> Which of these possible responses to my challenge is Chris making:
> 
>  a) Admitting that he doesn't know how to draw factor demand
>     curves in this situation


As I've explained numerous times before, Rob's ludicrous insistence on
doing everything with non-differentiable production functions and without 
an algebraic presentation makes actually working with any of his models
very tedious.  I had my fill of deriving labor demand curves in such
situations in intermediate micro many years ago.

>   b) Admitting supply and demand is not applicable to factor
>     markets in the long period.


I don't even know what this means, Rob.  Do you mean that, if we *must*
change many prices at once, the resulting locus is not a demand curve?
Do you mean that supply and demand are not useful tools for in some
contexts for predicting gross quantity and price changes?  Why have you
never answered my two simple questions which turn critically on that
point?

> Here Chris seems to have actually read part of the post to which he is
> responding, but not its title. Why the challenge to draw labor demand
> curveS is ill-posed when there is more than one type of labor is a
> mystery that we members of the laity will never know.


Well, what do you mean by "labor," Rob?  The sum of unskilled and skilled
workers?  In which case, what is the own price of that sum?


>> Choose
>> one type and deduce the profit-maximizing amount of that type hired as
>> its own price changes in one period, all else equal (the way Rob phrases
>> the question, "long period demand," implies the ol' ceteris paribus
>> explicit in the definition of "input demand function" is still a point
>> Rob is confused about.)

> Chris is being silly. Just because I know how to correctly analyze the
> choice of technique in a long period position does not mean I am now
> confused about anything. I showed this analysis to highlight a property
> of the example I thought some might find interesting. The correct
> analysis also serves as a contrast.
> 
> The only place the word "demand" appears in the post to which Chris is
> pretending to respond is in the introductory paragraph concluding with
> these sentences.


Rob might want to take a gander at the subject he chose (which brings to
mind fond memories of the thread he titled "labor demand curves can slope
up," and then insisted, when it was pointed out that he had shown no
such thing, that he had never meant to talk about labor demand curves at
all).

[ quoting out of order]

> Furthermore, I disagree with Chris' understanding
> of the theory. The question is can one coherently vary the wage
> of just one type of labor, while leaving all other prices fixed?


[and]

> Here Chris is addressing another post. The interesting aspect
> of *this* example arises when (del r/del w) is zero. Of course,
> I change another wage when varying the first wage. That's all part
> of my question whether one can draw meaningful factor demand curves
> for this example.


[and]

> Given Chris' understanding, he should demonstrate that the wage of
> a type of labor *can* vary in the example, leaving all other prices
> unchanged.


No, I should not.  This is so frustrating.  Rob, a "labor demand curve"
is, by definition, derived when only one price changes.  It does not matter
if, in the model, changes in that price will alter other prices: if we
allow those other prices to alter, 

         THE RESULTING OBJECT IS NO LONGER A LABOR DEMAND CURVE.  

Damnit, what is so hard to understand about this?  I've spent years trying 
to get this point across.  Rob indignantly, as in this post, claims to be well 
aware of it, and then of course it turns out he just doesn't get it, as amply 
demonstrated above.

Look, Rob, generally a labor demand curve can be written L(w, \theta), where
\theta is a vector of other prices and any other relevant parameters in the
model.  Suppose there is a relationship in the model, such as yours, where
we can write a functional w=w(\theta).  A labor demand curve is STILL 
(\partial L \over \partial w) even though we would never observe that
relationship in the modelled world.  Get it?  It's a tool, a concept, a
building block -- your objection that other prices change with the wage
rate does not invalidate the _definition_ of a labor demand curve.  If
you want to claim that the _concept_ is not "meaningful," you're both
wrong (it's very useful) and making an entirely different argument than
all your charged rhetoric, and the subject of this thread, suggest.

> If Chris isn't brainwashed, why cannot he respond with something
> that exhibits a moment's command of reason?


Yup.  I find it fascinating that Rob thinks statements along the
lines "you haven't interpreted this result correctly" are "insults"
and gets all huffy, but doesn't think twice about tossing off little
jewels of rational discourse such as that.  Rob, if it makes you
happy to believe that spending a decade learning these concepts 
formally and actually applying them is "brainwashing," be my guest.

>>> They might also try to give some rationale for why one should be
>>> interested in this special case.


>> Empirical evidence?

> If one had some sort of formal model, that would answer the suggested
> question. But it would be nice to see a response to the question,
> "What are your assumptions?" other than the non-sequitur, "Assumptions
> do not need to be realistic." In other words, Chris does not have
> a model to compare with empirical evidence.


OK, my assumption is that feedbacks from changes in the labor market in
a given country or part thereof to the interest rate are small relative
to the own-price effect.  I draw upon a large body of empirical evidence
to support that assumption.

> Also notice that if Chris had a model appropriate for the suggested
> question, in context, it would not be a model of suppply and demand
> curves, as he understands them.


Rob is so cute when he's condescending!

> By the way, Barkley Rosser has a book chaper from his new
> edition of _ From Catastrophe to Chaos: A General Theory of Economic
> Discontinuities_ posted on his Web site <http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/>.
> In this chapter, he references Albin's (?) paper on a logging example
> and one of his own co-authored papers as empirical evidence of
> reswitching.


Rob talking about empirical evidence!  Wow, isn't that the fourth sign
of the Apocalypse?

Wouldn't the empirical methods used to find such an oddity be the
same ones I'm not allowed to use because "I don't have a model?"

> Rosser also predates me in realizing Cambridge
> Capital Controversy models point towards the possibility of
> interesting dynamics arising in economic models.


Damn, there goes your Nobel.

> Notice that Chris has not derived expressions for the terms in the
> above equation from maximizing conditions.


No, I haven't "derived" them, it's a general statement.  The function
L() itself is derived from a maximization problem.  Rob's pointlessly
lengthy posts are completely summarized (and clarified) by that one 
equation I have, which I suppose ticks Rob off because all that tedious
math no doubt took a lot of effort.


>> (oh, and by the way, Rob, I don't agree with the "F-twist," so it's 
>> odd you think I've been "lecturing" you on it.)

> I suppose Chris hasn't said that unrealistic assumptions are a positive
> virtue. He has merely said discussions about the realism of assumptions
> are of no worth and has frequently illustrated his supposed position
> about methodology with examples of assumptions meant to be unrealistic.


The "F-twist" says that the realism of assumptions is completely irrelevant.
I hold, rather, that unrealistic assumptions are necessary evils ("virtous"
in the tortured sense inherent in the oddly construed Georgia O'Keeffee quote
at the bottom of my web page) which do not necessarily invalidate the results 
of a modelling exercise.  I therefore find "you are wrong because your 
objections are unrealistic" a naive and wrongheaded line of argument, altough 
I might find an objection like "you are wrong because your result hinges on 
additively seperable utility, and does not hold in the more general case" 
compelling.  Unfortunately, Rob's objections are usually more like the former 
than the latter ("you are wrong because you assume utility maximization, yet
the Slutsky matrix is not found emprically to be symmetric" -- ugh).

> In a rare burst of candor, Chris once acknowledged he did not know how
> to use econometric techniques to distinguish between short and long
> period results.


No, I don't, which is why I would use a much better and more explicitly
dynamic model to deal with such a situation econometrically.  Now, how
did the empirical piece Rob cites above deal with the problem?

> But my point could not be published because it is obvious and well-known.


Then why do you insist on posting this stuff ad nauseum here, Rob?

> Once one acknowledges that neoclassical factor supply and demand curves
> are not applicable to the theory of long period distribution, one could
> go on to make other points:


Rob, can you even vaguely understand how pointless your presentation is to
professional economists?  How ludicrous it is to claim that the results you
present here comprise "the death of neoclassical economics?"  Do you think 
you could come up with a new issue to harp on (now that it's a new Millenium 
and all) that isn't quite so archaic?  How about finding fault with some 
theory that's not archaic, perhaps one developed since, say, 1970, and 
lecturing us on how dumb economists are for _that_ theory for the next five 
years?  It would be a nice change of pace.