angelofdeath Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I understand what you guys are saying and im not saying I agree totally with the minimum wage but in this day and age who the fuck is ganna work for less than $7 an hour? I wouldnt, I wont work minimum wage now, in my opinion that isnt a''livable wage''. Maby if you work from the minute you wake up till the sun sets you can have your bills paid and if you eat ketchup sandwhiches and never do shit. Gas is around an average of $3.50 a gallon, people would be working just to pay their gas to get to and fro in some cases. I wouldnt work for $7 and hour, and less you got to be fucking joking me. Id rather sell drugs or steal shit before I give an hour of my time for pocket change. I got that employers could hire more people etc etc. , but how would increased productivity help if everyone's broke from only earning 5 dollars and hour when the goods theyre making they cant even afford. No one could buy the excess goods because all their money is paying rent and food. Something has to give, either inflation and the cost of living needs to go down or people need to be paid more. It should be based on your creditials, education, experience etc etc im not for some slob making 10 an hour to sit on his ass or some punk woking at a burger king who sweeps trash but people cant even survive off what theyre getting paid. At my last job I was working with people 10/20/30 years older than me with kids/mortgages and all that steez making the same as I was as a 20 year college student. Im not sure what the answer is other then shit just needs to stop being so fucking expensive or take the money and bonuses of millions of dollars of the chiefs and give it to the fucking indians who keep their machine going. to me you are just ignoring completely how wages are determined. im sure you wont work for minimum wage because you have a productivity that is much higher than minimum wage. look at this whole thing another way. lets just assume that everyone who wants to buy something would like to ideally buy it for 0. and everyone who buys labor services (employers) would like to buy it for 0. lets also assume there is no govt minimum wage. you put an add in the paper to hire two new lawyers at your firm. you offer .50cents an hour. how many lawyers are going to apply for this? wages ALWAYS tend to be near to ones marginal revenue product. as i explained previously, you cannot simply hire someone and pay them 20$ an hour and have them only produce 5$ worth of stuff an hour. i really do not understand what is so hard to grasp about this concept, but many people just cant seem to figure it out. flip it around. you hire someone to cut your lawn. you are buying labor services. the lawn boy wants to make positive infinity per hour and you want to pay negative infinity, but through the market place, competition and free trade, the average market price for this size lawn might be 50$. the market figures it out and the rate the worker gets is near his marginal revenue product. the MW is not a floor. wages are determined by productivity. if you remove the minimum wage and you are currently making 20$ an hour turning wrenches at an auto shop, you will still make 20$ an hour. the only thing that is going to happen with a minimum wage repeal is people who have a lower than minimum wage productivity will now be able to work. this is of course, leaving out the perverse moral hazard of the welfare state which makes it much more beneficial to low skilled workers to figure out how to draw a check than work at their market wage. how does one make more money and bring themselves out of poverty? they learn more skills, they increase their productivity and they will then get paid accordingly. i offer you MW supporters this: why dont you go and start a restaurant?. pay your employees 30$ an hour to flip hamburgers or whatever the 'living wage' is. give them a month off, 45 sick days, stipends, full paid for health care and housing in single family homes in nice neighborhoods. you have to charge 105$ per hamburger to cover your costs. you are not showing a profit. how long do you think you will stay in business? and for those that didnt want to start the business but support the MW, will you buy 105$ hamburgers when you can get one for 5$ at a drive thru at the same quality? i'd imagine, you'd buy the 5$ one. you see, there is only one difference between the MW supporters and people like myself. we both want to pay as little as possible for something and receive the most amount of money possible for our services, goods, etc. the only difference is, y'all want to mandate it. i want the market to determine it because i value freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 to me you are just ignoring completely how wages are determined. im sure you wont work for minimum wage because you have a productivity that is much higher than minimum wage. look at this whole thing another way. lets just assume that everyone who wants to buy something would like to ideally buy it for 0. and everyone who buys labor services (employers) would like to buy it for 0. lets also assume there is no govt minimum wage. you put an add in the paper to hire two new lawyers at your firm. you offer .50cents an hour. how many lawyers are going to apply for this? wages ALWAYS tend to be near to ones marginal revenue product. as i explained previously, you cannot simply hire someone and pay them 20$ an hour and have them only produce 5$ worth of stuff an hour. i really do not understand what is so hard to grasp about this concept, but many people just cant seem to figure it out. flip it around. you hire someone to cut your lawn. you are buying labor services. the lawn boy wants to make positive infinity per hour and you want to pay negative infinity, but through the market place, competition and free trade, the average market price for this size lawn might be 50$. the market figures it out and the rate the worker gets is near his marginal revenue product. the MW is not a floor. wages are determined by productivity. if you remove the minimum wage and you are currently making 20$ an hour turning wrenches at an auto shop, you will still make 20$ an hour. the only thing that is going to happen with a minimum wage repeal is people who have a lower than minimum wage productivity will now be able to work. this is of course, leaving out the perverse moral hazard of the welfare state which makes it much more beneficial to low skilled workers to figure out how to draw a check than work at their market wage. how does one make more money and bring themselves out of poverty? they learn more skills, they increase their productivity and they will then get paid accordingly. i offer you MW supporters this: why dont you go and start a restaurant?. pay your employees 30$ an hour to flip hamburgers or whatever the 'living wage' is. give them a month off, 45 sick days, stipends, full paid for health care and housing in single family homes in nice neighborhoods. you have to charge 105$ per hamburger to cover your costs. you are not showing a profit. how long do you think you will stay in business? and for those that didnt want to start the business but support the MW, will you buy 105$ hamburgers when you can get one for 5$ at a drive thru at the same quality? i'd imagine, you'd buy the 5$ one. you see, there is only one difference between the MW supporters and people like myself. we both want to pay as little as possible for something and receive the most amount of money possible for our services, goods, etc. the only difference is, y'all want to mandate it. i want the market to determine it because i value freedom. I usually read what you write, respect your input, and find you to be an intelligent human being. But you take things way out of porportion ad its not even viable for your argument other than making it sound like a kid saying ''A Qa-jillion dollars.'' Im in the same boat as you fool, I oppose the MW and think that it perpetuates laziness and mop propers. What you're paid should be based off your productivity no doubt, but you must factor in the cost of things and youre simple argument of those people who are only worth 3 and hour will fall off the payroll. This will lead to more wealthfare, more crime, and in reality wont work for the same way communism cant work, the human element. The way that you can pay the lousy MW is because you will have people who are smarter, work harder, and care about their well being and their overproductivity carries those bums which isnt fair but isnt any diffrent than wealthfare. Your statement that it will make those who fall of the employment grid will suddenly be motivated to aquire skills, a trade, or further their education isnt practical and is quite ludacris. Id venture a guess that most people, oh id say 90% working a MW job have no aspiration in the first place and chances are they will never be anything more sadly. So as I said before they wont better themselves as they are already lazy cum bags they will just resort to crime or extortion from those of us who are productive. Not to mention furthering your education, gaining a trade, or skill isnt easy, its time consuming it takes quite a while and in many cases is fucking expensive. Its just not pratical to pull the rug from under the bums feet and think theyll get a wake up call and want to go to Harvard... to use one of your hyperbole comparisions. Again im not for the MW, I dont like it, and I dont like fucking wealthfare while were at it. sadly unproductive lazy people are part of our society and there isnt an easy fix to the problem other than to pay them to do jack shit and hope they dont rob you and I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I usually read what you write, respect your input, and find you to be an intelligent human being. But you take things way out of porportion ad its not even viable for your argument other than making it sound like a kid saying ''A Qa-jillion dollars.'' the examples i used are merely to illustrate the theory. its much easier to see on the extremes. What you're paid should be based off your productivity no doubt, but you must factor in the cost of things and youre simple argument of those people who are only worth 3 and hour will fall off the payroll. This will lead to more wealthfare, more crime, and in reality wont work for the same way communism cant work, the human element. i am factoring in the cost of things. if someone cannot afford to live the lifestyle of someone who makes 100K a year on a 20K a year salary, then you just cant say....'but you have to factor in the cost of things...' if one wants to make more money, they must produce more in the way of goods or services. the pricing mechanism is determined by proper resource allocation. i dont really understand what you are proposing when you say 'you must factor in the cost of things...' are you suggesting we start mandating wages or something similar? that is the only conclusion i can draw from someone making that statement. the reason the 3$ an hour wage earner is 'falling off the payroll' is because the govt has outlawed his job and with the welfare state in place, the incentive is to collect the check rather than work, gain skills and climb the latter to great economic successes. The way that you can pay the lousy MW is because you will have people who are smarter, work harder, and care about their well being and their overproductivity carries those bums which isnt fair but isnt any diffrent than wealthfare. in a free society, some of this is true. for instance, walmart pays wheel chair bound greeters. the market has simply determined a productivity level for these people and obviously it is above minimum wage. it still makes no economic sense for a business to socialize wages and subsidize non productive workers. but if that is their wish, so be it. Your statement that it will make those who fall of the employment grid will suddenly be motivated to aquire skills, a trade, or further their education isnt practical and is quite ludacris. Id venture a guess that most people, oh id say 90% working a MW job have no aspiration in the first place and chances are they will never be anything more sadly. you may be right, but the odd thing as pointed out by walter williams very eloquently is that most people earn minimum wage only for a very short period of time before climbing the ladder. but yes, some people have low skills, some people dont want to excel in life... and well....that is there choice. life is what you make it. So as I said before they wont better themselves as they are already lazy cum bags they will just resort to crime or extortion from those of us who are productive. so what is your solution to this? crime is already illegal and you said you dont support a minimum wage...soooo im sort of really no getting your argument. Not to mention furthering your education, gaining a trade, or skill isnt easy, its time consuming it takes quite a while and in many cases is fucking expensive. Its just not pratical to pull the rug from under the bums feet and think theyll get a wake up call and want to go to Harvard... to use one of your hyperbole comparisions. again, repealing the minimum wage today will not abolish anyones job that has a productivity higher than minimum wage, any more than repealing the MW would make doctors earn .2 cents an hour. if someone has a skill set valued at 9$ an hour, and the 7$ minimum wage is repealed, he'll still make 9$ an hour. the min. wage isnt a floor, its a hurdle that one has to jump over in order to be employed. no, a minimum wage hamburger flipper might not all flock to harvard (actually that would be a bad move...who wants 200K in debt and still not be able to get a job?)but they generally progress up the ladder. it wasnt so long ago when regulations and taxes were less burdensome that a person could, without a high school degree, support a family, own a house and did pretty well. in the 50's, someone who wanted to go to college could easily pay for it buy working part time. average college tuition was something like 300$ a year. extrapolate that today and you'll how much the education-industrial establishment is raking people over the coals due to inflation and the massive government influx of free money driving up the prices of schooling. the average health insurance policy in the 1960's cost under 10 bucks a month. sure, getting an education, bettering yourself, and learning a trade is not easy. life isnt easy. its just a matter of deciding how hard you want it. we dont have mandated equality of result in america, we have the freedom to choose our own destiny. Again im not for the MW, I dont like it, and I dont like fucking wealthfare while were at it. sadly unproductive lazy people are part of our society and there isnt an easy fix to the problem other than to pay them to do jack shit and hope they dont rob you and I. i think there is a WHOLE lot more to factor in on this equation that just saying we need to keep the MW even though you dont like to solve crime. if just throwing money at the criminals in society fixed anything, crime should of been done away with a long time ago. a much better solution would be to stop breeding entire generations of people to be dependent on the govt. if these people actually had to work and support themselves entirely on their own, most of this problem would disappear. other than the fraction of the population that just want to rob and kill people. this will always exist. in fact the welfare state is to blame for most of this, such as breaking apart the family, which arguably the most important factor in all this. as walter williams is fond of saying...'the black family survived slavery, but it couldnt survive the welfare state.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 good quote from a submitter on reddit: Charioteer From my perspective the true power of the statement is not that rights have been endowed by a Creator, but that these truths are self-evident. So the true appeal to authority is the authority of the self. First among the truths is that all men are created equal. Therefore, no man can lay claim to having authority over another man, except by consent. The opposite of this is the tyrant who claims authority over other men. All tyrants claim superiority. The claim to superiority can be made by physical force, religious doctrine or even scientific claims. Whereas it is self-evident to me that all men are equal. It is not incumbent upon me to persuade others to grant me rights because my rights are not derived from them. It is incumbent upon me to persuade others to grant their consent to being governed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 every business I have ever worked for calculates it wages on what other companies are paying the same people. Most people nowadays work in big companies, if you work customer service or something like that you will be paid just above minimum wage however you are bringing in loads of money to the company selling loans etc etc, you might get a small bonus but you are basically paid peanuts to do a shit job. Most companies pay the minimum they can get away with, I might be a hell of a lot more productive in my job than my co worker but they wont pay me anymore for it. With inflation at what it is and the economy how it is most people cannot afford to put any money into the economy because they are skint, they havent had wage increases in years but inflation and cost of living continues to go up, but wages don't. I check the job market all the time for jobs in my sector and the wages for those jobs havent changed in about 8 years, how are you supposed to live off minimum wages if even jobs above minimum wage pay shit. Unless you have something specific to offer like doctors bankers etc then you will be paid the lowest the company can get away with, so the people that essentially keep the world running by going to work everyday and working their asses off are just getting worse and worse off financially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 What he said ^ Must spread rep fool, not like you need it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 the examples i used are merely to illustrate the theory. its much easier to see on the extremes. [/color] It is for the sake of argument but id prefer to use real world examples. Like 7.25 an hour $3.50 a gallon of gas $5.00 Average meal $10 movie ticket $20 concert $50 pair of shoes the list goes on and most places that pay minimum wage wont work you more than 39.5 hours so they wont have to pay you benefits or overtime either. i am factoring in the cost of things. if someone cannot afford to live the lifestyle of someone who makes 100K a year on a 20K a year salary, then you just cant say....'but you have to factor in the cost of things...' if one wants to make more money, they must produce more in the way of goods or services. the pricing mechanism is determined by proper resource allocation. This statement applies to some, alot of the folks we can thank for our housing market crash and the credit card bubble but to alot of people this is bullshit. Theyre not driving BMW's and living in Townhomes on borrowed money. Generally theyre living a pretty modest live style for a western nation. How can they produce more though if 90% of he jobs avalible pay them as low as they can regardless of their productivity? Have you ever worked for a corporation? You think if they repealed the MW law that theyd pay you what you're worth? Fuck to the no they wouldnt theyre all blood sucking leeches who rather jew you out of a $100 bonus then keep a valuble employee and keep them happy. If anything theyd lower the wages to rock bottom as long as they could still get people to work them. Not to mention you make it seem like its so easy to become more productive and can turn things around over night. A college eduation is minimum thousands if not tens of thousands a year that a minimum wage burger flipper could never hope to pay. Trade schools take years and are pricey as well, what if they cant find the time because theyve got to work 3 jobs to keep a roof over their head. And resource allocation? The problem in the first place is they dont have any excess resources left over from the bare minimum of survival to allocate on anything. Im not argueing for the scumbags on wealthfare who buy crack and lottery tickets, im talking about the single middleclass mothers who are trying to put two kids through college and maintain a home on one salary or college student looking at $80,000 in loans. i dont really understand what you are proposing when you say 'you must factor in the cost of things...' are you suggesting we start mandating wages or something similar? that is the only conclusion i can draw from someone making that statement. the reason the 3$ an hour wage earner is 'falling off the payroll' is because the govt has outlawed his job and with the welfare state in place, the incentive is to collect the check rather than work, gain skills and climb the latter to great economic successes. I wont argue you on wealthfare being a bastard, we both agree on that. What i mean by you must factor in the cost of things in wages is that it dosent matter what the job is or how productive someone is, if the wage theyre earning wont cover their expenses they arent going to work, or will feel dissempowered because even though they are working they cant even cover their red ink. You cant charge $5 for a gallon of gas and then have companies pay people $5 an hour, it will never work that way. in a free society, some of this is true. for instance, walmart pays wheel chair bound greeters. the market has simply determined a productivity level for these people and obviously it is above minimum wage. it still makes no economic sense for a business to socialize wages and subsidize non productive workers. but if that is their wish, so be it. Im not saying socialize wages, im just saying companies cant be super god damn greedy and pay their employees $7 and hour and then turn out a billion dollar profit for the year its bullshit. As for unproductive workers, fire their ass two at a time and hire one productive worker who can cover both of them and then pay them 1.5 of what the losers were making. problem solved. you may be right, but the odd thing as pointed out by walter williams very eloquently is that most people earn minimum wage only for a very short period of time before climbing the ladder. but yes, some people have low skills, some people dont want to excel in life... and well....that is there choice. life is what you make it. This is bullshit. Like I said ive worked a good amount of jobs even at a young age and the last place I worked people had been there for years and never gottena single raise or promotion and it was due to favoritism and lack of room to be promoted. There are bums in life who dont want to excel and there are people you couldnt work paying them to bite holes in donuts in a pie factory but those people will always exist and I NEVER am adressing them when im having my arguments. so what is your solution to this? crime is already illegal and you said you dont support a minimum wage...soooo im sort of really no getting your argument. Yeah crimes illegal because go figure crime is defined as acts against laws which in most cases we can all agree on are wrong like robbery and extortion. Im not for a MW, im just for people having the chance to work and make some fucking money and not being wage slaves to corporate America again, repealing the minimum wage today will not abolish anyones job that has a productivity higher than minimum wage, any more than repealing the MW would make doctors earn .2 cents an hour. if someone has a skill set valued at 9$ an hour, and the 7$ minimum wage is repealed, he'll still make 9$ an hour. the min. wage isnt a floor, its a hurdle that one has to jump over in order to be employed. no, a minimum wage hamburger flipper might not all flock to harvard (actually that would be a bad move...who wants 200K in debt and still not be able to get a job?)but they generally progress up the ladder. it wasnt so long ago when regulations and taxes were less burdensome that a person could, without a high school degree, support a family, own a house and did pretty well. in the 50's, someone who wanted to go to college could easily pay for it buy working part time. average college tuition was something like 300$ a year. extrapolate that today and you'll how much the education-industrial establishment is raking people over the coals due to inflation and the massive government influx of free money driving up the prices of schooling. the average health insurance policy in the 1960's cost under 10 bucks a month. Guess what Leave it to Beaver its not the 50's anymore, the demographics have changed, the population has swollen, and the College Education factory is in place which in my opinion is the biggest scam of all time. Those prices would never fly in the global market economy we face today, its ludacris to even bring those numbers up other than to be nostalgic. And I disagree with you that a company would pay someone $9 when they had someone working for them for $7, you must obviously never worked in a company or coporate job if thats your mindset. sure, getting an education, bettering yourself, and learning a trade is not easy. life isnt easy. its just a matter of deciding how hard you want it. we dont have mandated equality of result in america, we have the freedom to choose our own destiny. Thats why its called life, if it were easy that shit would be called Easy im not disputing that. I agree its motivation and drive as well as ambition but we also have to look at reality and see that just because someone in todays society is ambitious and driven they wont always get results and actually year by year that margin is growing. You cant do shit with a HS diploma now other than collect trash, and now a days a college degree wont even promise you a job. So why should I pend 4 years and $40,000+ to get a degree and im not even promised light on the other side of the tunnel? i think there is a WHOLE lot more to factor in on this equation that just saying we need to keep the MW even though you dont like to solve crime. if just throwing money at the criminals in society fixed anything, crime should of been done away with a long time ago. a much better solution would be to stop breeding entire generations of people to be dependent on the govt. if these people actually had to work and support themselves entirely on their own, most of this problem would disappear. other than the fraction of the population that just want to rob and kill people. this will always exist. in fact the welfare state is to blame for most of this, such as breaking apart the family, which arguably the most important factor in all this. as walter williams is fond of saying...'the black family survived slavery, but it couldnt survive the welfare state. ' Never said keep the MW Im all about solving crime, well most crimes. But what do you plan to do if you let millions of un educated people drop of the pay grid and not be able to hold a job because they refuse or cannot better themselves. More prisons, more cops, were already a prison nation are we going to pay for all these slobs to be locked away? You do the math Einstein, $7/8/9 and hour or $50,000 a yera to house them in a cell. Heres where we link back up on track my friend, No more welathfare, no more generations of living off goverment cheese, no more paying for some crackbitch to have 8 kids knowing shell make a salary off of it, cut the goverment aid weeningly and immediately where neccesary and make people who actually should get goverment assitance take a drug tets, and track where there money goes. There are a population who do need help, they should be given a credit card on a goverment account and every purchase should be monitored. No more drugs, no more lottery tickets, no more problems. If you fail or fuck up youre done, no more tax money and your ass is now on probation and youre given a workline job or youre in jail simple as that. And although its not politically correct to say so, obviously the minorities(and some white trash) have made a culture out of screwing over the system and it needs to end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 every business I have ever worked for calculates it wages on what other companies are paying the same people. Most people nowadays work in big companies, if you work customer service or something like that you will be paid just above minimum wage however you are bringing in loads of money to the company selling loans etc etc, you might get a small bonus but you are basically paid peanuts to do a shit job. Most companies pay the minimum they can get away with, I might be a hell of a lot more productive in my job than my co worker but they wont pay me anymore for it. With inflation at what it is and the economy how it is most people cannot afford to put any money into the economy because they are skint, they havent had wage increases in years but inflation and cost of living continues to go up, but wages don't. I check the job market all the time for jobs in my sector and the wages for those jobs havent changed in about 8 years, how are you supposed to live off minimum wages if even jobs above minimum wage pay shit. Unless you have something specific to offer like doctors bankers etc then you will be paid the lowest the company can get away with, so the people that essentially keep the world running by going to work everyday and working their asses off are just getting worse and worse off financially. calculating wages based on competition in the same field is only one factor. its sort of like when you sell a car, sure you look to see what the competition is charging, but you are ignoring how that price was determined in the first place. it was determined by millions of market actors engaging in free trade. an employer can ask for someone to work for .2 cents an hour, but how many takers is he going to have if the market has determined the productivity of a certain worker to be 9.50? you can ask 10,000$ for your car because you heard someone sold the same car for that, but if you can only find someone to pay you 5,000$ after months of trying to sell it, how much is the car worth? i have a friend who was a landscaper and worked for a company. he made something like 15$ an hour or so. he was telling me how he started watching his boss go and bid these jobs, like 500$ bucks for an hours worth of work for 2 people. so the guy got fed up with seeing how much cash flow that came in and went started his own company. he didnt have enough money to buy his own machines so he rented them per hour. he quickly found out that the 500$ for an hours work was not enough for him to pay his 1 employee, so he had to let him go. so he was working for himself. by the time it was all over he gave up on the business and got a job doing something else because other companies found more efficient ways to get things done fast and cheaper than him. its the same with employment. low skilled workers have an advantage, they have the advantage of being able to work for low wages. because they have this, they have a job if they want it and the person who wants to make 20$ an hour for 5$ worth of work doesnt. you also have to consider that there is more to labor costs for an employer than just wages. if he gets vacation time, this gets factored into his salary. you have to factor in social security, unemployment insurance, workmans comp, medicare, income and employment taxes, sick days, as well as healthcare or any other sort of compensation that is factored in. so if someone makes 30K a year, the total cost of this is probably double the wages the worker receives. if you want to bring inflation into the equation and you want to fix this problem, and since the MW is not a floor, but a hurdle for wage earners, you must eliminate the cause of inflation, the central bank. ANY WORKER, not just a doctor or whoever is being paid the lowest the company can get away with. just like when you buy a pair of shoes or food, you tend to purchase the stuff at the 'lowest price you can get away with.' we already agreed on this. the employer would like to pay the worker 0 and the worker would like to get paid infinity. the way the wages are determined is by the productivity of the worker. i've asked the question numerous times, but no one wants to answer it. how can you pay a worker producing 5$ worth of stuff an hour, 30$ per hour and stay in business? yet this seems to be the solution offered by your side. if people need to make more money, they need to get a better skill set, work more instead of demanding a 30 hr work week and a months vacation, and increase their productivity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 It is for the sake of argument but id prefer to use real world examples. Like 7.25 an hour $3.50 a gallon of gas $5.00 Average meal $10 movie ticket $20 concert $50 pair of shoes the list goes on and most places that pay minimum wage wont work you more than 39.5 hours so they wont have to pay you benefits or overtime either. im not sure what you are trying to say at all in these arguments. from what ive taken from your arguments is...first you said the min wage isnt a floor under wages, now you are trying to argue that it is a floor. you said you are against the minimum wage, yet you are posting large rebuttals to my argument for elimination calling to keep it. now you are posting something that is saying how much things cost and that low productivity workers might not be able to go to a concert every weekend or buy a new pair of shoes every 2. ave you ever worked for a corporation? You think if they repealed the MW law that theyd pay you what you're worth? Fuck to the no they wouldnt theyre all blood sucking leeches who rather jew you out of a $100 bonus then keep a valuble employee and keep them happy. If anything theyd lower the wages to rock bottom as long as they could still get people to work them. certainly i've worked for a corporation. ive even worked for a 'corporation' that was comprised of two people as sole share holders. are you trying to tell me that corporations who employ lawyers would pay them 2 cents an hour if there was no minimum wage? car mechanics making 30$ an hour would get paid 3 cents an hour with the minimum wage gone? the MW is a HURDLE its not a floor, because productivity determines wages. think about the argument you are making. its totally legal for a corporation to pay a brain surgeon 7.25$ an hour. if all hospitals offered surgeons this compensation, how many would accept arrangement? sure companies would want to pay 'rock bottom wages.' they'd like to pay employees nothing, and employees would like to make infinity. but the market determines the productivity of labor. 18th century candle stick makers thrown into producing candles against a factory worker would fail miserably in the market place. ot to mention you make it seem like its so easy to become more productive and can turn things around over night. A college eduation is minimum thousands if not tens of thousands a year that a minimum wage burger flipper could never hope to pay. Trade schools take years and are pricey as well, what if they cant find the time because theyve got to work 3 jobs to keep a roof over their head. nope, never said its something easy to do. im just stating fact. doctors make a tremendous amount of money because they worked to attain a certain highly valued skill set. the market places less value on a cashier. because it takes time to become productive if you naturally have low skills, this is why the average blue collar worker reaches his highest productivity after working for 20 years. you usually dont start out at the top. by the time the worker is 50 years old, he is generally nearing his peak in productivity Im not argueing for the scumbags on wealthfare who buy crack and lottery tickets, im talking about the single middleclass mothers who are trying to put two kids through college and maintain a home on one salary or college student looking at $80,000 in loans. i'd say it was very stupid to go into 80K in debt for nothing. You cant charge $5 for a gallon of gas and then have companies pay people $5 an hour, it will never work that way. this is just silly and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. think about it for a second. you can pay someone to dig a house foundation with a teaspoon. you can also pay someone to dig a foundation with earth moving equipment? who is worth more? the tea spoon using digger is completely priced out of the market. his labor is not even worth 5$ an hour, its probably worth negative 5, against a back hoe. so if you need to be able to buy a 5$ gallon of gas, you need to stop digging foundations with teaspoons and get a back hoe and make 30$ an hour This is bullshit. Like I said ive worked a good amount of jobs even at a young age and the last place I worked people had been there for years and never gottena single raise or promotion and it was due to favoritism and lack of room to be promoted. so you are saying that people literally make 7.25 an hour for their entire lives? most stats show that the majority of minimum wage earners are at this level for under 2 years and are mostly teenagers. Im not for a MW, im just for people having the chance to work and make some fucking money and not being wage slaves to corporate America so then what are you arguing for? your entire case is in defense of the MW and then you are saying you are against it. Guess what Leave it to Beaver its not the 50's anymore, the demographics have changed, the population has swollen, and the College Education factory is in place which in my opinion is the biggest scam of all time. Those prices would never fly in the global market economy we face today, its ludacris to even bring those numbers up other than to be nostalgic. And I disagree with you that a company would pay someone $9 when they had someone working for them for $7, you must obviously never worked in a company or coporate job if thats your mindset. the examples were to show how much government involvement and inflation have driven prices to extremely high rates which seems to be the entire hysteria behind your posts. instead of engaging in this quasi class warfare stuff, why not look at the real problems? insurance is high because the government essentially runs it. energy is high because of the same reasons. its no coincidence that the most regulated sectors are the ones with rapidly increasing prices and those with little regulation experience falling prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 good quote from a submitter on reddit: Charioteer bump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Again I agree with everything you say AOD in theory but that is not how it is in the real world, companies screw over their staff with shitty wages, the staff cannot do anything about it because every company in the area will be screwing their staff with shitty wages, those wages then make it impossible to live off of. The company generally doesnt care if you do a shit job because they can just fire you and hire someone else. I don't know what utopia you live in but you seem to support business being the top rank person able to fuck over the staff however they want, when it should be the worker, because face it they keep the company going. Then you have no wage increases, even though these companies are multi billion profit companies, inflation is running at 5% and utilities companies are putting up gas and electricity by 8-10%, fuel increases. Until companies start paying livable wages we are going to be in this economic downturn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Again I agree with everything you say AOD in theory but that is not how it is in the real world, companies screw over their staff with shitty wages, the staff cannot do anything about it because every company in the area will be screwing their staff with shitty wages, those wages then make it impossible to live off of. The company generally doesnt care if you do a shit job because they can just fire you and hire someone else. if it is really true that collusion is possible in markets, then all your arguments you have made about companies raising prices 'because they can' make no sense. business wants to sell something cheaper than someone else in order to make more money. if all businesses are paying workers a similar wage and benefit package, it is because that is the market's value it places on the workers wages. if it is universally true that collusion can lower the price of wages and raises prices of goods, then why is the price of gas only 3.50$ a gallon in the US and NOT infinity dollars per gallon? if business can really 'do what it wants' then all prices should be totally untouchable by EVERYONE. the one problem is.... companies want to make money and you cant make money charging 1 million dollars for a peice of bread and you cant keep workers by paying them 1 cent an hour i'll say it one more time...HOW LONG CAN A BUSINESS PAY SOMEONE MORE THAN WHAT THEY CAN PRODUCE AND STAY IN BUSINESS? as i stated previously, it is also impossible for a guy digging house foundations with a teaspoon to live off the wages he is paid. in order to make more money, you need to increase your productivity. wages are not a benevolent gift, they are something that is exchanged for a good or service. I don't know what utopia you live in but you seem to support business being the top rank person able to fuck over the staff however they want, when it should be the worker, because face it they keep the company going. no, i dont support 'business being the top rank person able to fuck over the staff...' no is 'fucking over' anyone in a free market. your post implies that workers have a right or are entitled to work at someones business. and no one is forcing anyone to work at someone's business. if one doesnt like a companies pay he can seek other work, other occupations, increase their productivity, etc. a worker who is 'getting fucked' is quite free to leave. there is no force involved in the equation. you can even start your own business. there are many that require little capital investment if any. sadly though, the 'regulations' you favor to 'stick it to corporations' also make it impossible for small start ups to access the market place. the theory of trade is fairly universal. one can logically deduce that if one trades an apple for 1$ in a free market that the person with the apple valued the dollar more than the apple, and the person with the dollar valued the apple more than the dollar. if one person takes a job with an employer and exchanges labor for monetary compensation, this person is doing so because he values the money more than his labor, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT ENGAGE IN THE TRADE. do you tend to give the grocery store money because you think you are getting screwed or because you want the food more than the money? you cant blame inflation, caused by the government on a private exchange between 2 people, in this case workers and employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Noam Chomsky discussing Ron Paul beeing booed at the latest CNN Tea Party/GOP Debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect Ron Paul Video : A Foreign Policy Update: Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets. The unwritten agreement by the two super powers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests. I well remember the Cuban missile crises of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time. Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period. This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon. It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig Von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the Weapons of War. Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend. Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted. There was to be no "beating their swords into plowshares," even though history shows that without weapons and war there's more food and prosperity for the people. Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources. Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole super power. It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson's idealistic goal of "making the world safe for democracy" by pursuing a war to end all wars. The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy. There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent. In many ways America had been "exceptional" but in an opposite manner from the neo-con driven foreign policy of the last 20 years. If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes and war. Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis. Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies. To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us -- that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home. Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks. We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we're spreading freedom and America's goodness around the world. We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution. That is not believable. This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good. The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned—if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity. My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages. This requires simply tolerance of others cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources. Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world's great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power. A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.: Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us. Offering friendship with all who seek it. Participating in trade with all who are willing. Refusing to threaten, bribe or occupy any other nation. Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars. Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions and occupations. This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world. Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I watched the recent GOP, Tea Party, debate and cringed when Paul answered the question regarding what happens in absence of state based health programs where someone does not have private insurance. So I was stoked to find Roderick Long had written a blog entry on this issue, found here. "Wolf Blitzer: You’re a physician, Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question. A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides: “You know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it.” But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?" This is the kind of question that libertarians usually give stupid answers to. Their first impulse is to stress that no one has the right to force other people to pay her medical bills – which is true enough, but a weird place to start. This answer in effect treats the free market as the present system minus welfare, and so takes for granted that the problem described is likely in a free market. It also casts the sick person as a threat to others’ liberty rather than as a person who can be better helped by libertarian methods than by statist ones. If someone is looking to smear libertarians as people who want to let sick people die, this hands them the opportunity on a platter. (Of course it doesn’t help if your alleged supporters are actually yelling in the background that the patient should die.) Most libertarians’ second impulse is to mention charity. And their third impulse, if they ever get around to it, is to mention the point they should have led with – that the high cost of health care is a product of state regulation. Follow the link for the full argument. Inb4; Cilone claims that I have 'nothing, nothing at all'. Haters gonna hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Well from watching Ron Paul in debates, I'd have to admit that he isn't the best debater. His responses to questions aren't articulated the way they are when he is responding to them during an interview process or through his own writings. Often, he attempts to minimize his argument down to the most basic points of his principles, and it doesn't come across as well as it does when you're reading one of his books or researching his positions on your own. That, and the perspective that these debates aren't giving candidates adequate time to respond to questions and aren't very fair and balanced. I honestly think if it came down to an Obama vs. Ron Paul primary, the debates would be very interesting and Obama could end up winning simply because Obama seems to me like a better debater. Philosophically Ron Paul is very intelligent, it just seems to me like he struggles to articulate himself accurately when he's put in pressure situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Well from watching Ron Paul in debates, I'd have to admit that he isn't the best debater. His responses to questions aren't articulated the way they are when he is responding to them during an interview process or through his own writings. Often, he attempts to minimize his argument down to the most basic points of his principles, and it doesn't come across as well as it does when you're reading one of his books or researching his positions on your own. That, and the perspective that these debates aren't giving candidates adequate time to respond to questions and aren't very fair and balanced. I honestly think if it came down to an Obama vs. Ron Paul primary, the debates would be very interesting and Obama could end up winning simply because Obama seems to me like a better debater. Philosophically Ron Paul is very intelligent, it just seems to me like he struggles to articulate himself accurately when he's put in pressure situations. Yeah I agree. I watched this debate and the previous one in the Regan library, this was the first time I had watched him debate. I have only seen a few clips of him speaking, or highlight reels of his debating moments prior to watching these debates. You're right, he is not a great debater and is much more articulate in interviews. *As an aside, I began to read one of his books but found it so poorly written that I couldn't finish it, particularly considering I was familiar with the content already. But, he is a doctor, not an academic so I cant be too critical there. In fact, that he has not been groomed from university as a member of the political class is a good thing! Anyway, when debating, unfortunately at moments he comes off as a flustered old man. I think there are two reasons for his failings; the first is obvious, he is not as media savvy and polished the other main contenders. At this stage in his life there is probably not a lot you could do about that. The second is that his messages is both radical and complex. Given that it is not one that is familiar to most people, it requires more substantiating, which, of course, requires more time and patience on the behalf of the audience. This is not particularly conducive to debating in the manor conducted. However, this is also his biggest contribution to the cause. By trailblazing these ideas on such a widely received forum, he paves the way for future libertarian candidates. In this sense I have a lot of respect for the man. He is doing some hard, thankless, work. He knows he will not become president, but feels a duty to stand up for what he believes is a rational, consistent, and principled approach to politics. Which is far more than can be said for most other candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Kid Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 better Ron Paul coverage on 12oz then all mainstream media combined.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Yo so CILONESK negged me saying I should find out how libertarianism worked out for Kent Snyder. I am aware of this story but it is simply a case of partisan hackery. I challenge anyone to demonstrate a clear link between libertarianism and the death of Snyder. That he was a libertarian and died with a $400,000 medical expense bill is not proof of anything particularly other than the current legislative landscape facilitating the ability for current medical providers to charge cartel prices. In absence of this legal framework medical costs would undoubtedly go down. Licensing and special interest regulation creates oligopolies and drives prices upwards. In contrast, under a socialised medical system costs will not magically disappear, but increase even further. The only difference is the method of payment; taxpayers on aggregate vs individuals. Even in a socialised health system medical staff need to carefully allocate scarce resources. If you think that a different method of payment will render this scarcity non-existent you have another thing coming. Government provided health services will still make calculations based on the resources they have available, in some cases they will be forced to direct medical attention away from some, in order to help others. You are deluded if you think otherwise. In fact, of all the articles I have read that have attempted to damage Paul's credibility, this one and the concern for Paul's financial portfolio are equally in line for a wooden spoon award. Both are blatant attempts at shock value with zero substance. Who ever has their dirt-unit working on these stories needs to find better staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 CILONE latches on to every media talking point that shines Ron Paul in a negative light. He has no real arguments of his own, that's why he goes looking on the internet for other people's arguments and comes here on 12oz to post them as his own words without citing the original source. His rebuttals to anything said here is completely dismissive of all the logic anyone throws at him, and I've seen maybe a handful of decent posts come from his perspective but most of them are backed up by the anti-ron paul article trash that rounds the internet and the media on a regular basis. The unfortunate part is that we need people like CILONE here on this forum and in this thread to exhibit and represent the counter position of those who don't support Ron Paul and his ideologies. CILONE just isn't the best person to represent that perspective because he resorts to idiocy, insults, threats, and just plain immaturity. I'm glad this thread has been free of him for a little while but I'm assuming he'll return shortly with more moronic shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Ron Paul says he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182939-ron-paul-says-hed-consider-putting-dennis-kucinich-in-his-cabinet Ron Paul says he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet By Justin Sink - 09/21/11 12:02 PM ET Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says he would consider putting the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in his Cabinet if he were to win the presidency in 2012. Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left — including Kucinich, who shares Paul’s general anti-war stance. Paul joked that if he brought the Ohio congressman aboard in his administration, he might have to create a "Department of Peace." "You've got to give credit to people who think," he said. "Being pragmatic is about forming coalitions," Paul said at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. "I probably work with coalitions better than the other candidates. I don't think I've said anything negative here about the president." Paul spokesmen Jesse Benton later said the remark was a joke, and said Kucinich is too ideologically different from Paul to be a candidate for a Cabinet spot. "Ron works with Dennis on some coalition issues, and respects him as a thinker, but was joking and would not consider him for Cabinet position. He made clear he did not want to name Cabinet officials," Benton said. Paul’s bid for the GOP nomination has yet to catch fire, though he enjoys perhaps the most passionate following in all of politics. He has had difficulty elevating himself to the top tier of candidates and complained that the media is not taking his campaign seriously. But the congressman said he’s playing the long game, and values bringing political change over winning the presidency. "Politics doesn't drive me as much as economic policy," Paul said. "We're in a big mess, personal liberty is under attack." Paul said his presidential campaign is more about an "educational effort" of libertarian philosophies than a reflection of his personal ambition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Ron Paul's Faith and Religious Views: "I get to my God through Christ" "I get to my God through Christ. Christ to me, is a man of peace. He is for peace. He's not for war. He doesn't justify preemptive declared war. I strongly believe there is a Christian doctrine of Just War and I believe this nation has drifted from that, no matter what the rationals are, we have drifted from that and it's very, very dangerous and I see in many ways being un-Christian. And to justify what we do in the name of Christianity I think is very dangerous and not part of what Christianity is all about. Christ came here for spiritual reasons not secular war and boundaries and geography. Yet we are now dedicating so much of our aggressive activity in the name of God, but God-- He is the Prince of Peace. That is what I see from my God, and through Christ, I vote for peace." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 How Government Grows: It’s the Economists Stupid http://honestinquiry.com/how-government-grows-its-the-economists-stupid/ “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens… The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” John Maynard Keynes, 1919 Government has a bottomless piggy bank, and it’s us. We just don’t realize it. Keynes was referring to inflation of the money supply. In simple terms the money supply is the total of everyone’s physical money plus everyone’s bank accounts. Government can increase or decrease the total supply of money through actions of the Federal Reserve (Fed). In fact, one of the Fed’s main functions is to regulate the money supply, this is called monetary policy. When government increases the supply of money, the money already in circulation is automatically worth less. It’s much like shares of stock. If you own 100 shares of a company that has 1000 shares outstanding, you own 10% of the company. If the company was able to issue 1000 new shares, your 100 shares would now own just 5% of the company. This kind of action in a company’s stock is called dilution. When it happens to money it’s called inflation. Same effect. Whenever new stock/money is created, the value of existing stock/money is now lower. Let’s look at it another way. We all know that when lots of people want something, the price goes up. For example, you may wish to purchase a new car. You have the money. You know the price should be $15,000. Then, just before you go to buy the car, the government announces they will give everyone who doesn’t have a car $20,000 to buy a car with. Suddenly lots of people have access to the cash needed to buy a car. Guess what the dealer does to the price? At first your $15,000 was valuable enough to by a car, but after the government increased the supply of money available to buy cars, your $15,000 was no longer valuable enough to afford the car. So (the government program) increasing the supply of money made the value of (your) existing money lower. At any given time you own a certain percentage of the money supply. When government increases the money supply, the value of your money is lower. But since your bank account didn’t change, you wouldn’t have any way of knowing. How would you become aware you now own a smaller percentage of the money supply? When money is created, more dollars are chasing the same amount of things to buy, causing prices to rise. This rise in prices is how we measure the effect of increasing the money supply, so over time the rise in prices has come to be referred to as inflation. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is our most common measuring stick for inflation. Because the economy is so large and complicated, it is impossible to know which prices will rise, when they will rise, or by how much they will rise when the money supply is increased. So, whenever governement increases the money supply, it is eventually ”paid for” by an increase in the price of something, at some time. How does government increase the money supply? For reasons too complex to explain here, the Fed mainly controls the money supply by setting interest rates. The Fed can also directly create dollars. It creates new dollars by simply increasing the total in it’s own bank account. If you’re unfamiliar with this it may sound incredible, but that is actually what happens. The Fed can create money and use it to buy anything it wants. One of the Feds favorite things to buy is Treasury Bonds. The sale of Treasury Bonds is how the U.S. government finances it’s deficit spending. When the government needs to borrow it announces a sale (the term they use is auction) of T-Bonds. Guess who buys the T-Bonds? The Fed. Where did the Fed get the money? They created it. The Fed is by far the largest holder of US government debt, usually holding about 50% of the total. This is called “monetizing the debt“. If you’re the government and you’re short of cash, it is much quicker and easier than raising taxes or borrowing from the Chinese. Monetizing the debt means (since the government inflated the money supply) we will eventually pay for it in inflated prices. And since the Fed is independent, they don’t have to tell anyone what they have done, what they are doing, or what they intend to do. This is what Keynes is talking about when he says governments can confiscate the wealth of their citizens secretly and unobserved, and why not one man in a million can diagnose it. Is there any limit to how much money the Fed can create? Yes, it’s just that no one (including the Fed) knows what that limit is, because it’s just too complicated. They know if they create too much money, inflation will increase. If they create way too much money, they will lose control and money will hyper-inflate causing disruptions in society (imagine prices rising 50% or greater every year, which has happened many times in world history). This is why the Fed always says their main job is to fight inflation. The Fed believes it can manage the money supply any way it wants, as long as it controls inflation. So in practice, the inflation rate is the main limit on how much money they will create. An inflation rate of 1-3% is, A) low enough that citizens won’t notice, and B) low enough the Fed doesn’t think it will lose control. An inflation rate of say 10% is high enough citizens will notice and the Fed will fear losing control. How did we get into this situation? At the turn of the century economists developed theories that by managing the money supply they could control the business cycle, meaning they would prevent down cycles and keep the economy in a permanent semi-boom cycle, which would feature near full employment. Especially after the Great Depression, this sounded mighty good. And so, the last 100 years has been a living experiment. All the booms and busts, including the one we are experiencing now, have been the result of the unforseen consequences of various interventions in the economy by government. Likewise, no one knows what would have happened if the government had not been intervening. And that is the battle line in the debate between (so called) Keynsian economists and ‘free market’ economists. Stay tuned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Here is the next one CILONE and people of his ilk will likely latch onto: Ron Paul may lag in the polls but his campaign has enough money for a private jet http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20109190-503544.html SPENCER, Iowa - Ron Paul has turned jet-setter. On what was planned as a three-stop tour of Iowa Tuesday, the Republican presidential candidate who has made fiscal conservatism his hallmark missed his first event because of problems with his private, leased jet. According to an aide, the Texas congressman had to commandeer a new jet and pilot to continue on. Paul, whose "money-bomb" donation drives and devoted followers have made him the third-most successful fundraiser in the presidential field (behind President Obama and GOP rival Mitt Romney) as of June 30, even though he lags in the polls, addressed the audience at his first event, in Council Bluffs, by phone. Special Section: Campaign 2012 Arriving here, for his final event of the day, he hosted a town-hall meeting for about 150 supporters in a packed room plastered with Ron Paul posters. Paul professed to be delighted that Gary Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico who shares Paul's libertarian views, made the cut for Thursday night's Republican presidential candidates' debate in Orlando. "Oh I think it's great," Paul said. After a few questions, however, an aide intervened. It was time for Air Paul to head back to Washington, D.C. , where he's scheduled to be the featured attraction at a Wednesday morning press breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor and where, the aide promised, the congressman would get to work solving some of the problems he had discussed on the presidential campaign trail. New Smear: Ron Paul Is Elitist http://www.infowars.com/new-smear-ron-paul-is-elitist/ Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Wednesday, September 21, 2011 CBS News has sunk to new lows of desperation in the establishment media’s crusade to derail Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign by any means possible – ludicrously smearing him as being elitist for using a private jet. Of course, the report completely fails to mention the fact that Paul’s two frontrunner rivals, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, have shelled out far more in expenses than the Congressman. Entitled Ron Paul may lag in the polls but his campaign has enough money for a private jet, the piece by CBS News’ Rodney Hawkins implies that Paul’s use of a private jet to travel between campaign stops contradicts his “fiscal conservative” moniker. “On what was planned as a three-stop tour of Iowa Tuesday, the Republican presidential candidate who has made fiscal conservatism his hallmark missed his first event because of problems with his private, leased jet. According to an aide, the Texas congressman had to commandeer a new jet and pilot to continue on,” states the report, before labeling the Congressman’s campaign “Air Paul”. However, the CBS report is noticeably absent the fact that Paul’s rival Mitt Romney has run up a $5 million tab on travel expenses, “Blowing $80,000 on hotel rooms in Las Vegas, $50,000 on a security squad and $125,000 on private jets — despite a pledge to scale back on luxury travel, new campaign filings show,” reported the Boston Herald. Romney travels in style on a $5.8 million luxury corporate jet at a cost of over $60,000 each time. Likewise, fellow frontrunner Rick Perry and his family have used the private jet of a wealthy contributor currently under investigation for fraud by Texas regulators and the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Indeed, Perry is so sensitive about his travel costs that he has sealed details of his expenses to ensure they won’t be released until after the 2012 election. Perry added the amendment to a school finance bill in the Texas legislature on July 1. “One Republican legislator, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described the governor as “extremely concerned” about keeping his records sealed, and said Perry was actively lobbying key legislators to get it passed in the waning days of the special session. The legislator said Perry’s wife, Anita, also was pressing legislators on the issue,” reported the Washington Post. In addition, Perry’s security costs for the campaign trail, which currently stand at around $294,000, are being picked up by the taxpayer. So while Romney blows over $5 million on luxury expenses, and Perry refuses to even disclose the amount he’s spent, CBS News chooses instead to report on “Air Paul,” despite the fact that the Congressman has spent less than $400,000 on travel expenses in total. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Noam Chomsky discussing Libertarian Socialism: I think he made some very strong points about what is deemed "Libertarian" in this country, and how words have lost their meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Noam Chomsky discussing Libertarian Socialism: I think he made some very strong points about what is deemed "Libertarian" in this country, and how words have lost their meaning. Sure, libertarianism is traditionally a left wing movement. It is focussed on individual equality and opportunity rather than demographic based equality produced by the barrel of a gun. A shift by the center-left over the course of the 19th and 20th century from being pro equality to pro interventionism, abandoned libertarians, or classical liberals, to defend individual rights to do with property what they wish without harming others. Thus defending individuals rights to engage in business as they like. These kinds of typological arguments are one of the great sore points for political theorists, exemplified by this debate; do classical liberals fight to reclaim the name 'liberal' from those who have come to see it as representing social democracy, or do they abandon the name and reclassify themselves as libertarian? Personally I don't see it as so important to claim any particular title. I think it is important to point out errors, such as those who might claim libertarianism is a product of the extreme right, but if the weight of the world has moved against you then perhaps its best to roll with the punch. In this case I think Chomsky is taking a small liberty himself in the interpretation of Adam Smith etc. To my understanding Smith was not advocating that in order for markets to work each actor must start from a level playing field, this seems to me a modern 'liberal' interpretation of Smith, instead he was talking about markets delivering equality in opportunity as trade is essentially blind and does not favour the traditionally privileged. I don't need political connections to buy a smart phone, for example, smart phone providers are desperate to market as widely as possible as they see one persons money to be as good as the next. This prompts a point that I find hard to believe that statists do not recognise, in a democratic system; if you empower the state to privileged those you deem worthy you also inevitably empower the state to privilege those that others deem worthy too. This is as you have implicitly approved of the mechanism to privilege some over others regardless of the particular outcome. Social democrats want the state to be empowered to deliver welfare, bolstered unionism, and protected industry, but in doing so they also facilitate the desire of nationalist conservatives who want the state to be empowered to deliver law and order and militarism etc. Democracy as a political system simply does not enable the delivery of all of what one voting demographic wants and none of the other. This is as, by design, it is a coercive system which acts on behalf of the majority against the will of the minority. In this way it is naive to want the state to act in one way, but reject the state acting in another. You must either accept the state acts, or it does not. Thus in order to truthfully advocate democracy, the acts of the state must be accepted, historically, on aggregate. You must both believe that the sum total of the good outweighs the bad, and that the bad is justifiable in order to achieve some good. Personally I don't find this argument to be satisfactory, hence the fact that I reject the state entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Sure, libertarianism is traditionally a left wing movement. It is focussed on individual equality and opportunity rather than demographic based equality produced by the barrel of a gun. A shift by the center-left over the course of the 19th and 20th century from being pro equality to pro interventionism, abandoned libertarians, or classical liberals, to defend individual rights to do with property what they wish without harming others. Thus defending individuals rights to engage in business as they like. These kinds of typological arguments are one of the great sore points for political theorists, exemplified by this debate; do classical liberals fight to reclaim the name 'liberal' from those who have come to see it as representing social democracy, or do they abandon the name and reclassify themselves as libertarian? Personally I don't see it as so important to claim any particular title. I think it is important to point out errors, such as those who might claim libertarianism is a product of the extreme right, but if the weight of the world has moved against you then perhaps its best to roll with the punch. In this case I think Chomsky is taking a small liberty himself in the interpretation of Adam Smith etc. To my understanding Smith was not advocating that in order for markets to work each actor must start from a level playing field, this seems to me a modern 'liberal' interpretation of Smith, instead he was talking about markets delivering equality in opportunity as trade is essentially blind and does not favour the traditionally privileged. I don't need political connections to buy a smart phone, for example, smart phone providers are desperate to market as widely as possible as they see one persons money to be as good as the next. This prompts a point that I find hard to believe that statists do not recognise, in a democratic system; if you empower the state to privileged those you deem worthy you also inevitably empower the state to privilege those that others deem worthy too. This is as you have implicitly approved of the mechanism to privilege some over others regardless of the particular outcome. Social democrats want the state to be empowered to deliver welfare, bolstered unionism, and protected industry, but in doing so they also facilitate the desire of nationalist conservatives who want the state to be empowered to deliver law and order and militarism etc. Democracy as a political system simply does not enable the delivery of all of what one voting demographic wants and none of the other. This is as, by design, it is a coercive system which acts on behalf of the majority against the will of the minority. In this way it is naive to want the state to act in one way, but reject the state acting in another. You must either accept the state acts, or it does not. Thus in order to truthfully advocate democracy, the acts of the state must be accepted, historically, on aggregate. You must both believe that the sum total of the good outweighs the bad, and that the bad is justifiable in order to achieve some good. Personally I don't find this argument to be satisfactory, hence the fact that I reject the state entirely. This is why the moderators should be ashamed of themselves for banning you, because that was one of the most constructive though provoking posts I've seen in this entire thread. I've had my disagreements and quarrels with you on here, but you've really earned my respect (not that it means anything) by showing how conversation can and should occur here on 12oz without all of the insults and trash talking. In response to what you've said... I agree with your statement that there is no middle road and it must be decided as to whether or not the state acts or does not act. This is why I have trouble identifying exactly where I personally stand on issues such as social welfare/socialism... because on one end I empathize with the arguments of those social democrats but at the same time understand unbalanced empowerment you're speaking of. That's what I'm afraid of, and like you said it WOULD be used to deliver authoritarian legislation/militarism, etc. It's why I support Ron Paul, who makes the decisions that the state does NOT act and stands by his decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 I agree with your statement that there is no middle road and it must be decided as to whether or not the state acts or does not act. This is why I have trouble identifying exactly where I personally stand on issues such as social welfare/socialism... because on one end I empathize with the arguments of those social democrats but at the same time understand unbalanced empowerment you're speaking of. That's what I'm afraid of, and like you said it WOULD be used to deliver authoritarian legislation/militarism, etc. It's why I support Ron Paul, who makes the decisions that the state does NOT act and stands by his decision. The social democratic intent is wonderful, who doesn't want equality and help for those who have struggled in life? It is their lack of understanding of the mechanism they wish to deliver their intent that is their failing. The state is a beast born of militarism, it is hierarchical and coercive by nature. No manor of reform can change these fundamentals. The state is the state, to remove these elements would be to destroy it in favour of another form. In contrast, anything piled on top of this dreadful core leaves these fundamental issues un-addressed. This this is a point that will never be acknowledged by statists as they cannot see the forest for the trees. In a frenzied quest to address their unending micro concerns, they ignore a macro understanding of state based democracy. I should point out that Ron Paul does not believe the state should not act, unless he does so privately. He instead is aware of the problems of state action and seeks, pragmatically, to reduce their harms. He is a true libertarian, not an anarchist. This is the point that I diverge from libertarianism. Having drawn from a common theoretical perspective, I conclude that any state would inevitably use its coercive power to incrementally enlarge itself regardless of structure, constitution, etc. A state reserves the right to employ coercive force aggressively rather than defensively. A state is not self fuelling, it relies on resources it must pilfer rather than produce. In this way, a state has a strong incentive to find new ways to win approval for its privileged position through the use of this coercive ability, yet has a weak incentive to address the past and present problems it has caused in its aftermath. Simply put, it has a strong incentive to expand and a weak incentive to contract. For these reasons I am not a libertarian but an anarchist. Btw, thanks for the positive comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 One last quick comment, I think Chomsky is misleading when he talks about the success of the interventionist approach in developing economies. When he speaks about interventionism, I assume he means domestically, he draws a false correlation. He ignores the foreign interventionism/imperialism that has given most of the developed economies a drastic 'zero sum game' advantage over the slave bearing, colonised, and vanquished nations. These are all aspects that have facilitated the early capital accumulation aiding western/Japanese development. Considering Chomsky is a champion of anti-imperialism, I am surprised he presented his argument this way. Moreover, it is not that undeveloped nations have a hands off approach that is preventing their development, quite the contrary. It is that their political instability, risk of confiscation etc, that dissuades investors who will build up capital and thus increase economic capacity. For example, tell me who in their right mind would want to start a large scale venture in Zimbabwe right now? Zimbabwe will remain dirt poor so long as Mugabe, or any other leader, insists on using coercive force to intervene through price controls and other methods of veiled thuggery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 What kind of anarchist are you, because I know anarchism has different categories. Please explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.