^^ For what he was trying to describe, LRAC is by far the easiest and simplest way unfortunately.. It basically shows the minimum cost a firm can charge for a product given variable inputs, and you can go an awful long way down the rabbit hole on that one. (Personally I would have gone with LRAS to be honest...)
That's fine, no problem with that. All I'm saying is don't assume an audience of lay-people will understand what you're talking about, all you have to do is give the brief description that you just did.
TBH Disequilibria could have just said that there comes a time when unit costs starts to increase as you scale up. And you could have just said that there's a certain amount of goods and services that can be sold into the market at a given price.
Not really, no. EDIT: Most people are aware of the economies of scale, less so that economies of scale has a limit. EDIT 2: Although having read what i said over again I left out the word cost. EDIT 3: I've edited my original post, i think i got it right this time, although going on the day I'm having I've probablly got it even more wrong.
Much better But I think a general rule going forwards would be leaving Long Run curves / Econ Terminology out unless we're going to do them in Layman's Terms, or giving an explanation of what they affect/imply.
Farron quits as LD leader ...too much of a god botherer to lead a party like the lib dems... not enough of one to coalition with the Tories...
He struck me as a wet lettuce anyway. Not that he had a particularly easy task, leading a party that has a recent history of not really following through on their campaign promises. More so than any other party, that is.
His interview with Andrew Neil in the run-up to the GE annoyed the bejesus out of me and for that allone he should have stepped down.
And the difference in approach to leadership between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn continue to be noticed: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-st-distraught-grenfell-tower-10627356 http://uk.businessinsider.com/jerem...may-visit-grenfell-tower-fire-disaster-2017-6
Well there's an interesting question here, which probably merits it's own thread. Can he not be perfectly liberal while still holding the strict religious views if he doesn't see that it's his job or the government's job to make people act in the same way. He may consider gay sex sinful, but if he doesn't see that the government should make that it's business, what do it matter. Liberalism doesn't require him to be a libertine, just to allow others to do so.
I feel like while he may not have been opposed to some specific liberal values, his religious beliefs made it difficult for him to wholeheartedly support them, or at least that was the suspicion (with some evidence). I think him claiming he is resigning "because of suspicions regarding his religious beliefs" may be a little disingenuous and over generalising, as I think perhaps the suspicions lay at his ability to fight for certain liberal values in a manner fitting or his job given his beliefs, as opposed to just accept them. Liberalism in general can just be being tolerant and accepting, but leading a liberal party and fighting for a liberal agenda requires more than that in my opinion.
The same can said of Mrs May with her refusal to meet with the press and the residents. For someone who said she preferred meeting with real people in the lead up to the GE she seems strangely adverse to them now, for a party that's put so much effort into detoxifying their image and shaking of their 'nasty party' label she seems intent to undo all that work.
By giving people what they need from a political leader. Who knew that would be such an effective strategy?
You mean by blaming every ill on lack of funding as opposed to poor choices with funds available. The magic money tree better be from a GM seed.
No, by actually turning up and showing the people affected by this tragedy some attention and compassion. The people who were affected by this have been traumatised. They may have lost family, friends or neighbours; they may have lost their homes. They are grieving and hurting. This is the time when a political leader shows up, makes them feel that they matter, that their suffering and loss matters and that their leader is interested in their wellbeing. Corbyn gets that. May doesn't. And that, to many people, says something about how they think about the people that they wish to lead.
