Thank you. I don’t know why it was so difficult for you to explicitly concede that his example is logically valid.
If you made a mistaken assumption in your original example, why didn’t you come out and say that afterwards? You didn’t do that. Instead you countered Nirgraham’s claim by changing the context. That’s not intellectually honest, if you ask me.
You’re going to have to try a lot harder to side-step my point than this. When you refer to “an economy where goods are produced by wage labor”, are you referring to an economy where all goods are necessarily produced by wage labor, or are you referring to an economy where some goods are sometimes produced by wage labor? In other words, are you implicitly using the universal quantifier or the existential quantifier? My reaction to your phrase has been to assume that you’re implicitly using the former, but I could be wrong. Since I’m not a mind-reader, it’s up to you to clarify.
Okay, and what reasoning do you have to support that prediction? What is it based on? Quotes from Marx don’t count IMHO.
As a follower of the Austrian school of economics, I don’t think the business cycle is caused by any amount of wage labor. Whether a free market would have roughly the same amount of wage labor as present doesn’t matter to me.
Well then.
Did you or did you not previously write that capitalists don’t consume their profits?
Nirgraham’s example, which assumes capitalists consuming all of their profits, doesn’t show the problem you’ve highlighted. So in that case, how would the problem happen at a slower rate if they don’t consume all of their profits? That’s a complete contradiction. Let me remind you that you conceded earlier that Nirgraham’s example is logically valid.