Minimum Wage, Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
581

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
YEAH , an economic engine :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Your response really didn’t answer my question


The government can improve the economy by:
a. creating jobs for which there is little or no demand, and mandating that those who hold those jobs be paid a certain amount.
b. legislating the price of some or all goods.
c. legislating all facets of the economy.
d. taking ownership of all facets of the economy.
e. a combination of any two or more of the above.[/quote]

The Government does not need to create jobs . The free market will do that . The Gov will have to interfere with the supply and demand on wages and labor .

Supply and demand would have low wage workers rivaling 3rd world countries if only American Law would permit it

Hope that answers your question :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Is b. your answer?
[/quote]

sure I guess so
[/quote]

So that means a. is also your answer. C. becomes necessary because there is no longer a market to determine the value of goods. D. will obviously become necessary at that point.

If I have to pay labor more than it’s worth in order to produce a good, then the price of that good will have to rise. The price of that good will also rise above its worth. That good will either stop being produced, or the government will take over its production if it’s necessary for the survival of the state. The poor/working class/whatever it’s called today will NEVER come out ahead with socialism. The rich will be able to purchase what they want, while the poor starve.

582

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
YEAH , an economic engine :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Your response really didn’t answer my question


The government can improve the economy by:
a. creating jobs for which there is little or no demand, and mandating that those who hold those jobs be paid a certain amount.
b. legislating the price of some or all goods.
c. legislating all facets of the economy.
d. taking ownership of all facets of the economy.
e. a combination of any two or more of the above.[/quote]

The Government does not need to create jobs . The free market will do that . The Gov will have to interfere with the supply and demand on wages and labor .

Supply and demand would have low wage workers rivaling 3rd world countries if only American Law would permit it

Hope that answers your question :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Is b. your answer?
[/quote]

sure I guess so
[/quote]

So that means a. is also your answer. C. becomes necessary because there is no longer a market to determine the value of goods. D. will obviously become necessary at that point.

If I have to pay labor more than it’s worth in order to produce a good, then the price of that good will have to rise. The price of that good will also rise above its worth. That good will either stop being produced, or the government will take over its production if it’s necessary for the survival of the state. The poor/working class/whatever it’s called today will NEVER come out ahead with socialism. The rich will be able to purchase what they want, while the poor starve.[/quote]
sorry this is (MOSTLY) nonsense , some of it is true

583

Take one point at a time and we can debate it , but I have to go to bed now .

584

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
sorry this is (MOSTLY) nonsense , some of it is true
[/quote]

Please explain your response.

585

lets start with (A) The Government creates jobs that save the tax payer money or at least that should be the intent . Now if the Government is not doing a good job saving the tax payer money , (THAT IS THE POINT THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED )

Remember page 23 so we can go back to each point

586

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
lets start with (A) The Government creates jobs that save the tax payer money or at least that should be the intent . Now if the Government is not doing a good job saving the tax payer money , (THAT IS THE POINT THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED )

Remember page 23 so we can go back to each point [/quote]

That’s not possible, unless it makes the majority servants of the wealthy few.

If you and I were at a silent auction bidding on a sweet bong, and you told me I could have as much of your money as I needed to outbid you, would you expect to win?

587

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
YEAH , an economic engine :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Your response really didn’t answer my question


The government can improve the economy by:
a. creating jobs for which there is little or no demand, and mandating that those who hold those jobs be paid a certain amount.
b. legislating the price of some or all goods.
c. legislating all facets of the economy.
d. taking ownership of all facets of the economy.
e. a combination of any two or more of the above.[/quote]

Through a variety of mechanisms, and in conjuction with business and finance, each of these things are taking place in various degrees right now. There is little, if any of the legitimate economy that isn’t polluted in one way or another.

588

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Through a variety of mechanisms, and in conjuction with business and finance, each of these things are taking place in various degrees right now. There is little, if any of the legitimate economy that isn’t polluted in one way or another. [/quote]

Shhh
don’t tell the morons who believe the U.S. is a free-market capitalist society, and hence blame the country’s problems on capitalism.

589

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Through a variety of mechanisms, and in conjuction with business and finance, each of these things are taking place in various degrees right now. There is little, if any of the legitimate economy that isn’t polluted in one way or another. [/quote]

Shhh
don’t tell the morons who believe the U.S. is a free-market capitalist society, and hence blame the country’s problems on capitalism.[/quote]

IMO
capitalism and free markets are not the same thing.

590

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
YEAH , an economic engine :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Your response really didn’t answer my question


The government can improve the economy by:
a. creating jobs for which there is little or no demand, and mandating that those who hold those jobs be paid a certain amount.
b. legislating the price of some or all goods.
c. legislating all facets of the economy.
d. taking ownership of all facets of the economy.
e. a combination of any two or more of the above.[/quote]

Through a variety of mechanisms, and in conjuction with business and finance, each of these things are taking place in various degrees right now. There is little, if any of the legitimate economy that isn’t polluted in one way or another. [/quote]

To a degree I would agree

591

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
lets start with (A) The Government creates jobs that save the tax payer money or at least that should be the intent . Now if the Government is not doing a good job saving the tax payer money , (THAT IS THE POINT THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED )

Remember page 23 so we can go back to each point [/quote]

That’s not possible, unless it makes the majority servants of the wealthy few.

If you and I were at a silent auction bidding on a sweet bong, and you told me I could have as much of your money as I needed to outbid you, would you expect to win?[/quote]

What is not possible .

And I don’t understand your bong bidding theory ?

592

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
IMO
capitalism and free markets are not the same thing.[/quote]

Do explain, please.

593

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
lets start with (A) The Government creates jobs that save the tax payer money or at least that should be the intent . Now if the Government is not doing a good job saving the tax payer money , (THAT IS THE POINT THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED )

Remember page 23 so we can go back to each point [/quote]

That’s not possible, unless it makes the majority servants of the wealthy few.

If you and I were at a silent auction bidding on a sweet bong, and you told me I could have as much of your money as I needed to outbid you, would you expect to win?[/quote]

What is not possible .

And I don’t understand your bong bidding theory ?
[/quote]

It is not possible for the government to save the taxpayer money.

The government competes against private business in the same way I compete against you in the auction. It can take money from private business and citizens in order to force private business and citizens to raise their prices to a point at which they are no longer desired. Government can then step in and do whatever private business and citizens were doing, and claim private business and citizens were unable to do whatever it is they were doing. Predatory pricing, monopolies, etc. can only work or occur for the state-the business that subsidizes itself by robbery.

The point was: You wouldn’t expect to outbid me if I could bid against you with your own money, would you? You also wouldn’t expect the bong to cost its market value, would you? If I brought no money with me, and you brought $150, then you should win the bong with a $1 bid, right? Sorry, I will win it with a $76 bid. So, as you can see, you will not only walk out of the auction $76 poorer, but the bong will also have been sold for $75 over its market value.

Of course, you now have a bong-producer who has $75 more than he would otherwise have had. When he bids on a pair of shoes against a bong-maker whose superior bong sold to you for $5, because you bid on it against a man who brought only $4, and you had already learned your lesson about letting another use your money to bid, who do you think will win? Would the damage done by your giving be best controlled by you attempting to make more and more bidding wars fair, or by you learning your lesson and letting each man bid with his own money?

594

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
IMO
capitalism and free markets are not the same thing.[/quote]

Do explain, please.[/quote]

Free markets do not abide the cornucopia of ‘barriers to entry’ that capitalism has a addiction to fornicate with.

595

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Free markets do not abide the cornucopia of ‘barriers to entry’ that capitalism has a addiction to fornicate with. [/quote]

That’s not capitalism. Crony capitalism/lemon socialism, yes.

596

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Free markets do not abide the cornucopia of ‘barriers to entry’ that capitalism has a addiction to fornicate with. [/quote]

That’s not capitalism. Crony capitalism/lemon socialism, yes.[/quote]

That is capitalism as it has always been practiced!
There is nothing in the theroy of capitalism that objects to ‘barriers’ on principle.

597

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Free markets do not abide the cornucopia of ‘barriers to entry’ that capitalism has a addiction to fornicate with. [/quote]

That’s not capitalism. Crony capitalism/lemon socialism, yes.[/quote]

That is capitalism as it has always been practiced!
There is nothing in the theroy of capitalism that objects to ‘barriers’ on principle. [/quote]

Yes, there is.

One dictionary definition of capitalism is: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.
-In no way does that enable third-party-generated barriers to entry. In fact, I can’t think of any definition of capitalism that allows for such market intrusion.

Of course, if one considers capitalism to be any economic system that contains the word, then anything is possible(e.g. state monopoly capitalism, etc.).

598

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Free markets do not abide the cornucopia of ‘barriers to entry’ that capitalism has a addiction to fornicate with. [/quote]

That’s not capitalism. Crony capitalism/lemon socialism, yes.[/quote]

That is capitalism as it has always been practiced!
There is nothing in the theroy of capitalism that objects to ‘barriers’ on principle. [/quote]

Yes, there is.

One dictionary definition of capitalism is: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.
-In no way does that enable third-party-generated barriers to entry. In fact, I can’t think of any definition of capitalism that allows for such market intrusion.

Of course, if one considers capitalism to be any economic system that contains the word, then anything is possible(e.g. state monopoly capitalism, etc.).

[/quote]

IMO
you are incorrect. The very nature of capitalism implies 3rd party involvement; in theory the 3rd party creates the ‘competitve conditions’; in practice the leaders of finance and industry create the conditions through political infuence.
You approach this as if industry and finance object to regulation; they do not, they are the primary instigators. I appreciate your ideology, and think we agree about the core principles. I just think you are approaching things from a ‘how it should be’ point of view and I’m coming from a ‘how things are’ position.

599

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
You approach this as if industry and finance object to regulation
[/quote]

I have no idea how you read that into anything I have posted
unless, when I say “capitalism,” you believe I am saying “the United States.”(that is certainly what many read when they see the word “capitalism”)

The United States is absolutely not a capitalist country. I hate seeing the failures of our many rulers blamed on capitalism/freedom/whatever else they teach us in school that we are.

600

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The United States is absolutely not a capitalist country.[/quote]

I would say it’s the very definition of capitalism, exactly what one would expect at this point in it’s development.
What type of economic system would you say we have?
FTR
I’m fifty; I suspect what I was taught is a bit different than what is taught today.