It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In economics, diminishing returns (also called diminishing marginal returns) is the decrease in the marginal (per-unit) output of a production process as the amount of a single factor of production is increased, while the amounts of all other factors of production stay constant.
The law of diminishing returns (also law of diminishing marginal returns or law of increasing relative cost) states that in all productive processes, adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant, will at some point yield lower per-unit returns.[1] The law of diminishing returns does not imply that adding more of a factor will decrease the total production, a condition known as negative returns, though in fact this is common.
In mathematics, an inverse function is a function that undoes another function: If an input x into the function ƒ produces an output y, then putting y into the inverse function g produces the output x, and vice versa. i.e., ƒ(x)=y, and g(y)=x. More directly, g(ƒ(x))=x, meaning g(x) composed with ƒ(x) leaves x unchanged.
A function ƒ that has an inverse is called invertible; the inverse function is then uniquely determined by ƒ and is denoted by ƒ−1 (read f inverse, not to be confused with exponentiation).
A relation can be determined to have an inverse if it is a one-to-one function.
In mathematics, the inverse relation of a binary relation is the relation that occurs when you switch the order of the elements in the relation. For example, the inverse of the relation 'child of' is the relation 'parent of'. In formal terms, if X and Y are sets and L \subseteq X \times Y is a relation from X to Y then L − 1 is the relation defined so that y\,L^[-1]\,x if and only if x\,L\,y (Halmos 1975, p. 40). In another way, L^[-1] = \[(y, x) \in Y \times X \mid (x, y) \in L \].
The notation comes by analogy with that for an inverse function. Though many functions do not have an inverse; every relation does.
The inverse relation is also called the converse relation or transpose relation (in view of its similarity with the transpose of a matrix: these are the most familiar examples of dagger categories), and may be written as LC, LT, L~ or \breve[L].
Note that, despite the notation, the converse relation is not an inverse in the sense of composition of relations: L \circ L^[-1] \neq \mathrm[id] in general.
Purchasing power is the number of goods/services that can be purchased with a unit of currency. For example, if you had taken one dollar to a store in the 1950s, you would have been able to buy a greater number of items than you would today, indicating that you would have had a greater purchasing power in the 1950s. Currency can be either a commodity money, like gold or silver, or fiat currency, or free-floating market-valued currency like US dollars. As Adam Smith noted, having money gives one the ability to "command" others' labor, so purchasing power to some extent is power over other people, to the extent that they are willing to trade their labor or goods for money or currency.
If one's monetary income stays the same, but the price level increases, the purchasing power of that income falls. Inflation does not always imply falling purchasing power of one's money income since it may rise faster than the price level. A higher real income means a higher purchasing power since real income refers to the income adjusted for inflation.
Fiat money is money that derives its value from government regulation or law. The term derives from the Latin fiat, meaning "let it be done", as such money is established by government decree. Where fiat money is used as currency, the term fiat currency is used.
Do you understand that in a truly free market that would not happen? Your skills hold value. The more skills and/or the stronger your skills, the more value they hold. In a free market, the owner would know that you could take those skills somewhere else where you get paid more or even start a business to compete with his. Let's use mechanics, electricians, plumbers, etc... as an example. If you don't pay them equal to their value, someone else will. If no one else does, they can go start their own business fairly easily and take your profit away from you. To a degree, most workers can do this. However, it does not work for the low skilled like burger flippers. Those jobs should only be filled by teens and students anyway.
Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
If I'm working and contributing to the success of a company, I deserve fair compensation for that contribution.
If the CEO gets to make 10 million a year, I don't think it's unreasonable that the people on the floor expect to be paid enough so that they don't have to live out of their cars or in a cardboard box.
A price index (plural: “price indices” or “price indexes”) is a normalized average (typically a weighted average) of prices for a given class of goods or services in a given region, during a given interval of time. It is a statistic designed to help to compare how these prices, taken as a whole, differ between time periods or geographical locations.
Price indices have several potential uses. For particularly broad indices, the index can be said to measure the economy's price level or a cost of living. More narrow price indices can help producers with business plans and pricing. Sometimes, they can be useful in helping to guide investment.
Some notable price indices include:
* Consumer price index
* Producer price index
* GDP deflator
Cost of living is the cost of maintaining a certain standard of living. Changes in the cost of living over time are often operationalized in a cost of living index. Cost of living calculations are also used to compare the cost of maintaining a certain standard of living in different geographic areas. Geographic differences in cost of living can be measured in terms of purchasing power parity rates.
Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by DarthMuerte
All I have to do is look at history to know that's not what ends up happening. What ends up happening is that people are forced to work 12-16 hour days for a pittance in horrible conditions. What ends up happening is that you have a two-tiered system with the very rich and the very poor, with an extremely small middle class.
Unfettered, unmitigated capitalism results, very quickly, in a system that resembles economic feudalism.
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Do you understand that in a truly free market that would not happen? Your skills hold value. The more skills and/or the stronger your skills, the more value they hold. In a free market, the owner would know that you could take those skills somewhere else where you get paid more or even start a business to compete with his. Let's use mechanics, electricians, plumbers, etc... as an example. If you don't pay them equal to their value, someone else will. If no one else does, they can go start their own business fairly easily and take your profit away from you. To a degree, most workers can do this. However, it does not work for the low skilled like burger flippers. Those jobs should only be filled by teens and students anyway.
Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
If I'm working and contributing to the success of a company, I deserve fair compensation for that contribution.
If the CEO gets to make 10 million a year, I don't think it's unreasonable that the people on the floor expect to be paid enough so that they don't have to live out of their cars or in a cardboard box.
I would announce that the US is undoing via Presidential power what was done by FDR.... Order the oil reserves the US is storing , all the gold we have, Silver, Plutonium, uranium, Diamonds and all other precious metals tied to all the US dollars in circulation...
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by aching_knuckles
How did the monopolies arise? How did the land barons become such? It had nothing to do with free markets.
Nobody will work for free. When an employer does not pay enough, his employees(those of any worth) can go work elsewhere for more money.
Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
The sad truth is that all of the economic formulas that economists run helpped get us into this depression..... first, my thought on the min wage;..this is necessary in every market because without a bottom employers will supress wages tot he point where it does not pay to work.
Thus the unions, the corporatists and the government all share the blame for destroying free market capitalism.
secondly, unions are a necessary evil when corporations and businesses control government ... that is why they rose and the rise in wages; shorter working hours and other workplace restrictions.
All this works to prove the OP's point.
I watched as our economy went from the manufacturing economy to a service and then to a borrow and spend economy. However, the economy can not survive as a consumer economy so now we are becoming the healthcare economy coupled with a weak service economy.........
I see the end coming for the fiat currency called the "dollar" within a year.....
the bubble economy is soon too burst......
You are asking me if I studied history when history wants to give you a serious wake up call. Take a moment to probe that history you claim to know. How did the robber barons finance their railroads? How did they get the land. Hint, it was the very opposite of free market economics at work.
Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by aching_knuckles
How did the monopolies arise? How did the land barons become such? It had nothing to do with free markets.
What are you talking about? Have you studied history of American business at all? The Robber Barons became rich by exploiting workers and just generally being dicks. So the people organized, and contacted their representatives, and laws were made to stop this.
The corporations saw how powerful this was, then started buying the politicians, and used them to make laws to protect their strangle hold on America, as opposed to breaking it.
So legislation WAS used to help the monopolies, but not until after the laws were initially written to help the common man.
Originally posted by DarthMuerteThus the unions, the corporatists and the government all share the blame for destroying free market capitalism.