On January 19 2012 07:15 BlackJack wrote: Stephen Colbert endorsed Herman Cain for the SC primary. It's an open primary so anyone can vote. Don't you think it would be hilarious if Cain finished in the top 3 and pundits had to explain that? I had a dream last night that Cain got 12% of the vote and it was hilarious
He's not as much endorsing Cain as saying that 'a vote for Cain is a vote for Colbert'. For those that haven't seen it, yesterday's ad:
And todays:
I'd love it if Colbert got some significant votes under Cain's name ;p.
On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote: We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minimum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
Actually, economists have run studies on the effects of minimum wage on reality. Results are mixed.
This is because the economy in real life is markedly different from the economy in perfect competition models. Real life tends to have its share of monopolistic competition and oligopolies.
Logic doesn't change. If one is worth less than what he demands he shouldn't be hired. Low minimum wage can never increase employment. Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say, but that doesn't change unemployment or make the socierty as a whole better of. That makes some ppl better off, some ppl worse of. Overall however minimum wage is harmfull for total wealth.
Theory doesn't always equal reality. This is a pretty fundamental concept in science. Just because basic economic theory says that minimum wage with cause more unemployment doesn't mean that this actually happens at all because this basic economic theory is over-simplifying the real world.
Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above).
By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school?
As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound.
Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general?
I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue.
Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid.
Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet). I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda).
Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets.
Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement.
Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off.
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used.
Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth).
Logic doesn't change. If one is worth less than what he demands he shouldn't be hired. Low minimum wage can never increase employment. Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say, but that doesn't change unemployment or make the socierty as a whole better of. That makes some ppl better off, some ppl worse of. Overall however minimum wage is harmfull for total wealth.
I'm sorry, but have you actually taken basic microeconomics?
...No, before that, have you taken a basic logic course? "Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say"...I'm sorry, but the effects of a minimum wage are felt through the increase in wage. OF COURSE the minimum wage must affect the equilibrium wage if it's to have any effect on the wage.
On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote: We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minimum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
Actually, economists have run studies on the effects of minimum wage on reality. Results are mixed.
This is because the economy in real life is markedly different from the economy in perfect competition models. Real life tends to have its share of monopolistic competition and oligopolies.
Logic doesn't change. If one is worth less than what he demands he shouldn't be hired. Low minimum wage can never increase employment. Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say, but that doesn't change unemployment or make the socierty as a whole better of. That makes some ppl better off, some ppl worse of. Overall however minimum wage is harmfull for total wealth.
Theory doesn't always equal reality. This is a pretty fundamental concept in science. Just because basic economic theory says that minimum wage with cause more unemployment doesn't mean that this actually happens at all because this basic economic theory is over-simplifying the real world.
Yeah, but the reality also doesn't state that minimum wages are beneficial for the poor. There have been plenty of studies that show the minimum wage to hurt not just overall employment but also the lowest classes' employment rate.
On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote: We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minimum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
Actually, economists have run studies on the effects of minimum wage on reality. Results are mixed.
This is because the economy in real life is markedly different from the economy in perfect competition models. Real life tends to have its share of monopolistic competition and oligopolies.
Logic doesn't change. If one is worth less than what he demands he shouldn't be hired. Low minimum wage can never increase employment. Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say, but that doesn't change unemployment or make the socierty as a whole better of. That makes some ppl better off, some ppl worse of. Overall however minimum wage is harmfull for total wealth.
Theory doesn't always equal reality. This is a pretty fundamental concept in science. Just because basic economic theory says that minimum wage with cause more unemployment doesn't mean that this actually happens at all because this basic economic theory is over-simplifying the real world.
This basic stuff is pure logic, and it doesn't rely on assumptions (except if there only was 1 company in the world that was allowed to produce, then unemplouyment wouldn't change). But minimum wages cant create more wealth, it can only destroy. Some times it will destroy more wealth than other time, but exact number isn't relevant, unless you try to to a cost-benefit analysis (cost is social "unjustice".).
On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote: If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody?
...
Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay.
One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment.
It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful.
But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison?
No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law.
Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above).
By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school?
As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound.
Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general?
I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue.
Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. .
You can't predict 100% what would happen now on a free market. Back then, monopolies, shoddy products, bad wages were possible because of the lack of sound sources of information . Trying to pay a worker with a really low amount where the worker can find out what his work actually values/how much the employer earns off of him changes the case to a huge extent. I'm probably wrong on that premise, but I'm for sure on this simple statement. You can't abuse an informed worker nowadays on a completely free market because both the worker and the corporation loose unless both of them reach middleground.
In my shallow understanding of economics, I see a pseudo-free-market , in the sense that the market is free for the great corporation, the government even helps the corporation to grow trough ways which would've been illegal 50 years ago.
Take SOPA for example, it is pushed by huge corporations, if it would pass it would empower corporations in the manner that new ones may be instantly killed by some remote case of copyright . So the government would help, in this case, the corporation maintain it's reign and kill its opponents.
How I see it, the big corporations don't even live in an even free ground, they are actually even helped by the government.
Then again, I'm totally dumb in this field, some1 could explain me why my statements in regard to that quote is wrong....
There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid - Why ?
On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote: We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minimum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
Actually, economists have run studies on the effects of minimum wage on reality. Results are mixed.
This is because the economy in real life is markedly different from the economy in perfect competition models. Real life tends to have its share of monopolistic competition and oligopolies.
Logic doesn't change. If one is worth less than what he demands he shouldn't be hired. Low minimum wage can never increase employment. Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say, but that doesn't change unemployment or make the socierty as a whole better of. That makes some ppl better off, some ppl worse of. Overall however minimum wage is harmfull for total wealth.
Theory doesn't always equal reality. This is a pretty fundamental concept in science. Just because basic economic theory says that minimum wage with cause more unemployment doesn't mean that this actually happens at all because this basic economic theory is over-simplifying the real world.
Yeah, but the reality also doesn't state that minimum wages are beneficial for the poor. There have been plenty of studies that show the minimum wage to hurt not just overall employment but also the lowest classes' employment rate.
Would you like to show us your conclusive, one-sided evidence? Because last I checked, evidence was quite mixed and hardly said that minimum wage hurts the poor.
Logic doesn't change. If one is worth less than what he demands he shouldn't be hired. Low minimum wage can never increase employment. Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say, but that doesn't change unemployment or make the socierty as a whole better of. That makes some ppl better off, some ppl worse of. Overall however minimum wage is harmfull for total wealth.
I'm sorry, but have you actually taken basic microeconomics?
...No, before that, have you taken a basic logic course? "Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say"...I'm sorry, but the effects of a minimum wage are felt through the increase in wage. OF COURSE the minimum wage must affect the equilibrium wage if it's to have any effect whatsoever.
Tell me how higher wages increases employment. (?) sry, what i wanted to write is some times if competion is bad (monoply) the higher wage wont result in increased unemplouyment as people are paid less than they should be according to their real value.
On January 19 2012 06:32 nam nam wrote: [quote] By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school?
As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound.
Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general?
I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue.
Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid.
Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet). I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda).
Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets.
Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement.
Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off.
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used.
Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth).
You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies.
Logic doesn't change. If one is worth less than what he demands he shouldn't be hired. Low minimum wage can never increase employment. Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say, but that doesn't change unemployment or make the socierty as a whole better of. That makes some ppl better off, some ppl worse of. Overall however minimum wage is harmfull for total wealth.
I'm sorry, but have you actually taken basic microeconomics?
...No, before that, have you taken a basic logic course? "Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say"...I'm sorry, but the effects of a minimum wage are felt through the increase in wage. OF COURSE the minimum wage must affect the equilibrium wage if it's to have any effect whatsoever.
Tell me how higher wages increases employment. (?)
You're a big fan of logic. Tell me what an increase in minimum wage does to efficiency if monopolistic competition applies to the labor market. It's not nearly as clear-cut as you make it.
One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment.
It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful.
But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison?
No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law.
Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above).
By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school?
As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound.
Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general?
I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue.
Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. .
You can't predict 100% what would happen now on a free market. Back then, monopolies, shoddy products, bad wages were possible because of the lack of sound sources of information . Trying to pay a worker with a really low amount where the worker can find out what his work actually values/how much the employer earns off of him changes the case to a huge extent. I'm probably wrong on that premise, but I'm for sure on this simple statement. You can't abuse an informed worker nowadays on a completely free market because both the worker and the corporation loose unless both of them reach middleground.
In my shallow understanding of economics, I see a pseudo-free-market , in the sense that the market is free for the great corporation, the government even helps the corporation to grow trough ways which would've been illegal 50 years ago.
Take SOPA for example, it is pushed by huge corporations, if it would pass it would empower corporations in the manner that new ones may be instantly killed by some remote case of copyright . So the government would help, in this case, the corporation maintain it's reign and kill its opponents.
How I see it, the big corporations don't even live in an even free ground, they are actually even helped by the government.
Then again, I'm totally dumb in this field, some1 could explain me why my statements in regard to that quote is wrong....
There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid - Why ?
Because the government is what is keeping corporations and businesses accountable. If we just let them run 100% free, do you really think that just because people are more educated on average, those in power are going to be more altruistic? No. They are going to find ways to exploit workers just like humanity has done since the beginning of the damn species. It might be harder, but it'll still be done. That's what government is - an artificial construction to protect humanity from itself.
As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound.
Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general?
I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue.
Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid.
Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet). I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda).
Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets.
Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement.
Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off.
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used.
Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth).
You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies.
Well: Increased production of what people demand = more wealth.
Thats a sentence that is true no matter what. It isn't depending on time or income gap or regulations or whatever.
On January 19 2012 06:45 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general?
I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue.
Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid.
Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet). I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda).
Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets.
Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement.
Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off.
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used.
Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth).
You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies.
Well: Increased production of what people demand = more wealth.
Thats a sentence that is true no matter what. It isn't depending on time or income gap or regulations or whatever.
There is no conclusive proof that minimum wage decreases production or wealth.
Logic doesn't change. If one is worth less than what he demands he shouldn't be hired. Low minimum wage can never increase employment. Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say, but that doesn't change unemployment or make the socierty as a whole better of. That makes some ppl better off, some ppl worse of. Overall however minimum wage is harmfull for total wealth.
I'm sorry, but have you actually taken basic microeconomics?
...No, before that, have you taken a basic logic course? "Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say"...I'm sorry, but the effects of a minimum wage are felt through the increase in wage. OF COURSE the minimum wage must affect the equilibrium wage if it's to have any effect whatsoever.
Tell me how higher wages increases employment. (?)
You're a big fan of logic. Tell me what an increase in minimum wage does to efficiency if monopolistic competition applies to the labor market. It's not nearly as clear-cut as you make it.
i edited my prev. statement. Obv. it assumes that the current minimum wage is below the workers real value, and that the new minimum wage is stil below or equal to real value.
I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue.
Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid.
Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet). I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda).
Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets.
Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement.
Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off.
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used.
Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth).
You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies.
Well: Increased production of what people demand = more wealth.
Thats a sentence that is true no matter what. It isn't depending on time or income gap or regulations or whatever.
There is no conclusive proof that minimum wage decreases production or wealth.
Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations.
On January 19 2012 06:57 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid.
Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet). I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda).
Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets.
Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement.
Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off.
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used.
Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth).
You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies.
Well: Increased production of what people demand = more wealth.
Thats a sentence that is true no matter what. It isn't depending on time or income gap or regulations or whatever.
There is no conclusive proof that minimum wage decreases production or wealth.
Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations.
There is no premises of you being right as you neglect many issues with lack of governmental control.
On January 18 2012 19:19 Velr wrote: If i would have been born in 1930 i would have been ~10 around the time that the holocaust actually happened. Therefore i would probably have believed what my parents told me.
Are you really that bad at making absolutely retarded examples?
Oh, and in 1930 a big part of all the german grown ups actually beleived that or at least did not opposed it.. I guess they were alle just stupid morons that believe everythign the goverment told them.
SERIOUSLY?
Government is kinda creating the culture (unfortunately), which impact your raising. What your hear in school or from your parents is just an end product of heavy manipulation through centuries. When you think your not supposed to defend your self its almost as bad as thinking jews deserve to die. Of course your allowed to defend your self. If you optimize your probablity of surviving by having a gun, then its a good idea, and your allowed to do it.
Sure if you have the possiblity of calling the police and letting them defend you would be a good option if there was time for that. But some times that is not an option.
The reason you ahve been getting this manipulated is probably that you have been taugh through the years that governemnt is supposed to take care of all your needs.
you sure are terrible at making sound comparisons...
That wasn't even a comparasion (what you just highlighted). It was a claim.
Regarding my 1930 comparasion, it was a fine example. Some people (obv. those wh ohave been manipulated) will probably dont get it, as it is very extreme. But just becasue I use an extreme comparsion doesn't mean it isn't sound. The pricniple is still there:
"People who think your not allowed to use self defense (that governemnt is supposed to do it) have been brain washed."
No, i think it's just plain stupid to let everyone and anyone own a gun. Guns kill people.
Robes kill people? (robs should not be allowed). Hands kill people (hands not allowed). Big muscles......
Whats your point. WHat kind of universal rule can you apply that disallow private persons to be allowed to own guns, but still be allowed by own knifes and other stuff.
An pointing out the specific stuff that is allowed is not a an unisveral rule.
rofl your arguments are so stupid. I don't even know how "robes" kill people. Hands only kill people if they mean to kill people. Guns were MADE to kill things, there is a big difference that your "argument" fails to cover. All it takes is a clever kid and a parent forgetting to put safety on and say goodbye to your 5 year old.
EPT
