so i got this question wrong on my homework assignment. it is a pretty simple question, but tell me if you think im wrong or right.
question: Suppose there is an improvement in the technology for the production of computers. In addition, the number of buyers of computers increases. All else held constant
a: equilibrium quantity to increase, butt equilibrium price is indeterminant from the given information
b: that both equilibrium price and quantity are indeterminant from the given information
i answered B because i do not see how you can predict that there would be more supply. I asked the professor after class about my concerns. i told him that improvements in technology do not always mean that the product will be cheaper. I sited a couple improvements in cars that caused the price that to shoot up and therefore supply went down. (he said ‘oh thats government regulations’)
i mentioned when LCD TVs first hit the market everyone wanted one, but they were to expensive for the average consumer, but companies stopped producing tube TVs. So the quantity supplied of televisions drastically went down.
and lastly i mentioned a cell phone. (i couldnt remember which company did it or what cell phone it was) but what was to be the best cell phone to hit the market stopped production pushed back the release date because a competitor released a quad core processor phone when this company only had a dual core. they were going to replace all the processors and install quad core processors. The phone never came out. So in this case supply completely stopped.
and i forgot to mention to him ‘what about time’? it can take years to produce a product with certain technologies. so an improvement in technology would have no effect on supply for the first year if it took over a year to produce.
Technically you’re right. If that one sentence is all the info you are given, there’s no way you could make an assertion as to what would happen…largely because “an improvement in the technology for the production of computers” is so ambiguous it could mean just about anything…and you’re right, that anything doesn’t necessarily have to lower production cost. Hell I could say “an improvement in technology” was made if it was made a more attractive color…or if it was coated with sweet smelling perfume so that any workers nearby got a pleasant oder.
Of course if you had a stickler professor and made assumptions as to what “an improvement in the technology” is/does, and answered “a”, you’d be marked wrong because that enough information isn’t given to make that assertion.
But here you have a case of a professor not being specific and expecting you to make the same assumption errors that he does.
Well, this is only a 101 class meaning it won’t teach everything about how the world works. But the reason the answer is A is quite simple. Both an increase in demand and supply will definitely increase market quantity, but the change in market price (increase/decrease) depends on whether demand or supply increased more. Think about the shift of supply/demand curves
It didn’t say that, but in microecon 101, “increase in productivity”, "improvement in technology, “lowering of input costs” are all code words for increase in supply.
I don’t see what the big deal is. If there is an improvement in technology in the production of computers, then all else held constant, supply will most definitely increase.
ya the book says about ‘improved technology’ - "advances in technology are assumed to increase supply. if a given technology made it more expensive to produce the same product, a firm would not adopt it’ - so thats the answer the professor is giving me
so about the article “jonesin’ for a soda” by Max Raskin , Jones Bottling Company redid everything just to go from using corn syrup to sugar. it also costed the company to sell the product at 5% more. http://mises.org/daily/2678/Jonesin-for-a-Soda
am i to assume that jones soda with corn syrup is a completely different product from jones soda with sugar?
But I’ll explain to you what “the big deal is”. You’re making assumptions about what “an improvement” actually is. And as the Grant has confirmed, the textbook even admits this.
Is it the same? or is corn syrup a whole different product (with a whole different process of creation) than sugar?
I feel like the OP is a “duh” type question. If the book tells you to “assume” something like this. Just do it. Until you know Austrian theory backwards and forwards you will get no where arguing or contesting things (even if you do know Austrian theory in and out, you still may not get anywhere). My professors just avoided answering the questions I posed about inflation, interest, EMH, time, etc. Only one answered them willfully and he was my prof for money and banking (E305 i think). He thought it was funny that the Fed has “no options” and laughed when I said they have one they haven’t tried, “raise rates.”
Honestly, I used Power and Market as my textbook for E201 and E202 (micro and macro). I didn’t even buy the university books and I got A’s in both classes. Everything they teach you (virtually) is intervention of some type, haha.
I started thinking I could apply this thinking to every single question if they just gave me the option. This has been the only question that asked me to actually. I’ll stop thinking till later years.
Some say that is the point of the ducational system, to teach you not to think.
You might try what others have done instead, giving two answers. “The official answer for the record and for purposes of a grade in this course is bla bla. The real answer is bla bla.”
We’ve really got to go back to privately funded education. Quality has dropped so, so far. Many kids in the 19th century came out of college knowing greek, latin, french, german and of course english.
Many kids in the 19th century came out of college knowing greek, latin, french, german and of course english.
And that makes the previous system better how? You’re making the same mistake current administrators make - that 1) more knoweldge is always worth it and 2) you know what others ought to know.
Grant, as to your question, improvement is essentially defined as making the same good for less money. Why? Because we’re talking about perfect competition. Products are homogeneous. The only possible improvement is lowering costs.
Knowing many languages has been proven to improve critical thinking ability. Not to mention the inter-cultural benefits.
I would almost dare you to prove that this education system is superior to the Trivium-Quadrivium or the great books, etc. You are way out of bounds claiming that.
Schools used to be better than when the state funds and sets the curriculum. Rothbard wrote about this.
You should know better.
Can you explain a circumstance where being ignorant is better than being knowledgeable? (One that doesn’t ironically have to do with happiness or bliss…)
People used to know Roman and Greek history, not to have knowledge because of the knowledge, but because it modified their character. Abeunt studia in mores.
I don’t know how you can possibly argue that knowing one language is somehow equal to or better than knowing several.
I didn’t see him claim that. Could you point it out for me?
I can. Being ignorant of how many grains of sand there are in the world is better than knowing, due to the costs involved in discovering the answer. As he said, it’s not “worth [the cost].”
Being ignorant of your death day is better than being knowledgeable of it due to the psychological factors that would most likely come into play. Your quality of life would quite likely be much lower than it would otherwise be…and that’s assuming you didn’t end it earlier by your own hand.
Being ignorant of what every single person in the world is saying at any given moment is better than knowing such a thing because quite likely you wouldn’t be able to have a thought of your own, let alone speak one.
Whether he knows it or not, he equated our system to the old one. All I did was point out what the old system was.
Also, when I said “You are way out of bounds claiming that.” i was refering to what he said, not my dare.
Okay, let me rephrase, “…anything relevant and not strawmen…”
Grains of sand - strawman
death day - is interesting and relevant I suppose, I’ll give you that one
current conversation knowledge - irrelevant/strawman.
Why not give examples for anything to do with culture? Or history? Or politics? Nah. Grains of sand and omniscience…good ones.
I didn’t see him say that. What qualifier did he use for money when referring to worth? He could have meant anything (the simple mental exertion for example)
Yeah I read that notion the first time you posted it. Could you please show me where he did this?
This has me doubting you even know what a “straw man” is.
You asked for a circumstance where being ignorant is better than being knowledgeable. I gave you multiple ones. Please show me where I misrepresented anything about what you said. I mean, you didn’t even make an argument. You made a request. I fulfilled it.
I would love to hear your explanation of how this constitutes a “straw man”. I’m sure it would be quite entertaining.
The one called “Earth”.
Perhaps this is a case where ignorance is actually a hinderence and knowledge would be beneficial. See, a “straw man” in this context refers to “a type of argument which is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To ‘attack a straw man’ is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the ‘straw man’), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”
See, here on Earth, this is what you have done by asserting that Wheylous argued that “knowing one language is somehow equal to or better than knowing several.” He did nothing of the kind. He simply proposed the notion that simply knowing “greek, latin, french, german and of course english” doesn’t automatically make the system of education under which it took place better.
He never suggested what you are claiming he is arguing. You are misrepresenting his position, and creating the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the ‘straw man’), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
