tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post3814918757071004739..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: What Malthus and Sismondi Were Thinking re a General Glutgcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-11024302740491905552013-04-22T23:03:32.970-04:002013-04-22T23:03:32.970-04:00"Even if you never mention its name, your art..."Even if you never mention its name, your article is entirely devoted to the refutation of Say's law. Do not pretend this is not the case."<br /><br />There are a certain sort of people who can only think in terms of attacks and defenses. Those people cannot, generally, conceive of someone who just wishes to understand. I guess that is your situation.<br /><br />"The version of Jean-Baptiste Say is the only that should matter, right?"<br /><br />1) He never formulated anything at all he called "Say's Law."<br /><br />2) In the last edition of the Traité, he admitted that Malthus was correct, and general gluts can exist. So, OK, I will go with you here: We should all agree with Say on this!<br /><br />"Your general glut is also and above all a specific glut!"<br /><br />Your general idiocy is also your specific idiocy!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-27603399714897774492013-04-22T07:23:07.665-04:002013-04-22T07:23:07.665-04:00"Funny that this is not a "good illustra..."Funny that this is not a "good illustration of Say's law,"<br /><br />Sorry, I should have said "rebuttal" instead of "illustration". Your article focuses on the possibility of a general glut. Say's law refutes this possibility. Even if you never mention its name, your article is entirely devoted to the refutation of Say's law. Do not pretend this is not the case.<br /><br />"There IS no single version of Say's Law"<br /><br />The version of Jean-Baptiste Say is the only that should matter, right? <br /><br />"Because that was the *hardest* case for showing a general glut!"<br /><br />Really! Whatever, it does not matter. Your world just does not exist. It is a completely fallacious case to discuss the possibility of a general glut. In your world, there is only one good! Your general glut is also and above all a specific glut! The classical economists have always said that partial (specific) gluts were possible! Nothing to do with the debate on the possibility of a general overproduction which took place in the 19th century between Say, Mill, Ricardo and Malthus. Lionel from Francehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16666887979115569809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-53655028039596161932013-04-21T02:39:32.619-04:002013-04-21T02:39:32.619-04:00"And you know *why* I choose a 1 good economy..."And you know *why* I choose a 1 good economy? Because that was the *hardest* case for showing a general glut!"<br /><br />I doubt that Say ever argued there could be no losses in a market economy (and really, in your example there is no market). It seems to me that, in your scenario, any loss you three experience can be considered what you refer to as either a "general glut" or, inversely, a "general" shortage, right? With only one good, the word "general" always applies, does it not? In fact, the only three conditions that your economy could be in would be "general" glut, "general" shortage, and equalibrium. Am I wrong? (I suspect you'll say "yes") <br /><br />Any feedback you can give would be greatly appreciated, and I'm really sorry to keep pestering you.steveZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598248557573036202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-39690856468389767062013-04-19T22:13:16.498-04:002013-04-19T22:13:16.498-04:00"And if it is partly false, then the second o..."And if it is partly false, then the second one will be as well."<br /><br />Could you possibly elaborate on why?steveZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598248557573036202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-52381012011923436522013-04-19T05:59:01.803-04:002013-04-19T05:59:01.803-04:00No, Steve, it's not "obvious" the fi...No, Steve, it's not "obvious" the first one is false: it is mostly true. And if it is partly false, then the second one will be as well.<br /><br />That is what my example showed.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-87326288579692101582013-04-18T23:31:50.256-04:002013-04-18T23:31:50.256-04:00"and yet somehow, you KNOW your formulation i..."and yet somehow, you KNOW your formulation is correct and Keynes's is wrong!"<br /><br />I'm not saying I "know" anything, but if you were looking at these two versions: 1) supply creates its own demand. And 2)supply of X constitutes demand for Y,Z,etc.... It would be obvious that one is false (which you, me, and Keynes all agree on) and one is true (dont you think?). Except, your response is "Keynes's version is awesome but false, and the real version is just one of many that I ignore."<br />Ok I'll stop bugging you.steveZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598248557573036202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-64373036332032229842013-04-18T23:11:03.113-04:002013-04-18T23:11:03.113-04:00Well, I didn't say I don't know anything a...Well, I didn't say I don't know anything about economic history. (If I said I was an expert, would you have responded differently?) I know you probably know a lot more than me, and that's why im trying to get your take on all this. <br />If you dont want to spend any more time addressing me, then i will thank you for the time you already gave, and leave you alone.<br />Ill just say that I can't understand how you can be saying that Keynes's version is better, and then go ahead and join Keynes in tearing it (Keynes's version) down. Try attacking the real Say's law (supply of X constitutes demand for Y,Z, etc). It's odd that you say there are so many versions but pick the weakest one to dispute. Classic strawman tactic.<br />Anyways, thanks again for your time, Prof. Callahan.steveZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598248557573036202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-712598295134497692013-04-18T15:24:48.187-04:002013-04-18T15:24:48.187-04:00And what's more: you admit you don't know ...And what's more: you admit you don't know anything about the history here, and yet somehow, you KNOW your formulation is correct and Keynes's is wrong!<br /><br />And I don't know anything about the Civil War, but I'm pretty sure Washington was president then!<br /><br />I think we're about done here, Steve.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-24145125395870293372013-04-18T15:11:29.694-04:002013-04-18T15:11:29.694-04:00No, Steve, you obviously invoked Say's Law her...No, Steve, you obviously invoked Say's Law here: "I don't know, but it sounds like a surplus of fish and shortage of leisure."<br /><br />Keynes's formulation is probably as good as a one sentence formulation can get.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-60006503803591699612013-04-16T22:48:36.165-04:002013-04-16T22:48:36.165-04:00Yes, I noticed the article never mentions Say'...Yes, I noticed the article never mentions Say's law, that why I waited for YOU to bring it up first. Which you did. <br />I'm not an economic historian, but the two versions of Say's law that I've heard of are; 1) supply creates demand (strawman version, that started with Keynes)... and 2) supply of X creates demand for Y,Z,etc. (the correct version). It should be obvious why the latter is better than the former, because it actually makes sense and doesn't cause all kinds of confusion.<br />Again, you were the first one to mention Say's law. steveZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598248557573036202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-74877585635378148732013-04-16T15:56:51.636-04:002013-04-16T15:56:51.636-04:00"First, this example applies only to a single..."First, this example applies only to a single good..."<br /><br />And you know *why* I choose a 1 good economy? Because that was the *hardest* case for showing a general glut!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-73828342830915623002013-04-16T15:47:12.524-04:002013-04-16T15:47:12.524-04:00"Also, they did choose fishing over leisure. ..."Also, they did choose fishing over leisure. Given a choice, we always choose the most valued option."<br /><br />And again, no, that is wrong. We always choose the option that at the time we THINK is most valuable. We make mistakes. As Mises said, "There is many a slip between cup and lip."<br /><br />This was an example of a mistake.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-11659115408367965042013-04-16T15:45:37.295-04:002013-04-16T15:45:37.295-04:00"I do not think that this example is a good i..."I do not think that this example is a good illustration of Say's law."<br /><br />Funny that this is not a "good illustration of Say's law," when the entire post never mentions Say's Law once. hey?! Maybe that is why it is not a "good illustration" of it.<br /><br />"Say's law is only stating that there can be no demand without supply in the sense that production gives the means, the power to consume."<br /><br />But also, you are wrong in your statement "Say's Law is..." There IS no single version of Say's Law: it has meant a variety of things to a variety of thinkers.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-71762733084240375892013-04-16T15:43:47.519-04:002013-04-16T15:43:47.519-04:00"Say's law is: supply of X constitutes de..."Say's law is: supply of X constitutes demand for Y, Z, etc. In your example you only have one good."<br /><br />Did you notice my post never mentions Say's Law at all?<br /><br />But also, you are wrong in your statement "Say's Law is..." There IS no single version of Say's Law: it has meant a variety of things to a variety of thinkers.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-45461433896046850642013-04-16T07:12:20.087-04:002013-04-16T07:12:20.087-04:00I do not think that this example is a good illustr...I do not think that this example is a good illustration of Say's law. First, this example applies only to a single good and only one person (yes, they are three but they agree to do the same thing all three). Therefore, in that system, human errors can temporarily lead to over(under)production. It is, at once, a general and specific glut. Second, Say's law is only stating that there can be no demand without supply in the sense that production gives the means, the power to consume. These three people could not eat (demand/consumption) if they did not go fishing (supply/production). Sure, they can catch more or less fish than they actually need. But with time, experience and improved techniques, the gap should be reduced considerably.Lionel from Francehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16666887979115569809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-12507573811106423872013-04-15T22:50:05.834-04:002013-04-15T22:50:05.834-04:00How does Say's law apply to this situation? Sa...How does Say's law apply to this situation? Say's law is: supply of X constitutes demand for Y, Z, etc. In your example you only have one good. <br />Also, they did choose fishing over leisure. Given a choice, we always choose the most valued option.steveZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598248557573036202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-20536170319889035202013-04-15T10:22:17.519-04:002013-04-15T10:22:17.519-04:00"I don't know, but it sounds like a surpl..."I don't know, but it sounds like a surplus of fish and shortage of leisure."<br /><br />Sure, you can make Say's Law into a tautology. But that was not the debate going on at the time.<br /><br />"Or maybe an objection could be made that, from the perspective of and outside observer, your actions demonstrated that the fishing for 3 extra hours, catching twice the fish, stuffing yourself, and fertilizing the soil was more valuable (at that time) to you, since you did that instead of leisure. But the next day your value scale changed again."<br /><br />No, Steve, you don't get to change around the conditions of a thought experiment. These people did not have a change in value scale: they made a mistake they later came to regret.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-78820125145880543382013-04-15T01:47:48.437-04:002013-04-15T01:47:48.437-04:00I don't know, but it sounds like a surplus of ...I don't know, but it sounds like a surplus of fish and shortage of leisure. That's already been rejected, but I think without any trade going on, and only one production process to choose from, that's the best I can come up with.<br /><br />Or maybe an objection could be made that, from the perspective of and outside observer, your actions demonstrated that the fishing for 3 extra hours, catching twice the fish, stuffing yourself, and fertilizing the soil was more valuable (at that time) to you, since you did that instead of leisure. But the next day your value scale changed again.steveZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598248557573036202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-52769108431922648252013-04-14T19:57:32.587-04:002013-04-14T19:57:32.587-04:00Yes. And...?Yes. And...?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-78854124494895044832013-04-14T19:57:13.050-04:002013-04-14T19:57:13.050-04:00Yes, Malthus and Sismondi did not mean markets wou...Yes, Malthus and Sismondi did not mean markets would not clear.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-17472845897449141452013-04-14T17:58:53.984-04:002013-04-14T17:58:53.984-04:00Isn't it true, that after the 6hour fishing da...Isn't it true, that after the 6hour fishing day, you decided what you needed to do the next day was to fish less and leisure more?steveZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598248557573036202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-64487505907654491512013-04-14T15:39:25.559-04:002013-04-14T15:39:25.559-04:00Still, in your example the market clears.Still, in your example the market clears.steveZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598248557573036202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-52095018368993861892013-04-14T04:51:08.312-04:002013-04-14T04:51:08.312-04:00OK, Steve, you have shifted the focus from general...OK, Steve, you have shifted the focus from general gluts to depressions. This post was only about the former.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-69993591700001038232013-04-14T02:58:33.724-04:002013-04-14T02:58:33.724-04:00So Malthus was right, if by "general glut&quo...So Malthus was right, if by "general glut" you mean entrepreneurial error (also known as malinvestments). Instances of entrepreneurial error happen all the time, and in varying degree. A cluster of entrepeneurial errors will cause a depression. These errors occur due to misinterpretations of price signals. In your example, Salis, uncertain about the future, guesses that the cost of catching more fish (3hours leisure time), will be less than the utility gained by the extra fish. He was wrong.<br />You can't give an example and say; " the only options are fishing and leisure. We have an overproduction of fish, but leisure doesn't need to be produced, so there can't be underproduction of leisure, therefore we have a "general overproduction" off all goods." And then you go on to say how you ended up in the red, because more leisure would have been more profitable... Confusing. Or it could just be me.steveZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598248557573036202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-91239714188833984002013-04-14T02:18:39.533-04:002013-04-14T02:18:39.533-04:00Don't people usually attribute this "gene...Don't people usually attribute this "general glut" to causing depressions? I don't see how having too much fish to eat would be considered a depression. After consuming your fill, you then used the leftover fish for its next most highly valued use (guess you guys took a vote), and then later came to the unanimous decision that the extra time spent fishing for fertilizer was worth less to you all than leisure time. Just a case of poor entrepreneurship, which was then corrected by the "market" almost immediately. Also, I think that leisure could be considered investing in your own human capital. And really, you are saying that the only actions by which you profit in a 24 hour period is some combination of catching/eating fish and leisure. It sounds like fishing for 3 hours, eating 5-6 fish, and leisure for 21 hours is the most profitable combination. At least it has higher utility than fishing for 6 hours, eating 9 fish, investing 3 fish as fertilizer, and having 18 leisure hours.steveZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598248557573036202noreply@blogger.com