Football 2010-2011

[jump]

We need a "Mind numbing and utterly pointless football definition discussion" thread.

[The Nal]

Rubbish. It's the very definition of market from which every single economist abstracts exchangable value and monetary worth.

No there isn't. The value of a commodity depends upon the demand for it and not everyone agrees on a certain price because not everyone values things equally.

You're talking utter shite.

[eFestivals]

You're talking utter shite.

Come back and admit you're wrong once you've studied economics to know what you're talking about.

Shares have an absolutely fixed price at any moment, because there is a properly operating market to set that price.

The same is not true with footballers. The price is set mainly by opinion, and not purely by market forces. This is why there can often be a huge difference between what a buyer might be prepared to pay and what the seller believes the player is worth (something which doesn't exist in a proper market, because that proper market sets the price).

You don't get this because it's something you clearly know nothing about. The error here is yours alone.

Edited January 25, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

We need a "Mind numbing and utterly pointless football definition discussion" thread.

nah, we need an utterly pointless worm thread.

All he's doing with dismissing what I'm saying is demonstrating as clearly as can be that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The operation of proper markets is the very basics of economics.

[worm]

Shares have an absolutely fixed price at any moment, because there is a properly operating market to set that price.

[worm]

nah, we need an utterly pointless worm thread.

[eFestivals]

The transfer market is a market Neil.

Yes, it is "a market".

But it is not "a proper market".

They are two distinct and different things, with different ways of operating, which causes something within one to have a fixed price that (nearly) everyone can agree on, and causes the other to have no fixed price but only opinions of worth plucked from the air.

It means that there is no trend in footballers transfer prices - which you said there was - because the prices are all over the place, because people's opinions are all over the place. There is no trend that can be detected which is able to set the price for every player, or even a single player. There is only the opinions of the buyer and seller.

Everything you've posted has proven beyond doubt that you are waaaaaaay out of your knowledge base, and that you know nothing about how markets work or the very basics of economics. You are stating a view that is based in your ignorance of this subject, and not a view based in economic fact.

Edited January 25, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

If I buy a tonne of sugar today, I know that I'm able to sell it again at the same moment for the exact same price as I paid. This is because there is a properly operating market.

If I buy Charlie Adam today for (say) £12M (a price picked because I think someone said in this thread that that should be his price), then I do not know that I can sell him again at the same moment for the same price. This is because there is no properly operating market.

These distinctly different buy/sell processes are what demonstrate what is a properly operating market, and they are both concepts which are defined within and recognised by economics.

Worm thinks he can dismiss those differences as worthless on an intellectual level, but they can be dismissed no less than the concept of dialectical materialism (or existentialism, or rationalism, or Relativism, or the Philosophy of science, etc, etc, etc) can be dismissed from philosophy.

Worm only thinks he's able to dismiss the concepts of a properly operating market (or not) because he's waaaaaaay out of his intellectual depth.

[worm]

Yes, it is "a market".

Edited January 25, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

May I suggest that you hand in this proposal to an economics department somewhere as it wouldn't be prudent to test it here.

PMSL

I don't need to tell any knowledgeable economist about this, as they already know of it. It was those knowledgeable economists that told me - and every other person who has studied economics, which you clearly have not.

As I've already made clear several times now, opinions are not just plucked from the air in the transfer market.

In the main, they very much are. Any economist can tell you this, it's a properly recognised academic concept of economics, and the non-operation of proper markets to football transfers is something which has been studied in depth by those economists.

There is a nod of acknowledgement towards other transfers within the process of a footie transfer, but nothing more.

The very fact that they ARE opinions plucked from the air is demonstrated by the fact that Olly thinks Adam as worth £14M, while Liverpool believe* him worth only £4M.

(* that is, if that's the maximum offer they're prepared to make for him).

Therefore, we can make assessments with regard to the worth and value of players in a monetary sense.

Yes, anyone can make that assessment, but each assessment will be wildly different (as is shown with Adam). And that's because there is no properly operating market.

FFS worm, while I don't buy into an awful lot of concepts of philosophy that you buy into, I'm not so stupid as to claim those concepts don't exist within philosophy. You are being stupid enough to try to claim that economics does not have a concept of what is a proper market and what isn't.

[TheGayTent]

Where's CBC with his thoughts on O'Neil?

From what I've seen of him live, looks like a solid addition to the squad if not the first team. In the short term can see him playing wide, particularly away from home.

[ampersand]

Where's CBC with his thoughts on O'Neil?

From what I've seen of him live, looks like a solid addition to the squad if not the first team. In the short term can see him playing wide, particularly away from home.

[worm]

I don't need to tell any knowledgeable economist about this, as they already know of it.

[jump]

Why has Van Bommel decdied to quit Bayern for Milan?

[eFestivals]

Not one economist would accept that a market is not a 'proper' market Neil because their job is not to define what a market is, but to work out how they work.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. You are 100% wrong.

FFS worm, while I don't buy into an awful lot of concepts of philosophy that you buy into, I'm not so stupid as to claim those concepts don't exist within philosophy. You are being stupid enough to try to claim that economics does not have a concept of what is a proper market and what isn't.

[ampersand]

and why is babel en route to germany just days after dalglish said he wasn't going anywhere?

[worm]

They're wildly different because of things such as resources, capital reserves and requirements for survival/competition. Hence the idea, that you rejected, that Liverpool are attempting to steamroll a naive Premiership business and its manager.

[jump]

and why is babel en route to germany just days after dalglish said he wasn't going anywhere?

[worm]

You are being stupid enough to try to claim that economics does not have a concept of what is a proper market and what isn't.

Edited January 25, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No, I'm saying that there is no such thing as an improper market. It's either a market, thus the interest of economists, or it isn't.

If you knew even the basics of economics, you wouldn't spout this worthless and wrong guff.

Let me try again....

A "proper market" always has a buyer at a set price. If you like, with stuff like commodities and shares, it's an auction-type process, where when the price falls to a particular level the buyers dive in and snap up the goods.

Olly has indicated that he'd sell Adam for £14M, because that's what he believes him to be worth. But he's not worth that, because no one has gone in and bought him at the price that they know he could be had for (that £14M). This gets to show that Olly is not quoting a "market price" (because a 'market price' would have a buyer at that price), he's doing exactly what I've said and plucked a number from the air.

You can spout your ignorant bullshit as much as you like, it is never right on an academic economic level. You can choose to disagree with the concept, but you can only say the concept does not exist because you are ignorant of the subject.

If I said to you that there was no concept of dialectical materialism within philosophy (something different to whether I agree with the concept or not), you'd say I clearly had no idea about the concepts of philosophy.

You are doing the exact same thing with regard to economics, because you have no idea of the concepts of economics.

FFS. Keep on posting, I'm enjoying your huge display of ignorance and stupidity an awful lot.

[worm]

A "proper market" always has a buyer at a set price.

[jump]

Can anyone make ruling on if economics comes under finance so this can be moved to other thread please?

[ampersand]

Can anyone make ruling on if economics comes under finance so this can be moved to other thread please?

[worm]

This gets to show that Olly is not quoting a "market price".

Edited January 25, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No it doesn't. A 'proper' market is a place where people exchange goods.

Not as a concept of economics, it's not.

What you're saying is as laughable as me saying (if I did) that there's no concept of post-modernism within academic philosophy.