damn it you select looong articles for me to respond too... so this is the last one for me... otherwise you could tie me up for hours responding to article after article... so after this respons my respons to ALL further atempts to find new aticles (that are just gonna have the same flaws as these two) are gonna be...

It doesn't matter what your fine models and theories are... if their predictions contradict reality they are the ones who must conform to reality and NOT reality that must conform to your theories (read previous respond)... <you insert this answer yourself after future presented articles basically saying the same thing> :-D

But for this article...
He starts by reciting the same rent argument that we saw in the former article... claiming that a shortage in apartments will lower set quality...
I'm in 100% agreement... shortage = lower quality product... but (as it AGAIN will become apparent) prize-control does NOT create shortages so it's ireelevant to this discusion...

Then he sites a poll among economists that showed 76.3% of them believe that 'A ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing available'... 16.6 percent agreed on the quality being lowered but not the quantity (which makes no sense) and only 6.5% believed that no shortage or qualityreduction will occur...

The problem with this is that it's NOT a democracy... there is a RIGHT and a WRONG answer to that question... it's NOT a matter of opinion... either it does create shortages (and subsequently lower quality) or it doesn't and the answer will be determined by REALITY (see my new standard answer to similar articles above)... so a vote or a poll on the subject is laughable as an argument...

Then he just simply states as fact... prizeceilings = shortages... well simply stating something is NOT an argument... it's a...... <wait for it>.... you've guessed it... statement :-D

Then he comes with a hypothetical scenario of wheatproduction... again NOT arguing just stating that a prizeceiling on wheat would create a lower wheat surply and an increase in demand which create a shortage... now that's just silly... explain to me why it would create a lower wheatsurply... the same amount of corn will still be planted and sowed and made to wheat so where does the lower surply come in? - mayby if the ceiling is set way lower than it costs to produce you have a point that than more farmers would go out of business and hence less wheat... but nobody is THAT unreasonable (unless during extreme shortages like during war or hyperinflation but then as he himself agrees it's just temporary ond after the war or inflation the cieling goes back up <more on that later>)... but if the ceiling is set so that the farmer can still make money just not as much then there will be NO lower surply and hence NO shortage even in his hypothetical example... that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then he goes on to the '79 oilcrisis... well I've answer that allready so <read previous respons>...

Then he sites the shortages during WW2 and how prizecontrols were implementet and all the detremental effects they had... I could say a lot about the effects too but thats NOT relevant in this discusion since he aparantly forgot (even though he himself mentions it...) that the prizecontrols came AFTER the shortages and can therefor logically NOT be the cause... and infact the cause of the shortages was the war itself and not anything else the governement did incl. prizecontrol... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then he mentions other examples during WW1 and WW2 where he mentions that the prizecontrols came AFTER the shortage and then quickly forgets again... so <allready answered>... again I have a lot to say about the detremental effects of the later prizecontrols and the real causes for them (but let me help you here... it was NOT the prizecontrols) but that's not relevant here since the prizecontrols obviously didn't cause the shortage which is your whole argument... so that takes care of that argument...

Then he starts talking about rationing (again comming after the shortage created by either war or hyperinflation) and how it's the only conclusion if you introduce prizecontrols (again AFTER the fact)... well rationing is only a tool AFTER the fact in case of EXTREME shortages such as during the great depression and the world wars etc... NOBODY has yet to be as stupid as to surgest rationing during surplus... and again everything he mentions comes AFTER the shortage so therefor can NOT be the cause of the shortage (incl prizecontrols and rationing)... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then after a loooooooong ranting about rationing... he goes on to labor issues and say that minimumwages MAY create uninployment... and he is right it may but unfortunatly for him reality shows that it doesn't...

Let me give you an example... in denmark we have had minimum wages since the 1930'ies and today the minimumwage in denmark is approx 17$/hour (that goes for ANY job imployed by ANYONE over 18)... since the early 90'ies till now we have had an unemplymentrate of between 1.2% and 2.3% and only since the economic crisis has it risen to 5.8% where it is now (NOT because of minimumwages but because of the crisis)... that's about half of the about 10% that the US has right now... so NO... minimumwage does NOT create unemployment it just create better wages... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then he goes back to the rent argument but I have allready answered that so... :-D

He then revisits the WW1 and WW2 and inflation argument and why prizecontrol is bad to instigate AFTER the shortage for a looooooong time (again I could say a lot about this but it's STILL not relevant since it's AFTER the shortage)...

And then he finishes by esentially saying QED (Quest Est Desmerandum - it is hereby proven)... well my good sir it is NOT... I rest my case...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/13/2009 05:02:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]