The Pareto efficiency

[Truthmatters]

Pareto efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



An economic system that is not Pareto efficient implies that a certain change in allocation of goods (for example) may result in some individuals being made "better off" with no individual being made worse off, and therefore can be made more Pareto efficient through a Pareto improvement. Here 'better off' is often interpreted as "put in a preferred position." It is commonly accepted that outcomes that are not Pareto efficient are to be avoided, and therefore Pareto efficiency is an important criterion for evaluating economic systems and public policies.

If economic allocation in any system is not Pareto efficient, there is potential for a Pareto improvement—an increase in Pareto efficiency: through reallocation, improvements to at least one participant's well-being can be made without reducing any other participant's well-being.

In the real world ensuring that nobody is disadvantaged by a change aimed at improving economic efficiency may require compensation of one or more parties. For instance, if a change in economic policy dictates that a legally protected monopoly ceases to exist and that market subsequently becomes competitive and more efficient, the monopolist will be made worse off. However, the loss to the monopolist will be more than offset by the gain in efficiency. This means the monopolist can be compensated for its loss while still leaving an efficiency gain to be realized by others in the economy. Thus, the requirement of nobody being made worse off for a gain to others is met. In real-world practice compensations have substantial frictional costs. They can also lead to incentive distortions over time since most real-world policy changes occur with players who are not atomistic, rather who have considerable market power (or political power) over time and may use it in a game theoretic manner. Compensation attempts may therefore lead to substantial practical problems of misrepresentation and moral hazard and considerable inefficiency as players behave opportunistically and with guile.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its also called the 20 80 rule.

an economy can have 20% of the people holding 80 percent of the wealth without causing harm to anyone.

You get under the 20 % or over the 80 % and someone is being harmed.

 

[Truthmatters]

What The Fucks Going On Blog: Food Prices Begin their Increases: Top Rich 1% Own 84% of US wealth - 'Got FOOD?'


We have crossed the 20 80 rule folks and things will NOT get better until the balence is restored.


It seems there is a zero sum game according to many fields of study.


You are allowing yourself to be sold down the pike if you believe there is no war on the middle class in this country.

 

[skeptic]

Its also called the 20 80 rule.

an economy can have 20% of the people holding 80 percent of the wealth without causing harm to anyone.

You get under the 20 % or over the 80 % and someone is being harmed.

This may be difficult for you to grasp, but you are presenting a circular argument. Since the definition of a Pareto constant defines that "harm" occurs merely because 20% of the people own 80%+ of all wealth, the "harm" that occurs is "that 20% of the people own 80%+ of the wealth". Circular argument.

It's like saying that if a black man became president that would be "bad", and then when a black man does get elected saying "see, it is bad".

 

[Truthmatters]

you have made absolutely no sense.

Did you even read anything about the 20 80 rule ?

 

[skeptic]

I knew you would have difficulty getting it. It is a circular argument.

 

[Truthmatters]

It is not based on a random theory of harm friend.


It is based on the effect on the market.

Once too much of the market is owned by too few people then the market stalls.


Now look at this.

Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Truthmatters]

The 20 80 purpotions were determined by the examination of the worlds historical data.

It was not radomly plucked out of thin air

 

[dilloduck]

What The Fucks Going On Blog: Food Prices Begin their Increases: Top Rich 1% Own 84% of US wealth - 'Got FOOD?'


We have crossed the 20 80 rule folks and things will NOT get better until the balence is restored.


It seems there is a zero sum game according to many fields of study.


You are allowing yourself to be sold down the pike if you believe there is no war on the middle class in this country.

I don't see a hell of a lot of bumper stickers saying " Down with the middle class "
Who exactly is intentionally targeting the middle class and why ?

 

[Truthmatters]

The middle class has been shrinking.


The wealth has been concentrating in fewer and fewer hands which will lead to an uncompetative market leaving it stalled.


If you balence back to this economic rule you cant reinvigorate capitalism.

it will stall and you will see merely further move to monoplies.

 

[dilloduck]

The middle class has been shrinking.


The wealth has been concentrating in fewer and fewer hands which will lead to an uncompetative market leaving it stalled.


If you balence back to this economic rule you cant reinvigorate capitalism.

it will stall and you will see merely further move to monoplies.

answer the question

 

[Truthmatters]

the leaders of the right have been doing it for decades

 

[dilloduck]

the leaders of the right have been doing it for decades

on purpose ?

 

[Truthmatters]

any discussions of returning to at least top proper balence of 20 80 the right screams class war.


Now why do they want our economy to sstall due to to much control in too few hands?

They dont really like captialism.

 

[Truthmatters]

Capitalism is most robust in the climb to the 20 80 market and stalls once it goes over that balence.


Now why is it the right leadership refuses to help rebalence the market and screams against rebalence?


There is only one answer and the right voters have bought the bullshit.


Ignoring this economic principle will not make it go away.

 

[skeptic]

It is not based on a random theory of harm friend.


It is based on the effect on the market.

Once too much of the market is owned by too few people then the market stalls.


Now look at this.

Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is based on an arbitrary definition of harm, in fact the definition of a Pareto minimum expresses as much. Pareto efficiency is described as:

Given an initial allocation of goods among a set of individuals, a change to a different allocation that makes at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement. An allocation is defined as "Pareto efficient" or "Pareto optimal" when no further Pareto improvements can be made.

Pareto efficiency is a minimal notion of efficiency and does not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources, as it makes no statement about equality or the overall well-being of a society.[1][2]

Pareto efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the gini coefficient is nothing but a measure of wealth distribution inequality.

 

[Truthmatters]

That is not your own words now is it

 

[Truthmatters]

It is not based on a random theory of harm friend.


It is based on the effect on the market.

Once too much of the market is owned by too few people then the market stalls.


Now look at this.

Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is based on an arbitrary definition of harm, in fact the definition of a Pareto minimum expresses as much. Pareto efficiency is described as:

Given an initial allocation of goods among a set of individuals, a change to a different allocation that makes at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement. An allocation is defined as "Pareto efficient" or "Pareto optimal" when no further Pareto improvements can be made.

Pareto efficiency is a minimal notion of efficiency and does not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources, as it makes no statement about equality or the overall well-being of a society.[1][2]

Pareto efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the gini coefficient is nothing but a measure of wealth distribution inequality.

Yeap not on the society but on the economy is where the damage is percieved.

The economy of the examined hsitorical examples show a stagnation after that point.


Its cold hard example of why capiitalism needs to protected from a too severe imbalence of assets

 

[Truthmatters]

Economic efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In economics, the term economic efficiency refers to the use of resources so as to maximize the production of goods and services.[1] An economic system is said to be more efficient than another (in relative terms) if it can provide more goods and services for society without using more resources. In absolute terms, a situation can be called economically efficient if:

No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off.
No additional output can be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs.
Production proceeds at the lowest possible per-unit cost.
These definitions of efficiency are not exactly equivalent, but they are all encompassed by the idea that a system is efficient if nothing more can be achieved given the resources available.

 

[skeptic]

It is not based on a random theory of harm friend.


It is based on the effect on the market.

Once too much of the market is owned by too few people then the market stalls.


Now look at this.

Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is based on an arbitrary definition of harm, in fact the definition of a Pareto minimum expresses as much. Pareto efficiency is described as:

Given an initial allocation of goods among a set of individuals, a change to a different allocation that makes at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement. An allocation is defined as "Pareto efficient" or "Pareto optimal" when no further Pareto improvements can be made.

Pareto efficiency is a minimal notion of efficiency and does not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources, as it makes no statement about equality or the overall well-being of a society.[1][2]

Pareto efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the gini coefficient is nothing but a measure of wealth distribution inequality.

Yeap not on the society but on the economy is where the damage is percieved.

The economy of the examined hsitorical examples show a stagnation after that point.


Its cold hard example of why capiitalism needs to protected from a too severe imbalence of assets

please produce an example wherein Pareto ever said anything of the kind, YOU said that, pulled it right out of your ass.