Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

That's not the question. You're saying that not only is this theory true within its tested domain, but therefore true beyond its tested domain, and if you don't agree, then you're a fool, a liar or both.

It's equivalent to me saying, "This is physics on my side of the event horizon, so it must be the physics on the other side of the event horizon." It may be true. It may not. Until and unless it can be tested it's just speculation.

The basketball bouncing on Mars is a fitting analogy. Physicists have great reason to believe that what they know about science is different past the event horizon, but they do not have reason to believe that what they know about gravity on Mars is different than current theory (at least not by more than very tiny differences).

How can any postulate in economics have "all else being equal" when economic systems are well described as complex feedback loops?

It's essential to determining causality. Physicists deal with the same thing. When experimenting, all else must be unchanged even though the physical world is complex. If this isn't the case, confounding variables arise.

I.e. any change to a large/developed/complex economic system can have repercussions throughout the system.

This is a reason why econometric tools are pretty bad at finding effects of minimum wages in the real world.

How can part of your assertion be that there will be no repercussions to the system aside from this one thing?

I don't assert that. In the real world we could see quantity demanded of labor increase after a minimum wage is instituted even while increasing the price of labor decreases the quantity demanded of labor, but it would be because of other variables that changed with the minimum wage.

These flip answers just shred your credibility, btw.

I'll admit the style probably is not persuasive (I was drinking some whiskey), but the statements are correct.

You can't make specific predictions with this law, so you wouldn't know if you did or did not observe it.

We can and have. The law is empirical.

You keep dodging the topic of minimum wage and how you can possibly apply this method of assigning a metric to human emotions, or make any specific prediction about the results of anything related to minimum wage.

I'm answering the question, just apparently not well.

OK, so if you admit you don't understand it, then stop saying barely understood words as though you have real understanding about these True Facts.

My understanding of how scientists came to determine the law has no bearing on whether or not I am allowed to explain what it means.

If (IF) supply and demand are wrong (on that scale), then the big bigly economy is still what it is, just poorly described, you doof.

The laws are probably wrong in very small ways. If they're wrong enough that price of labor increases, when all else is held constant, would increase the quantity demanded of labor, then things would look very different than they currently do. Nonsensically different and there would be no economy. It would be as nonsensical as if physicists were wrong enough about gravity that mass actually repels.

Is it remotely appropriate to assign notions of supply and demand to a family raising a newborn baby?

Yes they apply to everything that involves a decision. As the cost of doing something regarding your baby increases, the desired amount that you want to do that things decreases, on average and all else kept equal.

They aren't motivated by economic factors and their values are nowhere treating each other as capitalist resources... well, maybe in the stressful moments, a bit... but that's not their true feelings or best responses. It's not about getting their economic return when they teach the child to read. Your law of supply and demand does not describe these interactions, which are clearly an exchange of value between humans.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Topic...economics.html

Furthermore, if I may bring it back on to minimum wage. Vis a vis the human emotional need to help other people in altruistic ways, is minimum wage a way that society decides to bargain on behalf of those who lack the means, capability or know-how to bargain for themselves? Is it a means whereby society decides that we hold ourselves to a standard where just because someone isn't begging for enough money to live in our society, but are working within the system to try to do so, that doesn't mean that they deserve to starve or die of a curable illness?

It certainly is society bargaining on the behalf of others. Bargaining badly.