exactly the same.

If something is rare, people are willing to pay more for it. This raises price. The value is what someone is willing to pay for it, the price is what someone does pay for it. I never argued price = value, merely that it does for the marginal consumer, in a competative market. Price is how much someone is willing to pay, which is a function of utility, but is a monetary value. If something thas higher value, it has higher utility, as they are directly proportional. But something could rise in utility slightly a be a lot more valuable to the person, for example in a formula one team, having a part that is slightly better than the one they were using, and thus gives slightly better performance, is worth a huge amount, as the difference between 1st and last is not a huge amount of time, percentage wise.

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious quote: Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.

Yes, and what you get is of a value that you are willing to pay. If I am willing to pay $4 for something, but not $5, it's value to me is between $4 and $5. if the value was above $5, I'd be willing to pay above $5 to get it.

I never argued price = value, except for the marginal consumer in a competative market. Value equals willingness to pay, the maximum someone would pay for a good. In the example of the formula 1 car above, utility is measured in how much faster the car would go, value in how much money it is worth for the car to go faster. The car going 5% faster would move up so many places it's worth far more than 5% more than the other part. Value isn't exactly the same as utility, but it is directly proportional. If utility rises, so does value, and vice versa. But the magnitude of that rise depends on other things than just the utility.

Value does not equal price, except that the nature of being a marginal consumer in a competative market is that willingness-to-pay = price. As I stated earlier, value does not depend (much - purely psychologically) on price. Value for a consumer is the maximum amount that consumer would pay for that good.

	01-02-2005 19:40									#173
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Drogue,

Your microeconomics is poor. I can't pound something into your head, especially if you are just going to say that I don't know what I'm talking about. It's on the web. Look it up. Read the page. I encourage you to do that.

	01-02-2005 19:48									#174
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist Again, what does it matter to anyone whether value is equal to price, or to the amount of labour put in, or the moon's angle above the horizon?

If you follow the concept of consumer surplus (the difference between the price and the demand curve for the quantity consumed) to it's logical conclussion you should have a surplus for workers. That's what people are saying here, is that wage labor is fair. However the surpluses don't add up to the total value, that is the use-value that pre-Marshallian economists and philosophers call value. Marshall and the neoclassicalists obviously know this, at least in their subconscious, so they don't talk about value as utility, only as price now, despite the historical meaning of the word.

	01-02-2005 20:52									#175
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious If you follow the concept of consumer surplus (the difference between the price and the demand curve for the quantity consumed) to it's logical conclussion you should have a surplus for workers. That's what people are saying here, is that wage labor is fair. However the surpluses don't add up to the total value, that is the use-value that pre-Marshallian economists and philosophers call value. Marshall and the neoclassicalists obviously know this, at least in their subconscious, so they don't talk about value as utility, only as price now, despite the historical meaning of the word.

I would agree that many workers make more money than the amount they would have been willing to accept to do the work.

But what's your point?

	01-02-2005 20:57									#176
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Flubber, Explain to me how philosophers from Locke up until Marshall realize that value is utility, and then Marshall comes and says that value is price without an argument at all, and I'm playing word games. Excuse me, but that's horse ****. Price is commonly misunderstood for value. This is because of people like Marshall. I'm not playing word games. I'm just trying to explain what is going on.

My point is it doesn't matter what word you use for it, if a hurricane destroys half an orange crop it is pretty predictable that the price of a given orange will rise. The price or monetary worth of the available crop is higher.

	01-02-2005 21:13									#177
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Your microeconomics is poor. I can't pound something into your head, especially if you are just going to say that I don't know what I'm talking about. It's on the web. Look it up. Read the page. I encourage you to do that.

I have. It's why I'm here, studying it, and doing quite well, even if I say so myself. Obviously my micro isn't poor, my marks would show that. You've taken basic econ, and missed all the intrinsities. I can't believe they wouldn't bother teaching the shutdown condition. I mean seriously, I have looked at the web, I have studied micro, and I have looked up things that are quite a bit more complicated than this. I'd love to know which school it was that managed to teach you the economics you know.

There's a reason you've strawmaned what I've said, and misrepresented bits in your answer. Either you haven't read what I've written, or it didn't you didn't understand it.

As we've said, no-one talks about value being price.

Let me ask you a question, what do you call value? Is it something measurable?

	01-02-2005 21:27									#178
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious How much do you value seeing the valley from the mountain? Isn't it the amount of hiking you are willing to do to get to the top? Probably you won't have to hike that far, but the value of the view is not determined by how far you have to walk, but by how much you enjoy the view. This has nothing to do with exchange, and likewise value has nothing to do with exchange either.

This sounds like my example of valuing the love of my parents which you dismissed as "different context". make up your mind.

There are many things which a given individual may "value" which has NO economic value. But I didn't think talking about those things added anything to the discussion. I thought that the whole point of your many tangents would be that there is "stuff" produced by a society and that an economic system must determine how to share the "value" of the "stuff" in some manner.


A mountain view is one of those things that you can obtain in a number of ways. One person walks up and feels the view was worth the walk. Another makes the walk and feels it was not worth it. A third decides the walk is too much and declines to go up. A fourth is driving the mountain highway, stops for a whiz and sees this view with no intention or effort.

If you wanted you could express these things in terms of exchange. Three of the people made decisions based on what they had or would expend in terms of effort versus the benefit they would derive . . . and I think you could possibly do that with all things that you value. I'm just not sure what the point would be.

I value my relationship with my sister and

1. if someone told me they would give me 500K never to speak to her again, I would turn it down

2. If I had to choose between never seeing my sister again and never seeing my son again, I would never see my sister.

So?? What does this do for us?

	01-02-2005 22:02									#179
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drogue I have. It's why I'm here, studying it, and doing quite well, even if I say so myself. Obviously my micro isn't poor, my marks would show that. You've taken basic econ, and missed all the intrinsities. I can't believe they wouldn't bother teaching the shutdown condition. I mean seriously, I have looked at the web, I have studied micro, and I have looked up things that are quite a bit more complicated than this. I'd love to know which school it was that managed to teach you the economics you know.

Why are you talking about a shutdown situation? Because there is not producer surplus obviously in a sutdown situation. In a normal situation there is a demonstratable producer surplus.

quote: There's a reason you've strawmaned what I've said, and misrepresented bits in your answer. Either you haven't read what I've written, or it didn't you didn't understand it.

You're the one with the strawman, which is why I didn't understand what you were saying. How could I be expected to understand what you are saying when it isn't relevant. It's human nature to ignore irrelevencies.

quote: As we've said, no-one talks about value being price. Let me ask you a question, what do you call value? Is it something measurable?

How could you not know the answer to this? Utility, and you know it's not measurable, but that's irrelevant. People had more sense about economics before they started measuring things. Economics is an art, not a science.

	01-02-2005 22:05									#180
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Flubber I would agree that many workers make more money than the amount they would have been willing to accept to do the work. But what's your point?

My point is that Marx's theory is superior to Marshall's because it doesn't make any sense to say that workers get a surplus, because when you add it all up, it doesn't add up to the total use-value. Marx's theory has no such problems. It's coherent.