No, you have merely made that claim without supporting it. As is your wont. More accurately, you are no fan of honesty, reason, fact, honesty, discourse, or honesty. What on earth do you even incorrectly imagine you think you might be bloviating about?
More grunt dodge. Let's try again: Do you think referring to "Marxist/neoclassical aggregations" makes sense when referring to a school of thought which essentially refers to unique characteristics of firms to explain why economies of scale is of less import?
Yes, as something it completely misses. Which was kinda the point. Which you have decided never to understand.
You do so struggle! Let's try again. Where is the "Marxist/neoclassical aggregation" with a theory of a firm that focuses on how firms grow so differently?
Ooo, are you going to derive a microeconomic critique on a microeconomic school of thought? Go ahead!
I already did: it accepts the invalid aggregations of neoclassical economics, as neoclassical economics did less ingenuously the invalid aggregations of Marxism.
Tut tut! Your reading skills have failed you: Derive a microeconomic critique of a microeconomic school of thought. Try again with your blag...
I'm not interested in whatever homework assignment you mistakenly believe is relevant to what I posted.
I know you can't derive a microeconomic critique of a microeconomic school of thought. That's the point after all. You've been found out (again)
focusing on inheritance from the rich is disingenuous, the self made rich also earn riches inequitably but drive up inequality much faster. inheritance is for average people without talent or education, who can pass on some of the fruits of their labors from an honest days work to future generations. the rich will always rule, it depends on which side is merciful to most people.
You haven't referred to any microeconomics. I'm happy for you to pretend otherwise. Can you please refer to this microeconomics and demonstrate the significance of your comment?
If you give someone over $14,000 while you are alive the amount you give over $14,000 is taxed as earned income to the recipient.If you cannot give it to someone tax free while you are alive why should you not be taxed on it when you re dead where the exemption was well over $5 Million.This is just another method of the rich taking care of the rich.
Of course that is another bald falsehood from you. See posts #304 and #306 in this thread. Not that such facts will alter your behavior in any way.
#304: "Yes, as something it completely misses. Which was kinda the point. Which you have decided never to understand." #306: "With you, it's more of a sickness...What does that theory call the firm's "capital"?" Wow!
Can you make relevant microeconomic comment by answering the question? Can you even remember what I said it misses?
Come now. Tell me where there is microeconomic comment in the clearly rant comments that you, for some unknown reason, decided to refer to?
You do make me laugh. You refer to quotes that clearly were rant and then tell me that proves otherwise.
Yes you earned it but I'm guessing the forefathers involved decided that the recipients of your wealth didn't earn it and therefore decided to tax this 'new found' wealth. I don't know this to be true but I'm just making a guess.