alt.politics.economics

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:38:33 -0500, professorchaos
wrote:

>royls@ wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:22:28 -0500, professorchaos
>> wrote:
>>
>>> royls@ wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:03:27 -0500, professorchaos
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not all land
>>>>> is identical and some land has better location and qualities to it. This
>>>>> will mean owners will different reservation prices for selling their
>>>>> land. This means land is not perfectly inelastic.
>>>> No, Professor economic ignoramus, it most certainly does not.
>>> Really what is the definition of elasticity? What is the definition of
>>> perfectly inelastic? I hate to break this to you but the consensus in
>>> the professor, what I had to learn and even teach, is that elasticity is
>>> a measure of responsive to quantity demanded or quantity supply to a
>>> change in price. Perfectly inelastic supply means that the same amount
>>> of the good would be supplied regardless of the price. So would sell you
>>> home if someone offered $1? What about $1 billion?
>>
>> Because you are infinitely stupid, ignorant and dishonest, you refuse
>> to know the fact that a home is an improvement, and thus has no
>> unimproved value.
>
>No you are the one arguing that THE PRESENT LAND TAX ON IMPROVED AND
>UNIMPROVED VALUE IS EFFICIENT.

I said it was more efficient than other taxes, stupid liar.

>Still if someone offered to buy your unimproved land for $1 would you
>sell? Would you sell it if they offered $1 billion ? Again if no to the
>first and yes to the second then quantity supplied went up when price
>rose and that is not perfectly inelastic.

Thank you for proving again that you have no idea what elasticity of
supply is. If A sells some land to B, it does not change the supply
of land no matter what price it trades for, any more than the dizzily
rising prices of Van Gogh's paintings showed their supply was elastic.

But because you are infinitely and immutably stupid, ignorant and
dishonest, you have decided to be permanently ignorant of that fact.

>> Because you are infinitely stupid, ignorant and dishonest, you also
>> refuse to know the fact that elasticity is not determined by comparing
>> people's opinions of prices different from prevailing prices, but by
>> how people would respond to a change in prevailing prices.
>
>What are you babbling about? Perception of price movements certainly
>affect the supply curve. If you are holding land and you have
>expectation of price movements in the next few months it will effect the
>elasticity at current prices.

No, of course it won't, stupid. See above re Van Gogh.

>> If you had asked a Tokyo landowner in 1990 if he would sell his land
>> for double the current prevailing price, he would have laughed at you.
>> But now he would jump at the chance.
>
>Exactly THE SUPPLY OF LAND IS NOT PERFECTLY INELASTIC. A change in price
>affects quantity supplied.

No, stupid, it just changes who has it.

>Furthermore your argument has more to do with
>shifts in supply due to expectations than elasticity of supply.

Which is kinda the point.

Stupid.

>> Yet somehow, the amount of land
>> for sale in Tokyo is much greater now than in 1990, while the city's
>> area remains quite unchanged.
>
>Meaning what?

Meaning that you are stupid, ignorant, lying garbage.

>> Such a mystery.
>
>No mystery at all I understand supply and demand.

You do not understand supply or demand, nor will you ever do so.

>So why the reliance on
>textbook economics now? I thought earlier you said economist and authors
>of textbook lie and intentionally try to confuse people so people do not
>understand economics. Earlier you said textbook authors were puppets for
>the interest of the rich. So why do you now want to argue that what is
>written in a textbook is a. clear and b. correct? You just contradicted
>yourself again.

No, stupid. Liars choose what to lie about in order to preserve their
credibility. But you are so stupid that you do not understand that,
and are incapable of ever understanding it.

>Good try Eicke. I can actually think and spot
>contradictions that is why you dislike me so.

I dislike you because you are infinitely and immutably stupid,
ignorant and dishonest, so if the aliens by some chance encounter you
first, we are all doomed.

>>> If the answers are no
>>> then yes then the elasticity of supply is not perfectly inelastic.
>>
>> Of course it isn't. You changed the subject.
>
>No I didn't. You correctly said that perfectly inelastic means quantity
>supplied does not respond to price. So if you do not sell your land for
>$1 but you do sell it when the price is $1 billion then quantity
>supplied responds to price. At $1 Qs is 0 at $1 billion QS is 1 that is
>an elasticity of supply of 1/1 billion that is not equal to 0.

No, stupid, because the quantity is unchanged. The only thing that
has changed is whether A has the land or B. Because you are stupid,
you refuse to know the fact that elasticity of supply is defined on
the quantity available, not on who has it.

-- Roy L