No, if anything is first, it is most certainly not your ability to define a model, which you chose to do by posting pictures. This comes back to the first critique, which you did not respond adequately too.
I defined a model and my first critique completely destroyed your points. You, however, chose not to respond at all and instead asked about economic models. You clearly didn't even know what an economic model is as there is no such thing as a "free market model" or a "socialist model" or a "Keynesian model."
Many neoclassical economists are capitalist, yet some like Oskar Lange are socialists even though they use the same models.
Some Keynesians are more capitalistic than others. Two examples would be Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman, even though they use the same models.
Economics and political economy are two different things. Economics as such is only the study of how individuals interact whereas political economy is trying to apply recommendations to the real world. This is why you have such a huge disparity among economists within the exact same school of thought (i.e. Lange vs. Becker).
I also would like to point out that I insulted an economist, not you at first, you provided the first personal attack, and I responded in kind.
Yes, but that's the entire point. A little prick like you insults somebody who is respected in their field and has studied economics for longer than you've been alive. He was wrong about one thing, oil prices, which many other economists and financial experts were also wrong about, yet you use it to call him a clown and then somehow use that to discredit his empirical studies of monopolies?
Not only is that insulting to anyone with a sense of honor, it's illogical and unreasonable.
If I were ignorant of the subject, I would be ashamed, but I am not, and your circular reasoning, your flawed expanses of copy and paste nonsense isn't getting anywhere, and having fully read most of the garbage you have toyed with here, I do feel as if my intelligence has taken a hit, and your contorted version of reality is quite frustrating.
Do you really need to be wasting everyone's time with useless ad hominem attacks?
So... with that said, your sly weaseling out of context and into a proper straw-man you have somehow set up a nice defended position around free market absolutism, of course by stretching the limitations on the definitions of "controlled" and "model".
Nope.
I too could do what you are doing, with a proud label of "liberty" cloaking my actions against stagnant and destructive economic theory, I can cut and paste and ultimately paraphrase from the numerous wordy and biting essays of the Cato Institute, or the Mises Institute, and I could comeback to everyone's critique with the phrase "well that isn't a free market", or a "that isn't the proper definition"... all of this is wordplay and newspeak and propaganda of the ultimate lie wrapped around the protective warm uterus of our newest masters on this planet, the corporations. You are no champion of liberty, you are no champion of the free market, democracy, or for that matter, reason; and with Bronisław Geremek having died over the weekend, it looks as if Poland is without a foundation of common sense and rational discourse, if you are a prime example of what they are stacking this day and age.
You truly are an idiot of the highest order. Where have I copied and pasted things from Cato or LvMI? Examples/proof please.
Where have I used newspeak? I only pointed out the things I did about economic models to show your blatant stupidity and ignorance. The discussion of "what economic model you support" is completely irrelevant in the context you used it: there is no such thing as a "free market model."
Where have I said that I am the noblest fighter for liberty? I haven't even used the word "liberty" once in this thread.
Lastly, are you really being ethnocentrist, racist, and xenophobic? Wow. Just wow. Is that what you have to resort to in the face of reason? You don't know what you're talking about, so you have to throw around insults, not only at individuals, but at entire nations?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
1. What is your definition of "Monopoly" and does it differ from what is accepted in economic circles?
I already answered that. Why don't you read my posts before you reply? That sounds like a really good idea.
I've consistently defined my problem with this guy.
Here is a definition of Economic Model we can all work with, one that he seems to agree with me on, (yet attacks me for anyway):
Economic Model
An economic model attempts to abstract from complex human behavior in a way that sheds some insight into a particular aspect of that behavior. This process inherently ignores important aspects of real-world behavior, making the modeling process an art as well as a mathematical exercise.
There are several ways of looking at these models, besides just using mathematical techniques...
In the broadest sense, a free market is a simplistic model for developing economic policies. I have offered two competing models in this regard, for which I asked why those models could not also be allowed to "compete" in the battlefield of economic theory. He responded like an oiled three-legged badger engulfed in flames.
No, you copy and paste a definition for what an economic model is, yet you still don't have a clue what you're talking about? That's really sad.
Again, there is no such thing as a "free market model" or a "mixed economy model" or a "socialist model." An economic model is precisely a way to represent human action in a simple mathematical way that is easy to understand.
That's why you have the supply and demand curve and the PPF curve. It's easier to explain various actions economic agents carry out that way and their effect on the economy.
And I have yet to see you respond to one point I made in response to your OP in this thread. You're just running around in circles looking for excuses to slither out of a face-to-face debate.
