Unemployment has nothing to do with being out of work.

[bobevenson]

Well, my friend, you have it backwords. It's actual production divided by potential production, not the other way around, and it's only the free-market intrinsic value of production that counts in determining the true unemployment percentage.

That's a distinction without difference. Your theory depends on a comparison between potential and actual production. Between the capacity to produce and the proportion of that capacity which is being produced. It is a capacity utilisation theory.

Every one of your theories so far has got bogged down by some foolish error you made early on, which you should be able to shrug off and easily move past. Yet you cannot because you are a prisoner of absurd pride.

Just admit you have a capacity utilisation theory, stop pretending it explains or even counts unemployment, and perhaps I will let you off lightly.

Please, I have given you a formula, defined it in excruciating detail, and analyzed it every step of the way. And all you can do is regurgitate over and over again that capacity utilization bullshit that I have thoroughly debunked and thrown back into the wastebasket of your mind. Unbelievable!!!

[FlashDangerpants]

Well the problem there is that you have failed. You have taken a plain old capacity ultisiation theory and are pretending to upend our understanding of something else just by switching labels.

You cheated, you got caught. You are a fraud.

[bobevenson]

To be very charitable, I will say your thinking is simplistic at best, but unfortunately, quite wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, being equally charitable, you failed because you are a bullshitter with no idea what you are on about.

[bobevenson]

I presented a mathematical formula, you haven't.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't need one. Your formula was worthless and you didn't even understand it, which is why you needed my help to see what it really is.

[bobevenson]

I understand my formula completely and without reservation, and have communicated it in the same fashion.

[FlashDangerpants]

But you failed to notice it was a utilisation formula. You still are apparently.

[bobevenson]

But you failed to notice it was a utilisation formula. You still are apparently.

No, and I have already addressed your miscomprehension.

[FlashDangerpants]

Go on, nobody is reading this. You can admit you made an error and you can move on with your life all in relative privacy.

[bobevenson]

Please, I have presented two original AEP economic theories: 1) that inflation has nothing to do with high prices, and 2) that unemployment has nothing to do with being out of work. Is it my fault you are unable to comprehend meta-economics, economics at a more abstract and higher level?

[FlashDangerpants]

Yeah, sure. Ok, so explain what PVP actually is. Use soe extra words that aren't included in the acronym please. What things should be counted in PVP if it were the sort of thing that could actually be counted?

[bobevenson]

Yeah, sure. Ok, so explain what PVP actually is. Use some extra words that aren't included in the acronym please. What things should be counted in PVP if it were the sort of thing that could actually be counted?

The potential value of production (PVP) is the hypothetical intrinsic market value of production for a given time period in a free market. Obviously, this value can only be estimated since no country has a free market and the actual value of production (AVP) is considerably lower. True unemployment is 1 minus the ratio of actual value of production to potential value of production.

[FlashDangerpants]

So over the course of a week, that theoretical PVP would be achieved by every person and every machine working at 100% output.

But over the course of a year, it would be very different for both obvious and non-obvious reasons (different machines could have been bought, but those would cost money that wouldn't be recouped in one year, they would require multiple years to count towards an increased PVP. In the short term they would reduce it perhaps greatly.)

And over the course of a decade, different industries could have been spawned. Better new industries increase PVP eventually (at great cost in seed money that could have been used for speedy but lesser gains)

Over the course of a generation, children at school could have been taught different skills.

So what is the T value to be? And how do you account for its radically altering effects when dilated?

Push the process out to a long enough term by factoring in the uncountable benefits of ending slavery as an institution in 1376 or 1524; or the advantages that might have accrued had the Roman empire not split into two - or if it had never grown so large and politically unstable as to necessitate the end of the republic (thus bringing the benefits of the renaissance forward by, say, 400 years), PVP becomes effectively infinite. Your equation doesn't work even as a theory then.

So get your T value right, you never give yourself a second chance at anything.

[bobevenson]

Let's just keep it simple, say for the latest year.