the Pareto efficiency

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...

A democrat arguing for another corporate subsidy. How shocking.
 
evince said:
it can be created in a properly Fettered Capitalist country that is directed BY the people with democracy
Click to expand...

ask your self


Why have the republicans been so KEEN on demeaning the word Democracy?


why do the call it the Democrat party instead if the Democratic party?
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're a cretin. This is just a moronic made up formula to justify inequity. Its derived from bullshit.
Click to expand...

Spot on; the idiot read something that she could fit into her lunatic belief system and now wants to argue that it is factual and therefore, leftist Marxist Fascism is good. :laugh:
 
DamnYankee said:
The analysis is retarded because it ignores how the rich made their money. There is a vast difference between the way that Bill Gates made his money and the way George Soros did. Gates left a trail of millionaires and decent software that allowed millions to work more efficiently and Soros left a trail of bankrupt small countries. It should be noted that Gates is routinely vilified by Liberals while Soros is their hero.
Click to expand...

BINGO!
 
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...

Claiming that the economy is finite paints you as an uneducated idiot. But then, we already knew that.
 
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 is why the republicans do the Austrian school of economics



It refuses to do the math that PROVES THEY ARE FULL OF SHIT on their thoughts on the economy


they know they are full of shit


they just want to go back to a world of Kings and Queens
 
Now lets take a minute to look at the conditions of the world when Pareto was consolidating these facts about society
 
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...

Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923),
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution



The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in Europe and the US, in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, the increasing use of steam power, the development of machine tools and the rise of the factory system. The Industrial Revolution also led to an unprecedented rise in the rate of population growth.
 
Nordberg said:
Who knows, there is no data on that. The very rich have always existed.
Click to expand...

Bill Gates wasn't very rich when he started. He became immensely rich and created hundreds if not thousands of millionaires in the process...not to mention greater productivity and prosperity for everyone.

Steve Jobs and Wozniak weren't rich when they started. They both became immensely rich and created hundreds if not thousands of millionaires in the process...not to mention greater productivity and prosperity for everyone.

The notion that the economy is a zero sum game is not merely moronic, it lacks factual reality.
 
evince said:
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
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-industrial_society


In sociology, the post-industrial society is the stage of society's development when the service sector generates more wealth than the manufacturing sector of the economy.
The term was originated by Alain Touraine and is closely related to similar sociological theoretical constructs such as post-Fordism, information society, knowledge economy, post-industrial economy, liquid modernity, and network society. They all can be used in economics or social science disciplines as a general theoretical backdrop in research design.
As the term has been used, a few common themes, including the ones below have begun to emerge.
The economy undergoes a transition from the production of goods to the provision of services.
Knowledge becomes a valued form of capital; see Human capital.
Producing ideas is the main way to grow the economy.
Through processes of globalization and automation, the value and importance to the economy of blue-collar, unionized work, including manual labor (e.g., assembly-line work) decline, and those of professional workers (e.g., scientists, creative-industry professionals, and IT professionals) grow in value and prevalence.
Behavioral and information sciences and technologies are developed and implemented. (e.g., behavioral economics, information architecture, cybernetics, game theory and information theory.)
 
this may seem complicated on first blush my left leaning friends

Its not



they wealthy are trying to consolidate world power


Putin is an international crime boss folks


he has made deals with other nations who want to join his gig.



he nearly bought out the republican party who already found a way to cheat the fuck out of this democracy to consolidate power



look at how Dick Cheney turned an American war into a money making machine for his companies



they steal elections to do it


they have for decades now


Russia got the compromant on their cheating



that is why the NEVER TRUMPERS dissolved so quickly


putin made clear to them the information he has.



the American judicial system is about to out (not just the republican party but) the entire international crime syndicate


standing with the republican party will destroy reputations of even people who are merely legal uninvolved Big Donners



if you value your business you better never again give them a contribution and in some way publicly denounce them NOW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top