the Pareto efficiency

Dune said:
I think you reversed that buddy. Tea party idiots make up 18% of the population.
Click to expand...


Actually, Herbert, polls have consistently revealed that less than 20% of Americans consider themselves to be liberal/progressive, and that number is shrinking. Whether you like it or not, this is still a centre-right country.
 
Voltaire said:
Actually, Herbert, polls have consistently revealed that less than 20% of Americans consider themselves to be liberal/progressive, and that number is shrinking. Whether you like it or not, this is still a centre-right country.
Click to expand...

Actually progressive generally gets much better marks than liberal. And the American public isn't right wing or left wing, it's schizophrenic, wanting to call itself conservative but supporting many left-wing programs and ideas.
 
Its not an oversimplification of Pareto efficiency.

Its an observation derived from the data that that Pareto took his idea from.

The countries of Eruope in 1906 were still mired in the old money.

There is a balence that happens when old money wants to keepo as much wealth as they can without pissing off the masses.

The number Pareto discovered in the real world data were 20% of the people owning 80% of the assests.

If the wealthy pushed for more it then ate into the assests the people needed to remain sufficiently happy NOT to revolt againt the wealthy.


When the wealthy push against this tipping point revolution happens.

This is why its called the no harm balence.


Beyond this point the little guy cant find enough of the assests to have a life comfortable enough to rationalize things as they are.


You make them JUST uncomfortable enough to get pissed enough to boil your rich as in oil.



Those were the olden days and now we are civilized and just insist that you pay for the messes you create and pay a fair share of the taxes.
 
Remember how the right always says its not a zero sum game when it come to wealth.

it is.

There are only so any assests in this world.
 
<and is but one asset. We use the existing land we have more efficiently. Have you ever been inside a building with more than one story?

Next.
 
evince said:
Remember how the right always says its not a zero sum game when it come to wealth.

it is.

There are only so any assests in this world.
Click to expand...

NOpe. due to life, certain assets can create other assets. Like soil and seeds produce food. This is why population control programs are just the evil invention of mass murderer control freaks, especially the green movement eugenics.
 
evince said:
Remember how the right always says its not a zero sum game when it come to wealth.

it is.

There are only so any assests in this world.
Click to expand...

you couldn't be more wrong, assets are growing each year that per capita GDP goes up.
 
evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency#Pareto_efficiency_in_short



Pareto efficiency in shortAn 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.
Click to expand...

where are we now folks
 
evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency#Pareto_efficiency_in_short



Pareto efficiency in shortAn 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.
Click to expand...

this information terrifies them
 
Benoit Mandelbrot and Richard L. Hudson:
His legacy as an economist was profound. Partly because of him, the field evolved from a branch of moral philosophy as practised by Adam Smith into a data intensive field of scientific research and mathematical equations.
 
and you will note the republican party embraces the school of economics that exsisted BEFORE Parento made it a data gathering endeavor



The Austrian school
 
evince said:
In other words its called the 20 80 rule.


If 20% own 80% there is no real harm done to any.

If you sink below the 20% mark or rise about the 80% mark there is harm to someone.




Where is the US right now?
Click to expand...




the average guy can have a decent life if the numbers are controlled properly



when the greedy fucks insist on MORE and try to own everyfuckingthing the people revolt


Trump and the Russians are trying to cause a revolt they can penetrate with agents right from the beginning


they can direct the revolt and gain the control after the chaos


they need a southern border wall already built and paid for by the very people they intend to keep captive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top