uk economics and why it fails

Instead of a better economy, only higher taxes and more welfare will ensue.

On July 01 2010 04:49 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Why minimum wage exists at all is a mystery to me. Objectively speaking, if there is a company that offers you a job but at a substandard wage, chances are you won't take the job. Conversely, people that are low-skilled or just entering the job market looking for experience will take almost any wage they can get. It's cool if you're earning minimum wage and the government raises it, because sweet, you just got a raise. However, that translates to higher commodity/service prices (due to more consumer money circulating) and all kinds of other unseen expenses. Side rant: I used to buy these Stouffer's French bread pizzas for lunch at the grocery store at 2 for $2.00 just a couple of years ago, now they're 2 for $3.69 =(

I get that it's supposed to be fair and designed for people to make a decent living, but the drain it puts on everyone else is brutal. In the current economy where I didn't get a raise last year but the prices of everything I buy regularly has gone up, things have become much tighter for me on a month-to-month basis.

On July 01 2010 04:54 BrTarolg wrote:
Smaller government = the best policy to come around in this current time

Thats all i can really say about it, shedding government jobs and reducing the role of the government in the UK is very important right now

On July 01 2010 04:54 BrTarolg wrote:
Smaller government = the best policy to come around in this current time

Thats all i can really say about it, shedding government jobs and reducing the role of the government in the UK is very important right now

On July 01 2010 05:32 SoManyDeadLings wrote:
Accounting and Applied Economics Major here.

Essentially, minimum wage lessens the rich-poor gap but as a whole, it is detrimental to the economy as firms that would have hired workers @ the market equilibrium price of say $5, does not hire in the current job market as the minimum wage is say $10, as their value of the marginal product of labor is probably somewhere around say, $8. However, minimum wage IS necessary, at least in the industrialized world.

The Gov't job cuts are also necessary because Britain's Gov't deficit was a staggering 11% of its GDP while its debt was around 70% of its GDP (just a few trillion dollars). Similar situation occurred in Canada during the early 1990 when careless spending racked up a HUGE gov't debt for the Canadian gov't. The result? High interest payments, rising unemployment, and all the other nasties that usually come with a large gov't deficit.

Surely the current situation is grim, but usually these policies are consulted by economists and take the lesser of the evils. Consequences of inaction would be much worse.

On July 01 2010 04:49 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Why minimum wage exists at all is a mystery to me. Objectively speaking, if there is a company that offers you a job but at a substandard wage, chances are you won't take the job.

However, minimum wage IS necessary, at least in the industrialized world.

School of Chicago era is over. Reagan/Tatcher anti-statist ultraliberal policies have had for sole effect to make the rich much richer, life of everybody else much more difficult and removed the little stability economy had since the WWII. Didn't you notice?

Smaller government = the best policy to come around in this current time

Thats all i can really say about it, shedding government jobs and reducing the role of the government in the UK is very important right now

In a free market, demand is always a function of price: the higher the price, the lower the demand. What may surprise most politicians is that these rules apply equally to both prices and wages. When employers evaluate their labor and capital needs, cost is a primary factor. When the cost of hiring low-skilled workers moves higher, jobs are lost. Despite this, minimum wage hikes, like the one set to take effect later this month, are always seen as an act of governmental benevolence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When confronted with a clogged drain, most of us will call several plumbers and hire the one who quotes us the lowest price. If all the quotes are too high, most of us will grab some Drano and a wrench, and have at it. Labor markets work the same way. Before bringing on another worker, an employer must be convinced that the added productivity will exceed the added cost (this includes not just wages, but all payroll taxes and other benefits.) So if an unskilled worker is capable of delivering only $6 per hour of increased productivity, such an individual is legally unemployable with a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Low-skilled workers must compete for employers’ dollars with both skilled workers and capital. For example, if a skilled worker can do a job for $14 per hour that two unskilled workers can do for $6.50 per hour each, then it makes economic sense for the employer to go with the unskilled labor. Increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour and the unskilled workers are priced out of their jobs. This dynamic is precisely why labor unions are such big supporters of minimum wage laws. Even though none of their members earn the minimum wage, the law helps protect their members from having to compete with lower-skilled workers.

Employers also have the choice of whether to employ people or machines. For example, an employer can hire a receptionist or invest in an automated answering system. The next time you are screaming obscenities into the phone as you try to have a conversation with a computer, you know what to blame for your frustration.

There are numerous other examples of employers substituting capital for labor simply because the minimum wage has made low-skilled workers uncompetitive. For example, handcarts have replaced skycaps at airports. The main reason fast-food restaurants use paper plates and plastic utensils is to avoid having to hire dishwashers.

As a result, many low-skilled jobs that used to be the first rung on the employment ladder have been priced out of the market. Can you remember the last time an usher showed you to your seat in a dark movie theater? When was the last time someone other than the cashier not only bagged your groceries, but also loaded them into your car? By the way, it won’t be long before the cashiers themselves are priced out of the market, replaced by automated scanners, leaving you to bag your purchases with no help whatsoever.

The disappearance of these jobs has broader economic and societal consequences. First jobs are a means to improve skills so that low skilled workers can offer greater productivity to current or future employers. As their skills grow, so does their ability to earn higher wages. However, remove the bottom rung from the employment ladder and many never have a chance to climb it.

So the next time you are pumping your own gas in the rain, do not just think about the teenager who could have been pumping it for you, think about the auto mechanic he could have become – had the minimum wage not denied him a job. Many auto mechanics used to learn their trade while working as pump jockeys. Between fill-ups, checking tire pressure, and washing windows, they would spend a lot of time helping – and learning from – the mechanics.

Because the minimum wage prevents so many young people (including a disproportionate number of minorities) from getting entry-level jobs, they never develop the skills necessary to command higher paying jobs. As a result, many turn to crime, while others subsist on government aid. Supporters of the minimum wage argue that it is impossible to support a family on the minimum wage. While that is true, it is completely irrelevant, as minimum wage jobs are not designed to support families. In fact, many people earning the minimum wage are themselves supported by their parents.

The way it is supposed to work is that people do not choose to start families until they can earn enough to support them. Lower wage jobs enable workers to eventually acquire the skills necessary to earn wages high enough to support a family. Does anyone really think a kid with a paper route should earn a wage high enough to support a family?

The only way to increase wages is to increase worker productivity. If wages could be raised simply by government mandate, we could set the minimum wage at $100 per hour and solve all problems. It should be clear that, at that level, most of the population would lose their jobs, and the remaining labor would be so expensive that prices for goods and services would skyrocket. That’s the exact burden the minimum wage places on our poor and low-skilled workers, and ultimately every American consumer.

Since our leaders cannot even grasp this simple economic concept, how can we expect them to deal with the more complicated problems that currently confront us?

On July 01 2010 05:29 koreasilver wrote:

Funny, because the disparity of wealth has increased ever since you guys started implementing neo-liberal policies.

On July 01 2010 06:13 koreasilver wrote:
Because studies show that the well being of a society and the general health and happiness of individuals decline as wealth disparity increases.

Also, if you don't have an issue with obscene wealth disparities then I can only say that you're a goddamned imbecile. Trickle down doesn't happen either.

On July 01 2010 05:32 SoManyDeadLings wrote:
However, minimum wage IS necessary, at least in the industrialized world.

On July 01 2010 05:07 motbob wrote:

Your hypothesis seems to be that a rise in the minimum wage adversely affects the real wages of people who make more than the minimum wage. However, from the available data, it doesn't look like that's the case:

During the minimum wage hikes in the early 90's and the late 90's, it doesn't appear that the rise in the hourly wage of the lower 10% of wage-earners corresponds with any drop in the hourly wage of the higher percentiles.

I would imagine that the explanation of higher price of goods such as french bread pizzas has more to do with the sharp increase of oil prices recently. Agriculture and transportation costs are closely tied to the price of petroleum, and making french bread pizzas takes a lot of transporting.

On July 01 2010 04:45 mahnini wrote:
government sheds jobs ... [OK]
minimum wage exists ... [OK]
government shreds jobs + minimum wage = unemployment ... [Error]

On July 01 2010 10:24 QibingZero wrote:
The true effect of a minimum wage on the economy is really difficult to determine, honestly. Thanks to the prominence and power of multinational corporations, it actually doesn't affect things quite as much as you might like to think. If you can hire labor at half , a fourth, a tenth, etc. of the cost elsewhere in the world, it completely undermines a national minimum wage. As a result you can't really say that it controls the price of goods at a significant level.

Now, if you want to gauge the results of the minimum wage on working conditions in specific countries, you can certainly do that. The initial reasoning for the minimum wage was to prevent sweatshop-like conditions and overall exploitation of workers, and I don't think too many people will actually argue that those aren't noble goals.

By the way, the article pasted in a post on the first page of this thread is seriously reaching. Are jobs like ushers in movie theatres and gas pump attendants no longer in existence because of minimum wage, or is it just a result of changing times? Do people really believe those are necessary jobs in the 21st century? Come on.

But minimum wage is an externality that can be offset by another externality such as spending on training programs and cuts in business taxes and programs to support hiring. Decision making on this level isn't as black and white as "minimum wage is bad."

On July 01 2010 05:29 koreasilver wrote:

Funny, because the disparity of wealth has increased ever since you guys started implementing neo-liberal policies.

The true effect of a minimum wage on the economy is really difficult to determine, honestly. Thanks to the prominence and power of multinational corporations, it actually doesn't affect things quite as much as you might like to think. If you can hire labor at half , a fourth, a tenth, etc. of the cost elsewhere in the world, it completely undermines a national minimum wage. As a result you can't really say that it controls the price of goods at a significant level.

The initial reasoning for the minimum wage was to prevent sweatshop-like conditions and overall exploitation of workers, and I don't think too many people will actually argue that those aren't noble goals.

Usually they're in a powerless or exploitative position, and have no bargaining power or ability to even find out what their wages are relative toward how the company is profiting off their work.

Maybe if we were in a vacuum where everyone received the same education and no one was subject to any forms of discrimination, you could then 'blame' everyone who decided their skills were worth almost nothing compared to others. I'd like to think that in the real world we at least have failsafes set up to protect people from their own ignorance (not stupidity as is often claimed) and perhaps educate them in the process.

On July 01 2010 06:29 Excalibur_Z wrote:


I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying that minimum wage hikes result in lower high-end wages, I'm saying they indirectly raise the price of commodities. The minimum wage will continue to increase along with inflation but salaries may not (mine didn't). So say the minimum wage is $8/hr and I make $15/hr spending $1 per day on lunch, then the minimum wage gets increased to $9/hr and I'm still making $15/hr but spending $1.80 per day on lunch. It's a wash for the minimum wage earner who's spending what I am on lunch in a bid to save up money, but I need to make additional sacrifices to maintain my standard of living.

Maybe it is tied more closely to petroleum, but I'd say it's equally as likely that companies need to raise the prices of their products in order to pay their minimum wage employees.

On July 01 2010 11:19 Milkis wrote:


Which is why people outsource. Isn't it funny how so many politicians talk about outsourcing like it's a bad thing, after they promote it by creating minimum wage, and propose restrictions to make the situation actually worse? Oh the hilarity. It'd be even more amusing if they actually put the restrictions in place and watch the populace complain about the high prices.

Roughly two-thirds of all low-wage workers in 2002 were in service-type occupations, mostly in food service jobs.

The basic effect of minimum wage is there. The basic economic model does a fine job (and a few people already talked about it so no need for me to talk about it again!). The problem now is that there are many other factors that affect it, as you had said. But honestly it doesn't stop minimum wage from being a terrible policy move. Let me elaborate. The goals of "minimum wage", in your words, are,



The best way to prevent sweatshop-like conditions is to promote competition. Google provides enormous employee benefits and they're not bound by anything like minimum wages. The reason why Google provides enormous benefits is simply because they want to attract the best workers possible.

Of course, when we go down to flipping burgers, this doesn't happen. Anyone can flip burgers, after all -- in fact, most minimum wage jobs are exactly that -- jobs that take very little training.

You can tell everyone with minimum wage "it's okay", and raise their wages so that they can be better off. But the easiest thing to realize about this is that minimum wages gives a huge disincentive towards training. Oh, I can skip school, I can just flip burgers and make minimum wage. Government will take care of me, right? But suppose there is no minimum wage, and let's say, the lack of minimum wage really does create sweatshop conditions (at the very least, you'll have a lot lower wages). Consider that. What do many of the drop-outs look at? They look at others that drop out, and they realize that they can "get by" with minimum wage, or be comfortable at least (you know, afford rent, cable TV, all that). Perhaps not too comfortable, but hey, I can get by! Without minimum wages and supposing that it does create sweatshop conditions, it creates a situation where I look at others and see them suffer. "Do I want to be like that"? Nope. I sure don't -- hence, no reason to drop out of school. Essentially, minimum wage gives disincentives towards education. But....



Except, in a competitive setting, wages go to marginal productivity. The only reason why they don't have bargaining power is because they're worthless outside society due to their lack of skill (ie, their marginal productivity is very low) This is what policy should be concentrating on - teaching people so that they have bargaining power, not make some policy that lets all of them wallow in that cesspool we all look at and pity. That's what minimum wage does. Do we have people who used minimum wage as a basis to get out and succeed? Sure. But the big majority, I guarantee, are people who stayed in their place because of minimum wage.



And minimum wage does nothing to meet this goal.

On July 01 2010 11:26 Excalibur_Z wrote:
No no. It's extremely uncommon for people to actually receive pay cuts (which would be lower high-end wages), and more likely that people will just not get raises, have co-pays for benefits go up, be made redundant, or have to take on additional responsibilities that would ordinarily be covered by someone else's position that can no longer be afforded.

I don't understand how the phenomenon of outsourcing is a good argument against the minimum wage. Unless I'm wrong, the majority of outsourced jobs are jobs which already pay well above the min wage level anyway (I'm thinking about manufacturing, specifically car manufacturing here). I don't think factories would be able to get away with paying $5 an hour to workers in a non-min-wage society. In my experience, minimum wage jobs are service jobs, which have to be here in the U.S., so any connection made between those jobs and outsourcing simply doesn't make any sense. Here's some data from the Current Population Survey, as interpreted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

You really need to provide some sort of empirical evidence that high school students drop out because "it's OK to make minimum wage." Maybe I've been going to the wrong type of high school, but there's an enormous social stigma against making a career out of fast food, which is the industry most closely tied with minimum wage.

I'd like to see some survey data that says that high school students drop out of high school to go work at taco bell. That concept just seems detached from reality to me.

On July 01 2010 11:49 motbob wrote:It doesn't matter. There's no evidence that real wages have gone down during the min wage hikes of the early 1990's and late 1990's. There's no evidence that purchasing power has gone down in higher percentiles of the economy in relation to the lowest percentile.

You keep tossing out theory but this seems like it would be one of the easiest things in the world to test empirically. Go get some CPS data and prove me wrong, or find a study that someone's already done.

On July 01 2010 11:19 Milkis wrote:
The best way to prevent sweatshop-like conditions is to promote competition. Google provides enormous employee benefits and they're not bound by anything like minimum wages. The reason why Google provides enormous benefits is simply because they want to attract the best workers possible.

Of course, when we go down to flipping burgers, this doesn't happen. Anyone can flip burgers, after all -- in fact, most minimum wage jobs are exactly that -- jobs that take very little training.

You can tell everyone with minimum wage "it's okay", and raise their wages so that they can be better off. But the easiest thing to realize about this is that minimum wages gives a huge disincentive towards training. Oh, I can skip school, I can just flip burgers and make minimum wage. Government will take care of me, right? But suppose there is no minimum wage, and let's say, the lack of minimum wage really does create sweatshop conditions (at the very least, you'll have a lot lower wages). Consider that. What do many of the drop-outs look at? They look at others that drop out, and they realize that they can "get by" with minimum wage, or be comfortable at least (you know, afford rent, cable TV, all that). Perhaps not too comfortable, but hey, I can get by! Without minimum wages and supposing that it does create sweatshop conditions, it creates a situation where I look at others and see them suffer. "Do I want to be like that"? Nope. I sure don't -- hence, no reason to drop out of school. Essentially, minimum wage gives disincentives towards education. But....

Except, in a competitive setting, wages go to marginal productivity. The only reason why they don't have bargaining power is because they're worthless outside society due to their lack of skill (ie, their marginal productivity is very low) This is what policy should be concentrating on - teaching people so that they have bargaining power, not make some policy that lets all of them wallow in that cesspool we all look at and pity. That's what minimum wage does. Do we have people who used minimum wage as a basis to get out and succeed? Sure. But the big majority, I guarantee, are people who stayed in their place because of minimum wage.



And minimum wage does nothing to meet this goal.

On July 01 2010 10:55 kzn wrote:



There's really no such thing as a "necessary" (or more relevantly, unneccesary) job. Anything that can be done that could, in some circumstance, benefit someone else has a worth. If you could pay someone less than that worth (or technically even precisely that worth), that job is worth paying for.

So no, its not really "necessary" to have an usher in a movie theater - but they do create some utility for some viewers, and thus they are worth paying something.

On July 01 2010 11:14 KurtistheTurtle wrote:

I kinda want to get into this debate but I have no clue in hell what I'm talking about if I did. so I'll point you to an article:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Embedded_liberalism

ctrl+f united kingdom

On July 02 2010 04:08 Caller wrote:
i seriously think that people should be banned from making discussion topics about economics until they've published a paper. The idiocy in this thread is astounding, especially from that guy called Caller.

All that's really going on is that people are using a combination of faulty logic, argument from authority, and condescendingly simple versions of what are actually mathematically complex economical models in order to argue in favor of their own personal political bias.

I used to argue a lot in these until I started taking economics and realized how l was a huge fucking idiot. That's why I don't argue in these anymore-because it's a whole bunch of people trying to seem far more economically literate than they actually are.

I was even going to ignore this but I just lost my temper.

On July 02 2010 06:36 kidcrash wrote:My dad worked 20 years perfect attendance at his job where he made 18 dollars an hour. Then he got laid off due to outsourcing, the same year my mom had to go through brain surgery that completely drained his bank account and retirement account along with having to re mortgage his already paid off house back to the bank. My mom was given a 50/50 chance on life and she lived through it. Now he works for 7.50 an hour at Super K Mart stocking shelves.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33655771/Economics-is-Hard

On July 02 2010 04:08 Caller wrote:
i seriously think that people should be banned from making discussion topics about economics until they've published a paper. The idiocy in this thread is astounding, especially from that guy called Caller.

All that's really going on is that people are using a combination of faulty logic, argument from authority, and condescendingly simple versions of what are actually mathematically complex economical models in order to argue in favor of their own personal political bias.

I used to argue a lot in these until I started taking economics and realized how l was a huge fucking idiot. That's why I don't argue in these anymore-because it's a whole bunch of people trying to seem far more economically literate than they actually are.

I was even going to ignore this but I just lost my temper.

On July 02 2010 06:42 Boblion wrote:

You can't get more caricatural than an eco model.
Eco-boys are so delusional that they make sociology look like a serious and humble discipline.

But yea i miss all your cool graphs with the Edgeworth box or some sort of Solow model

On July 02 2010 07:57 kzn wrote:


And?

If the job got outsourced it means your dad was being overpaid for his work. Its ridiculous to expect a company to continue overpaying a worker when they have alternatives, no matter what his circumstances are.



Apparently, if-then thinking is "hard"?

This article is pretty silly.

On July 02 2010 08:31 Caller wrote:

THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT.

anybody that's arguing about econ without actually bothering to understand the basic principles that support is just as much of an idiot as the communist/capitalist you're arguing with.

On July 02 2010 07:57 kzn wrote:


And?

If the job got outsourced it means your dad was being overpaid for his work. Its ridiculous to expect a company to continue overpaying a worker when they have alternatives, no matter what his circumstances are.



Apparently, if-then thinking is "hard"?

This article is pretty silly.

On July 02 2010 11:08 Sadist wrote:
here? Ok douche. Whos job gets outsourced to the UK. Almost all jobs in the US get outsourced to Mexico or Asia/India. Dont give me this fact shit.


Jobs get outsourced because companies can make a bigger profit paying people pennies in asia or mexico and then sell the product here for a HUGE profit. I dont understand what you dont understand. Do you want to not have labor laws so people can earn pennies here and live in slums?

How about you learn how to quote so you can be less confusing.

On July 02 2010 11:16 kidcrash wrote:


So you call me a douche and are basically calling me a liar because I said my dads job got outsourced to the UK and you refuse to believe me. There is nothing to understand, I'm stating a fact and unless you call me a liar than there is really no "concept" to be understood because it's your word against mine and I have no reason to lie. Are you getting defensive because I proved that jobs get outsourced other places than 3rd world countries from personal experience?

I didn't feel the need to quote because I clearly explained what the first quote was and you obviously knew what the second quote was because you said it.

On July 02 2010 10:40 Sadist wrote:Wow you are a fucking tool.

His job got outsourced because other countries dont play by the same fucking rules as us. Do you really want to be Mexico or China? Get fucking real.

Your parents and you are probably being overpaid for your work then. Im sure theres somebody in Mexico or Eastern Europe or Asia/Africa that could do it for cheaper.

On July 02 2010 08:29 Milkis wrote:


You clearly haven't taken enough classes then. You are likely correct about your self-assessment, and you're going to make a similar statement in the future after you take classes past the basic level because economics in the end is about intuition more than math.

Don't assume "complicated math" is equivalent to "good economics". Oh, don't assume "publishing a paper" makes you a good economist either. Your pathetic attempt at self-deprecation aside, whatever you are saying applies best to your current post more than anyone else in this topic because nearly everyone has approached this from a policy perspective and not much from economics really.

On July 02 2010 16:01 kzn wrote:



Umad? Might want to get an argument out before you start the blind insults.



They play by exactly the same rules as us. The difference between Mexico/China and the US is the same as the difference between your average TL player of SC and one of the stereotypical 'norush 15min' players you can find at will.



That would be quite possible, if any of us were working.

On July 02 2010 21:59 Sadist wrote:



im sure you are ok with 20 hr work days, no safety regulations, and child labor then too.

On July 02 2010 22:16 Milkis wrote:


Whoa, it's a slippery slope! Anyone wanna go sledding?

On July 01 2010 04:49 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Why minimum wage exists at all is a mystery to me. Objectively speaking, if there is a company that offers you a job but at a substandard wage, chances are you won't take the job. Conversely, people that are low-skilled or just entering the job market looking for experience will take almost any wage they can get. It's cool if you're earning minimum wage and the government raises it, because sweet, you just got a raise. However, that translates to higher commodity/service prices (due to more consumer money circulating) and all kinds of other unseen expenses. Side rant: I used to buy these Stouffer's French bread pizzas for lunch at the grocery store at 2 for $2.00 just a couple of years ago, now they're 2 for $3.69 =(

I get that it's supposed to be fair and designed for people to make a decent living, but the drain it puts on everyone else is brutal. In the current economy where I didn't get a raise last year but the prices of everything I buy regularly has gone up, things have become much tighter for me on a month-to-month basis.

On July 01 2010 04:34 darmousseh wrote:
The government announced it will be shedding government jobs.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-30/u-k-to-lose-610-000-government-workers-by-2016-.html

Normally this is good news for the market. Wages on average would drop encouraging investment and the lowering of prices, however there is a problem. Minimum wage is in the way. without minimum wage, average wages would drop to an equilibrium. With minimumu wage however, prices are sticky, and the increase of supply causes an oversupply of labor, also called unemployment. Instead of a better economy, only higher taxes and more welfare will ensue.

On July 02 2010 07:57 kzn wrote:



Apparently, if-then thinking is "hard"?

This article is pretty silly.

On July 03 2010 00:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Sadist is absolutely right.

All the rules which make a worker's life different than what they were in the XIXth century, which is precisely what he described: child labor, 12 hrs+ a day, no safety whatsoever etc... have been done against the economic logic.


It's wortheless to have a good economy if most people of your country are basically slaves.

On July 03 2010 03:04 Milkis wrote:


What the hell is "Economic Logic" supposed to be? If you think "Economic Logic" is "FREE MARKET IS ALWAYS CORRECT" then you are absolutely and utterly wrong.

There are many reasons why certain regulations can be welfare maximizing overall. Learn the difference between "why" people argue against minimum wage -- minimum wage is a terrible policy that creates more problems than it solves and increases dropout rates and decrease enrollment rates for higher education. Source

Child Labor, work hour limits, safety regulations have NOTHING to do with this. They're completely separate from this discussion.

On July 03 2010 06:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:

You know, I have heard all my childhood by right winger in France that France was doing wrongly because of our social system, that we were unable to adapt to the economic science and that Brits were so much realistic and so much more pragmatic, and they were so right to listen to the economist of the school of Chicago.

Well, they were wrong. It left me forever a bit skeptical about how smart economist are and how exact their science is.


You say that minimal wage is a terrible policy. There used to be a whole class of people in the UK which were called the "working poors" during Tatcher ear.

I let you guess what it means.


I respect economists, but they don't replace politics. If I put together what has been said in this thread:

1- Economic science allow you to know what is good and bad for problem which are traditionally absolutely political (like minimal wage)

2- People who talk about economics without having a master at the university are idiots and they should shut up.

Conclusion: if you don't have a master in economics, you should shut up and listen the experts, who are the one who know which politics is good and which is bad.



That's the exact definition if a technocracy. Sorry to keep believing that my opinion worths as much as any other citizen's. And sorry to still, somehow, believe that the people know better than the experts what is good and bad for him (bad habit of believing in democracy).

On July 03 2010 06:19 Milkis wrote:
Can you somehow weave your statements so that it actually makes sense so I won't be under the impression you have no idea what you're talking about? Your points don't respond to anything I have said at all.

Oh boy, "people who talk about economics without having a masters is an idiot". I don't even know how to respond to that because that is the most retarded statement I've heard in this conversation next to Caller.

Please get over yourself and your silly presumptions if you even want to have anything close to an intelligent debate. It honestly seems like you have no idea how Economics and Politics interact.

On July 03 2010 06:19 Milkis wrote:
What the hell is "Economic Logic" supposed to be? If you think "Economic Logic" is "FREE MARKET IS ALWAYS CORRECT" then you are absolutely and utterly wrong.

Your tone doesn't make you right, and you are not even trying to understand what I'm saying.

The question of minimal wage is not even wether it is good or bad for the economy. The question of minimal wage is wether I want people to get paid 1£ an hour in my country or not.

My answer is no. I prefer the economy being less performant and live in a contry were people live decently than in an ultraliberal society where the richest people and the big corporations make fucktons of money and the unqualified people slave for no money.

I haven't studied economics, but I read quality daily newspapers since I am 13, and that's, with little variation, has been what I have read over and over by the most serious economists. Although things seem to change a bit since the begining of the crisis.

Just one last remark. While reading you, it seems that you believe everybody is stupid in this thread. Why do you bother discussing with people you think are ignorant and stupid?