alt.politics.economics

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:23:09 -0500, "lysander@ "
wrote:

>sinister wrote:
>> wrote in message
>> news:46ef1749$0$26364$4c368faf@ ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now who is a liar or an idiot?
>>
>> Uh...the guy who Roy has convincingly shown doesn't understand the economic
>> definition of "price"?
>>
>> Oh, yeah, that would be _you_.
>
>Roy doesn't understand price nor the first thing about economics.

I guess that must be why I have demolished every single argument you
have essayed.

>If you
>think Roy's "definition" of price is correct then you have never picked
>up an economics textbook.

Let's see a textbook definition of price that agrees with
_you_.

Thought not.

>Market price is not the lowest price someone
>will sell in ANY market structure.

And that is not the definition I quoted to you is it, stupid,
ignorant, lying GARBAGE?

>The closest structure that this
>resembles price in is perfect competition where at equilibrium

Perfect competition or not, equilibrium is where all goods trade. All
land trading means the supply is always the same, and the supply curve
is vertical. You are again proved flat wrong.

Don't you ever get tired of being constantly and invariably demolished
and humiliated like this, John? Aren't you afraid that your employer
might somehow get wind of this exchange, and realize that your claimed
"advanced degree in economics" must have been obtained by mail order,
as you are comprehensively ignorant of the subject?

>the price
>of the good sold = the buyer's willingness to pay for the LAST good
>bought = the seller's willingness to sell for the LAST good sold.

Uh, lying garbage? All land parcels are unique, so there is no "last"
good sold that is any different from the first good sold.

>If Roy were correct Producer surplus would always be zero.

It is (leaving aside the fact that no one produces land), because the
rent the owner gets to pocket in return for zero contribution to
production is the same no matter who owns it.

You are again demolished.

-- Roy L