Deadweight loss

[Rat in the Hat]

You have yet to even touch the facts in the OP.

you cant and yet you hang arround to throw childish insults.


Just more proof of your historically failed ideas.


Where is the historical proof your magic market exsists?

Last week's talking point was word definitions.

This week, it is historically failed ideas.

I can hardly wait to see that they program you with next week.

 

[syrenn]

Still not one con who can discuss this idea without going immediately into an insult fest?

Again.. you start it as an insult fest.... you always do.

 

[syrenn]

Why do I pretend? So you can see what it feels like.
I call democrats socialists for favoring socialism.

can you comment on the OP?

Can you comment on my original comment?

She will never answer anything that doesn't not suit her hacking agenda.

 

[syrenn]

So then you are for unfettered markets?

LOL! You're funny.
Perhaps you could show where I or anyone on "the right" said that.
And if you're addressing me, make it obvious.
You could use my name even.

SHE is the only one who says it. You have to understand something about liesmatter... she listens to herself talk. And then believes what she is hearing.

 

[boedicca]

Deadweight loss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The reality of markets.

please learn something instead of spouting the same failed talking points

You first, dearie.

 

[syrenn]

Still not one of you willing to adress the OP.


Its getting pretty sad.

Why do you know so very little about the positions you hold?

I did address your OP. I told you that you start out with two posts in a row that are your same hack insulting crap.

Got a problem with that?

 

[syrenn]

and I responded to him and he quickly ran away when he could not answer.


You then claimed he won some debate by running away

Liar.

Truth doesn't matter all that much to you, though.

We really should have a petition out to change her name... to liesmatter

 

[syrenn]

Deadweight loss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The reality of markets.

please learn something instead of spouting the same failed talking points

You first, dearie.

LOL...i said the very same thing.

 

[boedicca]

It's really the all purpose reply to her nonsensical accusatory suggestions.

 

[syrenn]

It's really the all purpose reply to her nonsensical accusatory suggestions.

That is all her threads are ever about.


But if she cuts off her head... i am sure that would be some dead weight off of her shoulders.

 

[Si modo]

and I responded to him and he quickly ran away when he could not answer.


You then claimed he won some debate by running away

Liar.

Truth doesn't matter all that much to you, though.

We really should have a petition out to change her name... to liesmatter

That would be a historically correct name rather than a historical fail.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

and I responded to him and he quickly ran away when he could not answer.


You then claimed he won some debate by running away

Liar.

Truth doesn't matter all that much to you, though.

We really should have a petition out to change her name... to liesmatter

We should have a petition to have her account info turned over to her puppy.

 

[syrenn]

Liar.

Truth doesn't matter all that much to you, though.

We really should have a petition out to change her name... to liesmatter

That would be a historically correct name rather than a historical fail.

I know i like it... it suits her so much better

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Deadweight loss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The reality of markets.

please learn something instead of spouting the same failed talking points

You first, dearie.

If you're waiting for her to learn something, I hope you have a couple of meals, and a good book.

She only does talking points.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

and I responded to him and he quickly ran away when he could not answer.


You then claimed he won some debate by running away

That is a lie... His last post remains unanswered by you...

You lie again...

When will you stop this nasty habit?

When?

Probably around the same time that the Chicago Cubs win a World's Series.

In other words, when hell freezes over.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Deadweight loss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The reality of markets.

please learn something instead of spouting the same failed talking points

Truthmatters is trying to educate people about the real world and how it works.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Examples





The deadweight loss is the area of the triangle formed by the tax income box, the original supply curve, and the demand curve. This is sometimes called Harberger's triangle.
For example, consider a market for nails where the cost of each nail is 10 cents and the demand will decrease linearly from a high demand for free nails to zero demand for nails at $1.10. In a perfectly competitive market, producers would have to charge a price of 10 cents and every customer whose marginal benefit exceeds 10 cents would have a nail. However if there is one producer who has a monopoly on the product, then they will charge whatever price will yield the greatest profit. For this market, the producer would charge 60 cents and thus exclude every customer who had less than 60 cents of marginal benefit. The deadweight loss is then the economic benefit forgone by these customers due to the monopoly pricing.

Conversely, deadweight loss can also come from consumers buying a product even if it costs more than it benefits them. To describe this, let's use the same nail market, but instead it will be perfectly competitive, with the government giving a 3 cent subsidy to every nail produced. This 3 cent subsidy will push the market price of each nail down to 7 cents. Some consumers then buy nails even though the benefit to them is less than the real cost of 10 cents. This unneeded expense then creates the deadweight loss: resources are not being used efficiently.

If the price of a glass of beer is $3.00 and the price of a glass of wine is $3.00, a consumer might prefer to drink beer. If the government decides to levy a beer tax of $3.00 per glass, the consumer might prefer to drink wine. The excess burden of taxation is the loss of utility to the consumer for drinking wine instead of beer, since everything else remains unchanged. Most notably the tax revenue from this consumer is zero.






Its seems the cons here are affraid of learning things because it will cause their historically failed ideas to be outed for what they really are.

Do you understand that you just proved that taxes and government subsides of any type are bad for the economy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This goes right to the heart of the republican theories of government subsities, taxes and the magic market.


You would think this type of science would be very important to them.

The reason is the sceince yet again is not in the favor of their historically failed ideas.



That is why they are not answering the question.

They cant without having to discuss the failure of their ideas.

I get it now, you missed the point you were making entirely. That makes me feel better, I thought Armageddon was upon us.

 

[Truthmatters]

Examples





The deadweight loss is the area of the triangle formed by the tax income box, the original supply curve, and the demand curve. This is sometimes called Harberger's triangle.
For example, consider a market for nails where the cost of each nail is 10 cents and the demand will decrease linearly from a high demand for free nails to zero demand for nails at $1.10. In a perfectly competitive market, producers would have to charge a price of 10 cents and every customer whose marginal benefit exceeds 10 cents would have a nail. However if there is one producer who has a monopoly on the product, then they will charge whatever price will yield the greatest profit. For this market, the producer would charge 60 cents and thus exclude every customer who had less than 60 cents of marginal benefit. The deadweight loss is then the economic benefit forgone by these customers due to the monopoly pricing.

Conversely, deadweight loss can also come from consumers buying a product even if it costs more than it benefits them. To describe this, let's use the same nail market, but instead it will be perfectly competitive, with the government giving a 3 cent subsidy to every nail produced. This 3 cent subsidy will push the market price of each nail down to 7 cents. Some consumers then buy nails even though the benefit to them is less than the real cost of 10 cents. This unneeded expense then creates the deadweight loss: resources are not being used efficiently.

If the price of a glass of beer is $3.00 and the price of a glass of wine is $3.00, a consumer might prefer to drink beer. If the government decides to levy a beer tax of $3.00 per glass, the consumer might prefer to drink wine. The excess burden of taxation is the loss of utility to the consumer for drinking wine instead of beer, since everything else remains unchanged. Most notably the tax revenue from this consumer is zero.






Its seems the cons here are affraid of learning things because it will cause their historically failed ideas to be outed for what they really are.

Do you understand that you just proved that taxes and government subsides of any type are bad for the economy?

Explain your thinking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The excess burden of taxation is the loss of utility to the consumer for drinking wine instead of beer, since everything else remains unchanged. Most notably the tax revenue from this consumer is zero.

AKA: Why Tax increases never raise the revenue Progressives claim they will

And from every other consumer that chooses not to drink beer. which is why raising taxes never brings in as much money as projected, because people find ways to avoid paying the tax, even if it means giving up beer.

Yet, for some reason, TM thinks this proves she is right.