How much "Internet Savvy" does it take to notice that's a .org website and any official government site is a .gov? Check out their Disclaimer page here: http://www.whitehouse.org/tos.asp
"WHITEHOUSE.ORG is a digital parody of the Executive Branch of the United States Federal Government. WHITEHOUSE.ORG uses the names and images of public figures for purposes of satire. Any other names are invented. The content of this web site should in no way be construed as factual"
LOLOLOLOL!!!!
If nothing else, Formula88, you've reminded us how vital it is to address the issue of ballot simplification.
With the possible exception of the guy from California that keeps changing his identity, this is absolutely the funniest thing I've ever seen here.
-Jeff
[This message has been edited by JeffMN (edited 02-08-2004).]
IP: Logged
06:17 PM
lurker Member
Posts: 12351 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
Right you are, a typo on my part and not a cut and paste from the actual page.
ALL of the budget links, however, are from http://www.whitehouse.gov , the correct site. Put your little mousey pointer over them and check for yourself.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
How much "Internet Savvy" does it take to notice that's a .org website and any official government site is a .gov? Check out their Disclaimer page here: http://www.whitehouse.org/tos.asp
"WHITEHOUSE.ORG is a digital parody of the Executive Branch of the United States Federal Government. WHITEHOUSE.ORG uses the names and images of public figures for purposes of satire. Any other names are invented. The content of this web site should in no way be construed as factual"
Toddster: My argument with your explanation is that you are essentially using Newtonian physics to reason string theory doesn't exist. While Smith was a great economist he was not omission and his theories have sense been modified and, like Newtonian physics, are only used to explain things simplistically and neatly. Modern economics is much more complicated and deals with information exchange, game theory and new markets that didn't exist in the mid 1700's.
I also thought it interesting that you listed Keynes as one of the economic minds you would use to back your assertions up. If anything I think Keynes would have disagreed with you because he certainly supported government intervention and dissented with Adam Smith's Laissez-faire approach. Keynes argues lowering wages or (maintaining wages during a time of inflation) would remove capital available for investment, since it would reduce expected profits. Instead, it would simply lower consumption, so the total demand for goods would drop. Investment in new production would then become more risky, less likely. He argued that once the expectation of lower prices became built into assumptions, it would spiral downward.
Any rate, the explanations you have given don't amount to an actual answer because you've only explained things on such a simple level that they can not be considered useable. The US has had a minimum wage (which, in terms of real dollar value has been MUCH higher then today's rate) and its GDP has clearly not suffered a net regression sense it's inception. In all honesty, I believe you to be an intelligent person but you nevertheless lack (as do I) the appropriate artillery to argue economic theory into the very nuances of the subject. So, that being said, I really cannot argue along these veins any longer and can only say that I'm satisfied with the... provincial understanding of the subject that I have. In short, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
IP: Logged
11:06 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Toddster: My argument with your explanation is that you are essentially using Newtonian physics to reason string theory doesn't exist. While Smith was a great economist he was not omission and his theories have sense been modified and, like Newtonian physics, are only used to explain things simplistically and neatly. Modern economics is much more complicated and deals with information exchange, game theory and new markets that didn't exist in the mid 1700's.
In fact, the reason Smith is still regarded as a genius in economic thought today is because he was the first, and for more than 100 years, the only theorist to consider Human Capital in his models. In the Industrial age when there was a throng of available employees desperate for work and wages of any kind most economist discounted the possibility that available labor might actually fall below demand. Or that available labor might simply say NO to an offer that had insufficient wages. Let's face it, if someone offered you a dollar a day to dig ditches wouldn't you rather sit at home watching TV? Smith considered these factors when no one else gave them a second thought. The Wealth of Nations is still considered one of the landmark works in economic theory and is just as valid today as it was in the 18th century.
quote
I also thought it interesting that you listed Keynes as one of the economic minds you would use to back your assertions up. If anything I think Keynes would have disagreed with you because he certainly supported government intervention and dissented with Adam Smith's Laissez-faire approach. Keynes argues lowering wages or (maintaining wages during a time of inflation) would remove capital available for investment, since it would reduce expected profits. Instead, it would simply lower consumption, so the total demand for goods would drop. Investment in new production would then become more risky, less likely. He argued that once the expectation of lower prices became built into assumptions, it would spiral downward.
"Laissez-faire", hey someone has been doing his homework. You are half right. Keynes is actually one of my favorite fools, as I like to call him. He can be brilliant on one point and totally blind on others. For example, Keynes understood that a capitalist based system is going to perform at its best with little or no restrictions, but then he goes on to outline a multitude of wage fixing, price fixing, and production limiting proposals to fix the economy (of the 30's). There was a wave of popularity for the idea of communism back then and I personally feel that Keynes was a capitalist at heart who got swept-up in the wave. Let's face it, Roosevelt was the single greatest Socialist to ever sit in the big chair. During his 4 terms if you didn't play his game you were left out. We are still paying for his mess back then. Will Social Security (the moronic idea from Hell) ever be fixed? I seriously doubt it is politically possible. I really believe Social Security will go bankrupt before Congress takes action.
Your observation about lowering consumption is a perfect example of his short sightedness. One question...how? In the 1930's people were more frugal and could be expected to tighten their belts for good ole Uncle Sam but how do you convince people today to give up their SUV and drive a hybrid? Or carpool? or eat less? We are a consumer driven society and the more you try to limit consuption, the more people consume. Do you know that since the Anti-Smoking campaign began in the late 80s the number of new smokers have risen! I see Diet ads all over TV but I also see people getting fatter. Keynes failed to consider Human Capital and failed to consider the changing values of human capital. This is where he decided to PLUG-IN a temporary fix to his models with government intervention. A cop-out. He was on the right tract with many ideas and flawed on just as many. He is still worth noting but only to a point.
quote
Any rate, the explanations you have given don't amount to an actual answer because you've only explained things on such a simple level that they can not be considered useable. The US has had a minimum wage (which, in terms of real dollar value has been MUCH higher then today's rate) and its GDP has clearly not suffered a net regression sense it's inception. In all honesty, I believe you to be an intelligent person but you nevertheless lack (as do I) the appropriate artillery to argue economic theory into the very nuances of the subject. So, that being said, I really cannot argue along these veins any longer and can only say that I'm satisfied with the... provincial understanding of the subject that I have. In short, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
That depends on whether or not the objective is to explain a solution to poverty or not. Neither I, nor any economist alive has the answer to that. If I did I could make a boatload of money by publishing a book. We understand why certain economic actions have certain economic reactions. Legistated wages increases result in higher unemployment. It always has and probably always will. To get into the sublties of solving poverty would require a post that would take far too much time, require a lot of math that I do not know how to display here, and be generally unreadable by 99% of the people on this forum. So, you are right, I am giving the short answer. Know thy audience.
It's perfectly valid answer. “you said absolutely nothing but you managed to say a lot doing it.”
He's managed to exclude game theory, information theory and the new economy brought on by free trade and is trying to explain it with Adam Smith for Christ’s sake.
It's like I said, he was using (is using) Newtonian physics to explain string theory. Not only will he not be able to solve the problem, but even if he just mashes data into the theory anything he gets out isn't worth thinking about.
The resurrection of this post is sort of... brought on by another post anyway... he declared himself winner by attrition and, well, I can't let that happen.
quote
Originally posted by edhering:
After four months, that's the best you can come up with?
So you guys are telling me... You agree with whats going on in Iraq. NO , i agree that the removal of saddam and a democratic iraq is in the best intresat of the world
You're for combination of church and state. NO , i just dont think its constitutional to tell anyone that they have to contradict their convictions simply because someone else doesn't agree ( why do people get mad when a man of faith says he will not promote abortion )
You're for Social Security being handed over to private organizations. No i'm for the people deciding (voluntarily) if they want a PORTION of their social security invested in other types of retirement accounts
You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000. NO , im for tax cuts for every tax paying american including corperate america
You're against having cleaner air. NO , im against the overreaching powers of the government
You're for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. YES , economicaly and ecologicaly it will benifit the area and the rest of america , not to mention that it would decrease our dependants on foreign oil
You're for additional tax cuts for businesses.(which means you get to pay the difference, you cut someones taxes and it comes out of the pockets of someone else) YES, because it will not come out of anyone elses pockets unless they raised taxes somewheres else in the process (which wouldn't be a tax cut) the tax cuts will lower the expenses paid by companies which will either lower the cost of products produced or increase the pay of the employees who produce them. the economy has just recovered now we're just waiting for companies to start acting like it.
You're against raising the minimum wage(which is already well below the poverty level). YES , raising the minimum wage costs us in 2 ways (1) it causes companies to cut jobs to avoid the cost or (2) they will simply add it back to the price of the product to avoid the cost , if you dont like tax cuts becuase you believe that it costs somebody else then you should agree with this position because raising the minimum wage never costs the company , it usually cost the consumer or the employye if not both. perhaps you should ask how many more times do we have raise the minimum wage before we reach the magic number that end poverty (minimum wages have been raised but yet we still have more people earning bellowthe poverty line
You're against helping people who are struggling. NO , im against wasting money on those who cheat the system that was ment for those who are struggling, can you imagine how much more we could help those in need if we didn't have to payout millions to those who are able but refuse to work? consider that! a man/women who has lost the physical ability to work and gets barely enough to survive, how much more could we help those individuals if we were not paying someone to sit home have kids and stay unemployeed (by choice not ability) while their are many who have real disabilities who maintain a job just so they can afford to live and feel less needy.
Bush supporters really need to rethink about who they're supporting. What is it about Bush that you guys actually support? National Security? That reason alone isn't good enough. what is it about the democratic party you actualy support (wemons rights , civil rights , liberty, the persuit of happiness , freedom of religon , freedom of expression ) perhaps you should rethink your support for the democratic party since their record speaks for itself . discrimination of blacks and wemon in the work place when it comes to high positions (glass ceiling) dont say the name jesus any where (is that freedom of speach) gay rights (dont ask dont tell?) is that a right or status quo. freedom to assembol unless its near an abortion clinic ( but democrats can do it anywhere as civic duty and call it a noble cause) sorry man but honestly al sharpten had it right , the democrats may take you to the prom, but historicaly they have always left with someone else (they always will because its only your vote and their agenda that matters to them)
and what exactly does kerry propose he'll do different (maybe you should read his website) oh and if you want to claim that you support the party not kerry , then you should visit the DNC website (click on issues) and realise that on the issues they virtualy point to kerry's website and say "Yeh what he said!"
[This message has been edited by JRM-2M6 (edited 06-22-2004).]
IP: Logged
08:32 PM
Jun 22nd, 2004
Earl Member
Posts: 945 From: Dayton Ohio USA Registered: Oct 2001
To those of you who suport Kerry I have a few questions
Do you support keeping body armor from our troops? Do you support socialized medicine? Do you support raising taxes? Do you support emissions testing in all 50 states? Do you support paying more people to stay on wellfare? Do you support cutting the military budget?
It all boils down to would any of this matter if we cant defend our country? I dont agree with everything he has done but I agree with more of what he has done than anything Kerry is proposing.
To those of you who suport Kerry I have a few questions
1 Do you support keeping body armor from our troops? 2 Do you support socialized medicine? 3 Do you support raising taxes? 4 Do you support emissions testing in all 50 states? 5 Do you support paying more people to stay on wellfare? 6 Do you support cutting the military budget?
It all boils down to would any of this matter if we cant defend our country? I dont agree with everything he has done but I agree with more of what he has done than anything Kerry is proposing.
1as Kerry was in combat and wounded while BuSh2 hid or was AWOL from the national guards I think Kerry will see that the troops have what they need and willnot send them into danger based on LIES, like BuSh2 did
2 sure do, I think it would be better than letting the insurence CORPs make medical policy
3 millioniars should pay high tax rates, not a smaller % then workers do
4 factory smoke stacks yes, newer car yes, but exempt cars over 20 years old
5 biggest wellfare payments are to CORPs by 10 times more than personal payments so lets cut CORPs wellfare first
6 yes we have no need to defend german soil,or japan or way tooo many other places that we now pay to keep troops, and have for way too long and way tooo many $450 hammers and other CORPs ripping off the military
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
04:05 AM
Earl Member
Posts: 945 From: Dayton Ohio USA Registered: Oct 2001
I take it then that you would favor raising the minumum wage. Who cares if small buisnesses have to eliminate jobs so they can afford to stay in buisness. You have shown that you have fallen for all the spin the biased media puts forth. They got you Hook Line and Sinker. And no matter how obviouse the evidence is you belive what you belive truth be darnd!
IP: Logged
06:12 AM
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
You have to weigh out what's worse, there's the possibility of the loss of some low paying jobs "if" there's a temporary increase in minimum wage or the certainty of permanent job losses on all levels by opening free trade to central and south america.
Heaven forbid the minimum wage gets raised. If it did we would all be DOOMED, Dooomed DOOMED!
There is no "evidence" that raising the minimum wage will cause massive layoffs. Sheesh, you take anecdote, spice it up with rhetoric and bad science and brand it as evidence.
quote
Originally posted by Earl:
I take it then that you would favor raising the minumum wage. Who cares if small buisnesses have to eliminate jobs so they can afford to stay in buisness. You have shown that you have fallen for all the spin the biased media puts forth. They got you Hook Line and Sinker. And no matter how obviouse the evidence is you belive what you belive truth be darnd!
IP: Logged
09:08 AM
Tugboat Member
Posts: 1669 From: Goodview, VA Registered: Jan 2004
I was joking, though. I was just poking fun at toddster.
I
I knew that. I'm a big boy. But your analogy is way off. Newtonian Physics is teh basis of all modern physics and to discount it just because it is not in Vogue is perhaps the sadest arguement I have ever heard. Who's ideas do we toss out next? Copernicus, Archemedes, Jesus?
Adam Smith is the father of all modern Economic theory and understanding him helps us to understand the incredible paradigm shift his revelations brought about.
Just last night I watched a facinating episode of NOVA called the Trillion Dollar Bet. It was an attempt to explain mathematically economic cycles by reducing RISK to a simple equation. They did it. The problem is that they couldn't explain why it worked. I think I have the answer, The more dependent a system becomes on technology, numbers, statistics, etc. the more predictable it will act.
Why is this important? Because after the 1929 Crash economist desparate to understand why some traders were incredibly successful while others failed miserably did an experiment and threw darts at a copy of the WSJ. The random portfolio they came up with out performed ALL of the"experts". In other words, the more people tried to predict, control, manipulate, and guess the market, the worse they performed. There was another experiment like this, it was called communism. And it failed too. The more you regulate, the less control you actually have. Economic gospel.
The lesson, we need far LESS restrictions on free trade to make it work best.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-22-2004).]
The analogy isn't way off at all. You can't describe complicated systems with simple formulae. First of all, the number of variables has increased dramatically. Especially when you factor in the effects of free trade - which can never be underestimated because 1) it allows for free discrimination of goods and 2) it restricts the free dissemination of labor and 3) its effect on the value of currency is poorly understood.
Suddenly the simply supply and demand paradigm is meaningless because you can have multiple supply lines your demand can exist but the value of the currency could be overwhelmingly against the supplier. You CANT explain it with Smith, just give it up. Adam Smith was a genius in his day, just like Newton, but many other lesser geniuses (like John Nash) have come along and changed everything.
As for regulated markets not succeeding? That's about as much fooey as one can expect. The Russian problem is exactly the same problem you would expect to find in an unregulated economy. Eventually you end up with a few controlling everything. When you have zero competition between monopolies and/or communist ventures you end up with stagnated economic growth. It resulted in some of the worst economic downturns the country had seen up until the great depression. Anti-trust laws were brokered on the principle that monopolistic and noncompetitive commerce is bad for the economy... why... just look at Russia.
But note the success of China, a communist nation with tight monetary controls and one of the largest and most rapidly growing economies in the world. Sure, they let their people starve and labor away for pennies a day... but the obvious cost of allowing ruthless businesses to operate rampantly led America to its own hygienic awareness ca. the publication of The Jungle. Again, doomed to repeat history lest we learn from it.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
I knew that. I'm a big boy. But your analogy is way off. Newtonian Physics is teh basis of all modern physics and to discount it just because it is not in Vogue is perhaps the sadest arguement I have ever heard. Who's ideas do we toss out next? Copernicus, Archemedes, Jesus?
Adam Smith is the father of all modern Economic theory and understanding him helps us to understand the incredible paradigm shift his revelations brought about.
Just last night I watched a facinating episode of NOVA called the Trillion Dollar Bet. It was an attempt to explain mathematically economic cycles by reducing RISK to a simple equation. They did it. The problem is that they couldn't explain why it worked. I have the answer, The more dependent a system becomes on technology, numbers, statistics, etc. the more predictable it will act. If everybody teaches you that you should sell at price point X and Buy at Y then it is no big mystery that at point X the stock will not fall, but plummet!
Why is this important? Because after the 1929 Crash economist desparate to understand why some traders were incredibly successful while others failed miserably did an experiment and threw darts at a copy of the WSJ. The random portfolio they came up with out performed ALL of the"experts". In other words, the more people tried to predict, control, manipulate, and guess the market, the worse they performed. There was another experiment like this, it was called communism. And it failed too. The more you regulate, the less control you actually have. Economic gospel.
The lesson, we need far LESS restrictions on free trade to make it work best.
IP: Logged
11:00 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Adam Smith is the father of all modern Economic theory and understanding him helps us to understand the incredible paradigm shift his revelations brought about.
You just earned yourself a negative for that mister!
But then you get a positive for bringing up the point that a too heavily regulated economy gets similar results to a unregulated economy.
IP: Logged
11:22 AM
trailboss Member
Posts: 2069 From: Gilbert, Arizona Registered: Feb 2003
There is no "evidence" that raising the minimum wage will cause massive layoffs. Sheesh, you take anecdote, spice it up with rhetoric and bad science and brand it as evidence.
I agree with you Jeremiah, we should make the minimum wage $25.00 per hour, with automatic $5.00 per hour increases every six months.
Well, you're being ridiculous. The minimum wage can't obviously be higher than the average wage. I left the caveats off my statement because I figured most people, yourself included, would understand them.
How are you going to argue raising the minimum wage with that angle anyway? I'll agree - a super massive increase in the minimum wage would be bad for the economy. But... for your benefit... an increase that is concomitant with the increased cost of living has never been shown to be bad for the economy.
quote
Originally posted by trailboss:
I agree with you Jeremiah, we should make the minimum wage $25.00 per hour, with automatic $5.00 per hour increases every six months.
The analogy isn't way off at all. You can't describe complicated systems with simple formulae.
My point is that you CAN. The biggest problem with the ineffective formulae of the 50s and 60s was that they had variables like consumer confidence, risk aversion, HAPPYNESS for crying-out loud. How the hell do you measure these things?
You can't. It wasn't until economist decided to remove these measures and try to distill the complicated variables down to formulas that can actually be used. And they are being used with far greater success.
Once again, the communists tried to manage their economies and the result was a failure. What you are saying is that it failed because they just didn't manage it "right". Well? Were is the emperical data that shows it CAN be managed right? Show me the successful "managed" economic model.
quote
Originally posted by Steve Normington You just earned yourself a negative for that mister!
But then you get a positive for bringing up the point that a too heavily regulated economy gets similar results to a unregulated economy.
I'm getting sea sick. is that a Neutral?
IP: Logged
12:04 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
As for regulated markets not succeeding? That's about as much fooey as one can expect. The Russian problem is exactly the same problem you would expect to find in an unregulated economy. Eventually you end up with a few controlling everything. When you have zero competition between monopolies and/or communist ventures you end up with stagnated economic growth. It resulted in some of the worst economic downturns the country had seen up until the great depression. Anti-trust laws were brokered on the principle that monopolistic and noncompetitive commerce is bad for the economy... why... just look at Russia.
But note the success of China, a communist nation with tight monetary controls and one of the largest and most rapidly growing economies in the world. Sure, they let their people starve and labor away for pennies a day... but the obvious cost of allowing ruthless businesses to operate rampantly led America to its own hygienic awareness ca. the publication of The Jungle. Again, doomed to repeat history lest we learn from it.
Regarding the Russia (presumably you mean the Soviet Union) comparison, All I have to say is AT&T. As a monoploy they had the best service and lowest prices for that service in town UNTIL deregulation. Now don't get me wrong, I am NOT advocating that deregulation is wrong, quite the opposite. But to suggest that the USSR economy was on par with a "productive" enterprise is silly.
Regarding China, we don't literally dispose of our unwanted children in landfils, the people are not slaves to the state, and we can come and go as we please. I would HARDLY call China a success. It is on par with the Roman Empire and doomed to ultimate failure. The reason China has not collapsed yet is because they were smart enough to see what was happening in Europe and after Tiennamin Square they decided to open their markets up...a little. That bought them time. But the fact is that there is no such thing and a little freedom. The people will continue to push for change and it will happen...in my lifetime. China will become a democracy. Hopefully in a less messy manner than the former Soviet Block.
IP: Logged
12:13 PM
trailboss Member
Posts: 2069 From: Gilbert, Arizona Registered: Feb 2003
Well, you're being ridiculous. The minimum wage can't obviously be higher than the average wage. I left the caveats off my statement because I figured most people, yourself included, would understand them.
How are you going to argue raising the minimum wage with that angle anyway? I'll agree - a super massive increase in the minimum wage would be bad for the economy. But... for your benefit... an increase that is concomitant with the increased cost of living has never been shown to be bad for the economy.
The average wage in California is much higher than the average wage in Mississippi, do you mean a national average? Let's say that the minimum wage is currently $7.00 per hour and someone proposes $10.00 an hour, certainly $25.00 an hour would be better at eliminating poverty. Or just make a base salary of 75K for everyone, of course inflation will undoubtedly set in, so that all should be factored in...
m
IP: Logged
01:24 PM
AndyLPhoto Member
Posts: 2418 From: Skandia, MI, USA Registered: Nov 2001
Well, you're being ridiculous. The minimum wage can't obviously be higher than the average wage. I left the caveats off my statement because I figured most people, yourself included, would understand them.
How are you going to argue raising the minimum wage with that angle anyway? I'll agree - a super massive increase in the minimum wage would be bad for the economy. But... for your benefit... an increase that is concomitant with the increased cost of living has never been shown to be bad for the economy.
Why not? If the minimum wage was $30, the average wage would be likewise pushed up, benefitting all workers. If a $1.00 increase is better, why stop there? Let's be really generous and go for $2. Why not $3? Where would you cap an increase?
I was referring to the US pre-antitrust. If you adjust for inflation AT&T was considerably more expensive after you included the costs for phone rental, service charges and long distance than it is today. I pay 4 cents a minute max (3.5 for intrastate calls) and 17 bucks a month for local calls.
Remember also you had to pay a monthly fine for each phone line you had and AT&T would do silent taps on your lines to make sure you weren't cheating. Also, data transmissions, for some reason, cost extra over an AT&T line. It's fair to say today's telecommunication revolution would have been delayed had AT&T not been broken up. Also, AT&T did not employ anywhere near the number of people MCI, Sprint and AT&T do now. The competition between these competitors has revolutionized the telecommunication industry.
As for the quality of life? That's my point exactly. China sucks. Their people starve, they treat them like dogs and they wont even require a minimum wage to correct this. Their depraved indifference to the suffering of their own people, however, has not impeded them from becoming an economic powerhouse. Yeah, sure, they will fall - so will the US, but it wont be because their government is communist. A careful blend of economic control and free market strategy has shaped both the US and the Chinese economy.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
Regarding the Russia (presumably you mean the Soviet Union) comparison, All I have to say is AT&T. As a monoploy they had the best service and lowest prices for that service in town UNTIL deregulation. Now don't get me wrong, I am NOT advocating that deregulation is wrong, quite the opposite. But to suggest that the USSR economy was on par with a "productive" enterprise is silly.
Regarding China, we don't literally dispose of our unwanted children in landfils, the people are not slaves to the state, and we can come and go as we please. I would HARDLY call China a success. It is on par with the Roman Empire and doomed to ultimate failure. The reason China has not collapsed yet is because they were smart enough to see what was happening in Europe and after Tiennamin Square they decided to open their markets up...a little. That bought them time. But the fact is that there is no such thing and a little freedom. The people will continue to push for change and it will happen...in my lifetime. China will become a democracy. Hopefully in a less messy manner than the former Soviet Block.
Why not raise it to a google dollars? Or hell... INFINITY PLUS ONE dollars?
What the both of you are failing to understand is that no one is proposing this sort of increase in the minimum wage. The increase to $7 is LONG overdue and, after you adjust for inflation, it would be the highest the US has ever had by a mere 8 cents.
Through out the history of minimum wage increases we have never seen a negative economic impact arise from it - in fact, since it has been instituted the US GDP has, at several points, been larger than the combined GDP of the whole world and is, at this moment, the GDP of approximately 21% of the world. Clearly a modicum of intelligence guided the hand of those that have had the foresight to continue to raise it.
So, I can’t argue with your psudeo-logic. You have me there; preposterous increases in minimum wage with absolutely no justification at all (never mind the psudo-science I was referring to, trailboss) will ruin the economy.
quote
Originally posted by Trailboss:
quote
Originally posted by AndyLPhoto:
Why not? If the minimum wage was $30, the average wage would be likewise pushed up, benefitting all workers. If a $1.00 increase is better, why stop there? Let's be really generous and go for $2. Why not $3? Where would you cap an increase?
IP: Logged
02:22 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Yeah, sure, they will fall - so will the US, but it wont be because their government is communist. A careful blend of economic control and free market strategy has shaped both the US and the Chinese economy.
Here is where you lost me. The Soviet Union was one of 2 Super Powers in the 80's yet it collapsed almost overnight. Why? Communism. Re: China, a gilded cage is still a cage. And an ungilded cage (USSR) is worse. The only freedom a slave knows is death. So what do 1 billion Chinese people really have to lose by revolting? And they will....because of communism, not the economy.
And the US will only collapse if people like me roll over and let the communists/socialist take over. Any system of government that supports freedom of thought and expression is going to endure since these are the most basic of human needs. Any system of government that tries to promote some sort of utopian social structure based upon the sacrifice of those ideals is doomed to failure. Force me to work for someone else's welfare and betterment? Then you are damned right, the US is doomed to failure 'cause I ain't playing that game. I do not owe ANYONE a better living wage, food on their plate, health care, or cable TV ! If I CHOOSE to invest in my fellow man then that is my choice and not yours, my neighbor's, or my government's choice to make on my behalf. I work for ME and my loved ones. And if the blessing of this democracy shine down on me and I wish to share the rewards, I'll make that decision.... if you don't mind.
suggested reading material: Brave New World by Huxley 1984, Homage to Catelonia, and Animal Farm by Orwell Atlas Shrugged, We The Living, Anthem, and The Fountainhead by Rand
Ahhh, but you take me for a liberal patsy. I never said I was in favor of a welfare state, indeed I am against it. I am, however, against the dispassionate masses ignoring those who do try but fail. The mentally inept, the emotionally retarded, those who life dealt a bad hand - these people cannot function like you and me, these people need our help. How good would we be if we just cast them aside to abject poverty? What sort of Christian nation would we be if we allowed the disenfranchised to wallow in a hell we, the comfortable many, not only take for granted but refuse to help? When it comes to the life and the liberty of my fellow man, sir, you will find no stauncher of a defender. The burger flipper and janitor may occupy lowly positions in our society, but they, above all, are as human as you or I and equally deserving of fair treatment where economic conditions would prefer they be penniless slaves. That is what makes us better than China. That is why we NEED a minimum wage higher than that of the poverty level.
As for Communism being the collapse of the USSR overnight? Well... was the collapse of Argentina the result of capitalism? No. There were significantly more variables here. MAYBE you're used to conversing with people who are significantly less informed than you, toddster, but I hope you don't take me to be one of them.
.edit to fix funny letters
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
Here is where you lost me. The Soviet Union was one of 2 Super Powers in the 80's yet it collapsed almost overnight. Why? Communism. Re: China, a gilded cage is still a cage. And an ungilded cage (USSR) is worse. The only freedom a slave knows is death. So what do 1 billion Chinese people really have to lose by revolting? And they will....because of communism, not the economy.
And the US will only collapse if people like me roll over and let the communists/socialist take over. Any system of government that supports freedom of thought and expression is going to endure since these are the most basic of human needs. Any system of government that tries to promote some sort of utopian social structure based upon the sacrifice of those ideals is doomed to failure. Force me to work for someone else's welfare and betterment? Then you are damned right, the US is doomed to failure 'cause I ain't playing that game. I do not owe ANYONE a better living wage, food on their plate, health care, or cable TV ! If I CHOOSE to invest in my fellow man then that is my choice and not yours, my neighbor's, or my government's choice to make on my behalf. I work for ME and my loved ones. And if the blessing of this democracy shine down on me and I wish to share the rewards, I'll make that decision.... if you don't mind.
suggested reading material: Brave New World by Huxley 1984, Homage to Catelonia, and Animal Farm by Orwell Atlas Shrugged, We The Living, Anthem, and The Fountainhead by Rand
[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 06-22-2004).]
IP: Logged
06:24 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
I am, however, against the dispassionate masses ignoring those who do try but fail. The mentally inept, the emotionally retarded, those who life dealt a bad hand - these people cannot function like you and me, these people need our help. How good would we be if we just cast them aside to abject poverty? .
Then go help them. I admire your humanity. But don't try to legislate that philosophy and force ME and every other American to do so too. I am not opposed to helping my fellow man. In fact, I am very much in favor of it. But I have my own ideas about the best way to do it and they do not seem to conform to yours.
and Argentine? Capitalist?
Military dictatorship for most of it's existence, and corrupt autocratic "democratic" rule for the rest. In fact, Argentine is involved in just about every business enterprise in the country. I did a report in College on (of all things) an Argentinian tampon factory. The government owned most of the company. Hardly capitalistic.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-22-2004).]
You are half right. Keynes is actually one of my favorite fools, as I like to call him. He can be brilliant on one point and totally blind on others. For example, Keynes understood that a capitalist based system is going to perform at its best with little or no restrictions, but then he goes on to outline a multitude of wage fixing, price fixing, and production limiting proposals to fix the economy (of the 30's). There was a wave of popularity for the idea of communism back then and I personally feel that Keynes was a capitalist at heart who got swept-up in the wave. Let's face it, Roosevelt was the single greatest Socialist to ever sit in the big chair. During his 4 terms if you didn't play his game you were left out. We are still paying for his mess back then. Will Social Security (the moronic idea from Hell) ever be fixed? I seriously doubt it is politically possible. I really believe Social Security will go bankrupt before Congress takes action. 
