You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 12
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The cartoonist knows exactly)
Here's what a nonsense it turns out to be. In animation, time will change the coordinates of the height, width, length graph.
In markets, does time affect price?
Depending on supply and demand, is time only involved in the price change process or does it have an impact?
Secondary, as a mechanism for transmitting force from the rudder to the wheels, and the force applied to the rudder is primary.
The hierarchy of needs theory, despite its popularity, is unsupported and has low validity
I can't say anything about the star market, but it's obvious that it's not 'easy' to 'get into the flow' and stay in it.
I've already written about natural monopoly and public goods, where things work differently
The analogy with wheels just says that no matter where you turn the wheel - and the wheels turn as a result of fuel energy. So it is with monopolies - they can certainly influence the price, but price formation is still subject to the law of supply and demand balance.
About the star market - that's right, "hitting the stream" is the result of chance. It was just an illustration that you don't have to be a monopolist to get the most.
And in a natural monopoly everything works exactly the same as in a competitive market, the pricing laws are all the same. It is just that in the case of a monopoly, there is another leverage on the equilibrium price point. Like with the steering wheel, you can steer the car. But it will still drive as a result of fuel energy.
Well and about "the theory of hierarchy of needs is not confirmed" - you have read the article, which you cited yourself! There it is said, that "the main problem while verifying the hierarchy theory is that there is no reliable quantitative measure of satisfaction of human needs". Well, it doesn't mean that "the theory is not verified" ! It means that no adequate theory, allowing to quantitatively measure satisfaction, has been constructed !The analogy with wheels is precisely that no matter where you turn the wheel - and the wheels turn as a result of fuel energy. So it is with monopolies - they can certainly influence the price, but price formation is still subject to the law of supply and demand balance.
About the star market - that's right, "hitting the stream" is the result of chance. It was just an illustration that you don't have to be a monopolist to get the most.
And in natural monopolies everything works exactly the same as in a competitive market, the pricing laws are all the same. It is just that in the case of a monopoly, there is another lever of influence on the equilibrium price point. Like with the steering wheel, you can steer the car. But it will still drive as a result of fuel energy.
Well and about "the theory of hierarchy of needs is not confirmed" - you have read the article, which you have cited yourself! It says that "the main problem in testing the hierarchy theory is that there is no reliable quantitative measure of satisfaction of human needs". Well, it doesn't mean that "the theory is not verified" ! It means that no adequate theory, allowing to quantitatively measure satisfaction, has been constructed !Fuel won't fill up the tank by itself and the steering wheel won't turn by itself. The design and operation of a car are important, but in our analogy, the question of who steers where and for what is much more important. The wheels turn in a car and in a fire engine, and the goals of their drivers are quite different.
In this article about Maslow, the most amusing thing is that he only wrote about people who fit his theory. You can prove by that method that all people are tall blondes (or miniature brunettes). Personally, I don't like his theory in that he considers all people to be the same, which is obviously not true.
Explain to me what problem is being discussed here? I don't see a clear statement of the problem.
The fuel won't fill up the tank by itself and the steering wheel won't turn by itself. The design and operation of a car are important, but in our analogy the question of who is steering where and for what is more important. The wheels turn in a car and in a fire engine, but the goals of their drivers are quite different.
In this article about Maslow, the most amusing thing is that he only wrote about people who fit his theory. You can prove by that method that all people are tall blondes (or miniature brunettes). Personally I don't like his theory because he thinks all people are the same, which is obviously wrong.
So what's wrong with the analogy? There are objective laws - if there is no directive price setting, then prices are set at the intersection of supply and demand curves. And no one can change this law. We can introduce directive pricing, but even then - if we set prices at a different point - there will either be a shortage or a surplus.
And as for Maslow - I don't see where he would be wrong. The difficulty is quite correctly pointed out in Wikipedia - it's not clear how to objectively measure satisfaction. Well so limiting the methodology doesn't mean the theory is wrong. Air too was not known how to weigh for a long time, but that does not mean that the law of conservation of mass was not fulfilled at that time !
Explain to me, what problem is being discussed here? I don't see a clear statement of the problem.
The most sensible thing I can say is that before your question there were N problems, now there are N+1
So what's wrong with the analogy? There are objective laws - if there is no prescriptive price setting, then prices are set at the intersection of supply and demand curves. And no one can change this law. We can introduce a directive price setting, but even then - if we set prices at a different point - there will either be a shortage or a surplus.
As for Maslow, I don't see where he is wrong. The difficulty is quite correctly stated in Wikipedia - it's not clear how to objectively measure satisfaction. Well so limiting the methodology doesn't mean the theory is wrong. Air, too, was not known how to weigh for a long time, but that does not mean that the law of conservation of mass was not fulfilled at the time !
The price at this point is often like a bomb, always hitting the centre of its explosion.) That is - usually there is no way (data) to construct these curves, but people believe in them anyway.
His main mistake is to try to get all people on the same page. For example, Neumann's theory of utility assumes individual differences.
The most meaningful thing I can say is that before your question there were N problems, now there are N+1