Re: Sure. Whatever.
And this because I think the rules of a game are part of the game? How have I 'redefined' anything?
You redefined "market". It has a definition.
It IS, you know. Has to do with demand. It affects supply. Changes price.
Right. And so *everything* is a market force.
Shoplifting does raise the cost - but its the cost that is the "market force", not the shoplifting, itself.
Its the cost that is actually mapped. The delta in that can be measured, and attributed to shoplifting, but the shoplifting *itself* isn't a force, or a condition.
Because in the "free market" its totally dependant on supply and demand.
So - you are saying that laws are addressed in more complex models,
As shoplifting above, yes, as a function of higher cost. Not by themselves.
But MONOPOLY can... So laws that 'prevent' abusive monopolies cannot? Sorry - don't 'buy' it.
Sorry, you didn't answer the question.
Monopolies certainly can be mapped.
So show how you map antitrust.
That's the challenge presented - you say its possible.
Fine. Prove it.
Try and draw up a simple supply demand curve. Now show me where you're doing the "antitrust" representation.
So 'simple' is the sticking-point. Fine. Considering laws passed by the consumers that make up a market makes things more complex. So what?
Um. You left out the representation.
The more elasticity the 'better'? The better for what? Modelling a so-called 'free market'?
If you've had econ 101, then either you've forgotten, or you're being dense on purpose. I don't know which. But that question is answered there.
So - you are saying that a monopoly condition can't be represented in an economic model? That constraints or limits on that condition in said model are impossible to represent?
Nope. Quite easy. Covered in ECON 101.
Of course, you STILL didn't bother to prove your point.
I can demonstrate a monopoly condition on a S/D graph.
Show me your antitrust representation.
Addison
