Screw the Poor

orion · February 23, 2009, 3:22pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Otep wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Otep wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
How you come to the conclusion that it implies that all the work is done, is beyond me. What it says is there is not enough work to keep all the workers busy

I know you subscribe to the market rules philosophy, what prosperous Country has a working model?

I can’t address that top part.

For the bottom, China comes pretty close, I think. But it’s worth pointing out they have a pretty strong anti-immigration policy… not just towards westerners. You have to get a permit to travel to Beijing or Shanghai or Shenzen to seek work. This is to prevent massive unemployment and the social problems it causes (higher crime-rates and tourism-killing are the first that come to mind).

So it’s not entirely free market.

Also they killed two of the people selling melamine in place of protein

Yup. Two executions of criminals convicted through the chinese justice system. I’m not sure what this has to do with their economy.

They at least interfere with they free market when it comes to bad propaganda of their so called free market. India probably has a pretty good free market also, and comparatively speaking we probably are socialists, because we have laws about consumer safety, Child labor, environmental, fair labor, wages,

I personally think the free market is an ideal, not a realistic approach, Greed is good in a totally free market, but greed has many downsides as well. I have to go back to who has a functioning free market that is a good example of how you would like to see America,

I am guessing Somalia probably, has closer to a free market than does China. There is nothing more free, than theft
[/quote]

Somehow you have the idea of a free market as a social-darwinistic nightmare.

There is nothing wrong with government going after those who lie to , steal from, or poison their customers.

And that is besides the obvious point that stealing is not a market activity, where would be the voluntary exchange?

John_S1 · February 23, 2009, 8:00pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
Earn your keep.

No, poor people should not be entitled to free lunches, health care or housing.

They should make themselves useful, earn a living and buy the shit like everybody else.

It’s not so much that society fucks the poor as it is the poor fuck themselves. Repeatedly.

It is your attitude that fucks the poor

How is it his attitude that is fucking the poor? It’s hard work but anyone can bring themselves up. When my dad died my mom had 5 of us and she worked full time and went to college.

If someone drop out of high school they can go get there GED go to community college and either stop there and get a job that will pay good or they can transfer to a full time college and continue.

The poor can either use the opportunities that are being given to them like I am or they can continue to do what they are doing now.

I believe I have answered this question before, but there are more people looking for work than there are jobs. Supply and demand are in the favor of the people looking for employees. That drives down the price of labor. If you have a very industrious person that goes out and gets a job. That means a person that is less industrious has just lost a job

Where do you live that there are not enough jobs to meet the demand of the labor force? What you can’t drive 10-15 minutes to the next town to get a job? Guess what I know many people who do that.

It’s know ones fault but there fault for where they are at.

Scottsdale AZ, but if you want to get a better Idea , go to Youngstown Ohio, Flint Michigan, Gary Indiana, Dearborn . I could go on all day

From wiki

Scottsdale (O’odham Vaṣai S-vaṣonĭ; Yaqui Eskatel) is a city in the eastern part of Maricopa County, Arizona, United States, adjacent to Phoenix.

As of 2007 the population of the city was 240,410.[1] Scottsdale is regarded as an upscale tourist and shopping destination and as a representation of western American style. The New York Times described downtown Scottsdale as “a desert version of Miami’s South Beach” and as having “plenty of late night partying and a buzzing hotel scene”

Sounds like if you took time to go to community college or something you could do well there. Maybe the poor should get out of there entitlement line of thinking and put in some work.

And here is another kicker, If you go to college you can find a job in another town or even another state that pays great.

I love Scottsdale, I hate the summers .I personally am doing fine.
All the resorts hire immigrants for as cheap as the law permits. We also have a huge illegal immigration problem. . So the labor market is subsidized by illegal immigration giving the employer big opportunity to lower wages. School is fine for some one young with no financial obligation, if some one had kids at home they may not be able to afford child care while they went to college, if they had a house they may not be able to sell it to move.

I know there are ways out of being poor, but I think the general attitudes of people help cement them into a pattern. We had a program for all day kindergarten that was the favorite kicking dog for our state Gov. Now that the economy turned south it had to be cut, but it was a social program that gave a small benefit to some of the poor.
[/quote]

You just stated your biggest problem, the illegals. Instead of the government taking money from the people who worked there asses off to get to a high paying job and give it to the people who screwed around, why not simply start cleaning up the city so to speak. When they are out wages will rise and jobs will become available.

So as you can see the government has one job to do in your city but its not giving you money its doing there job and getting the illegals out.

pittbulll · February 23, 2009, 9:04pm

[quote]John S. wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
Earn your keep.

No, poor people should not be entitled to free lunches, health care or housing.

They should make themselves useful, earn a living and buy the shit like everybody else.

It’s not so much that society fucks the poor as it is the poor fuck themselves. Repeatedly.

It is your attitude that fucks the poor

How is it his attitude that is fucking the poor? It’s hard work but anyone can bring themselves up. When my dad died my mom had 5 of us and she worked full time and went to college.

If someone drop out of high school they can go get there GED go to community college and either stop there and get a job that will pay good or they can transfer to a full time college and continue.

The poor can either use the opportunities that are being given to them like I am or they can continue to do what they are doing now.

I believe I have answered this question before, but there are more people looking for work than there are jobs. Supply and demand are in the favor of the people looking for employees. That drives down the price of labor. If you have a very industrious person that goes out and gets a job. That means a person that is less industrious has just lost a job

Where do you live that there are not enough jobs to meet the demand of the labor force? What you can’t drive 10-15 minutes to the next town to get a job? Guess what I know many people who do that.

It’s know ones fault but there fault for where they are at.

Scottsdale AZ, but if you want to get a better Idea , go to Youngstown Ohio, Flint Michigan, Gary Indiana, Dearborn . I could go on all day

From wiki

Scottsdale (O’odham Vaṣai S-vaṣonĭ; Yaqui Eskatel) is a city in the eastern part of Maricopa County, Arizona, United States, adjacent to Phoenix.

As of 2007 the population of the city was 240,410.[1] Scottsdale is regarded as an upscale tourist and shopping destination and as a representation of western American style. The New York Times described downtown Scottsdale as “a desert version of Miami’s South Beach” and as having “plenty of late night partying and a buzzing hotel scene”

Sounds like if you took time to go to community college or something you could do well there. Maybe the poor should get out of there entitlement line of thinking and put in some work.

And here is another kicker, If you go to college you can find a job in another town or even another state that pays great.

I love Scottsdale, I hate the summers .I personally am doing fine.
All the resorts hire immigrants for as cheap as the law permits. We also have a huge illegal immigration problem. . So the labor market is subsidized by illegal immigration giving the employer big opportunity to lower wages. School is fine for some one young with no financial obligation, if some one had kids at home they may not be able to afford child care while they went to college, if they had a house they may not be able to sell it to move.

I know there are ways out of being poor, but I think the general attitudes of people help cement them into a pattern. We had a program for all day kindergarten that was the favorite kicking dog for our state Gov. Now that the economy turned south it had to be cut, but it was a social program that gave a small benefit to some of the poor.

You just stated your biggest problem, the illegals. Instead of the government taking money from the people who worked there asses off to get to a high paying job and give it to the people who screwed around, why not simply start cleaning up the city so to speak. When they are out wages will rise and jobs will become available.

So as you can see the government has one job to do in your city but its not giving you money its doing there job and getting the illegals out.[/quote]

Damn I will vote for you , we totally se eye to eye, I am a contractor not even counting the kobs I lose to illegals, I would say they cut my income by %50

Gambit_Lost · February 24, 2009, 3:08am

[quote]Otep wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Otep wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
How you come to the conclusion that it implies that all the work is done, is beyond me. What it says is there is not enough work to keep all the workers busy

I know you subscribe to the market rules philosophy, what prosperous Country has a working model?

I can’t address that top part.

For the bottom, China comes pretty close, I think. But it’s worth pointing out they have a pretty strong anti-immigration policy… not just towards westerners. You have to get a permit to travel to Beijing or Shanghai or Shenzen to seek work. This is to prevent massive unemployment and the social problems it causes (higher crime-rates and tourism-killing are the first that come to mind).

So it’s not entirely free market.

A bit hung over, but did you just say that China is not “entirely” free market? What about property rights? SOEs? (maybe it was a joke that I’m too hungover to get?)

No joke. China’s engaged in a pattern of transformation wrt it’s SOE’s, cutting about half of them and inviting investors (even foreign investors) minority stakes in the rest (thus making them slightly less SOE). I mean, yeah, they still exist, and in a big way, but with a top-end tax bracket of 15% and no real minimum wage, combined with very little red tape involved in actually starting a business… if Milton Friedman were alive, he’d might not live in Shanghai, but he’d look forlornly at it.

From over here, the US is a socialist country. The irony of which is depressing.[/quote]

No joke. little red tape over property rights and freedom of movement…

Otep · February 24, 2009, 6:24am

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Otep wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Otep wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
How you come to the conclusion that it implies that all the work is done, is beyond me. What it says is there is not enough work to keep all the workers busy

I know you subscribe to the market rules philosophy, what prosperous Country has a working model?

I can’t address that top part.

For the bottom, China comes pretty close, I think. But it’s worth pointing out they have a pretty strong anti-immigration policy… not just towards westerners. You have to get a permit to travel to Beijing or Shanghai or Shenzen to seek work. This is to prevent massive unemployment and the social problems it causes (higher crime-rates and tourism-killing are the first that come to mind).

So it’s not entirely free market.

A bit hung over, but did you just say that China is not “entirely” free market? What about property rights? SOEs? (maybe it was a joke that I’m too hungover to get?)

No joke. China’s engaged in a pattern of transformation wrt it’s SOE’s, cutting about half of them and inviting investors (even foreign investors) minority stakes in the rest (thus making them slightly less SOE). I mean, yeah, they still exist, and in a big way, but with a top-end tax bracket of 15% and no real minimum wage, combined with very little red tape involved in actually starting a business… if Milton Friedman were alive, he’d might not live in Shanghai, but he’d look forlornly at it.

From over here, the US is a socialist country. The irony of which is depressing.

No joke. little red tape over property rights and freedom of movement…

[/quote]

Well, no one’s perfect.

JoeGood · February 24, 2009, 2:42pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
danc2469 wrote:
jawara wrote:
As a person who has been poor before I dont say FUCK THEM. I say give them the opportunity to better themselves…if they don’t want to then say FUCK THEM. I really don’t care how many ethnic minorities say they are oppressed here in America, if my 13th grade black ass can earn a living, ANYONE can, as long as they are willing to work hard and they have opportunities to better themselves.

X2
I think the problem is they are not willing to work at all. It is easier to sit at home and collect your government subsidy than it is to work 60 hrs a week at a job you don’t like much. Me, I perfer to have the finer things in life. Like food, a car, a house,a cement pond, and a gym memebership.

what if there are no jobs or they pay less than welfare ?

There are always jobs and then welfare would be too high.

Can’t argue with logic like that:)

In fact you can´t.

What you want is to distort the market with minimum wages and welfare while still expecting it to do its job, allocting resources.

Sorry. won´t work that way.

Some people call it living in a civilized society.
You do realize that just because you state your case as though it were fact, it is still just your opinion

No, that you cannot interfere with the market without lowering overall utility is actually a logical necessity.

What utility is going to be lowered ?
[/quote]

ROFL

Utility is the amount of “use or satisfaction” you get from making an economic choice. As in do I get more utility from buying 5 hamburges or one pizza or 3 hamburgers and spliting a pizza? Thus most rational consumers attempt to maximize their total utility. How ever many consume in an irrational manner and thus do not maximize their utility.

You are confusing the term industrial meaning (power company, water board) with an economic function.

This is a sign you aren’t very familiar with even the most basic of economic terminology and as such a sign that you have not been exposed to any real economic education.

Perhaps a bit more reading is in order?

Gambit_Lost · February 24, 2009, 2:44pm

[quote]Otep wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Otep wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Otep wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
How you come to the conclusion that it implies that all the work is done, is beyond me. What it says is there is not enough work to keep all the workers busy

I know you subscribe to the market rules philosophy, what prosperous Country has a working model?

I can’t address that top part.

For the bottom, China comes pretty close, I think. But it’s worth pointing out they have a pretty strong anti-immigration policy… not just towards westerners. You have to get a permit to travel to Beijing or Shanghai or Shenzen to seek work. This is to prevent massive unemployment and the social problems it causes (higher crime-rates and tourism-killing are the first that come to mind).

So it’s not entirely free market.

A bit hung over, but did you just say that China is not “entirely” free market? What about property rights? SOEs? (maybe it was a joke that I’m too hungover to get?)

No joke. China’s engaged in a pattern of transformation wrt it’s SOE’s, cutting about half of them and inviting investors (even foreign investors) minority stakes in the rest (thus making them slightly less SOE).

I mean, yeah, they still exist, and in a big way, but with a top-end tax bracket of 15% and no real minimum wage, combined with very little red tape involved in actually starting a business… if Milton Friedman were alive, he’d might not live in Shanghai, but he’d look forlornly at it.

From over here, the US is a socialist country. The irony of which is depressing.

No joke. little red tape over property rights and freedom of movement…

Well, no one’s perfect.[/quote]

True that. For my part, I won’t consider China to be capitalist until I see the words “Property Rights” without words like “defacto” before them. China is moving towards capitalism, no doubt, but they’re no where near an almost entirely free market.

btw, for an interesting take on mixed markets, check out Fukuyama’s “State Building”

pittbulll · February 26, 2009, 12:22pm

[quote]JoeGood wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
danc2469 wrote:
jawara wrote:
As a person who has been poor before I dont say FUCK THEM. I say give them the opportunity to better themselves…if they don’t want to then say FUCK THEM. I really don’t care how many ethnic minorities say they are oppressed here in America, if my 13th grade black ass can earn a living, ANYONE can, as long as they are willing to work hard and they have opportunities to better themselves.

X2
I think the problem is they are not willing to work at all. It is easier to sit at home and collect your government subsidy than it is to work 60 hrs a week at a job you don’t like much. Me, I perfer to have the finer things in life. Like food, a car, a house,a cement pond, and a gym memebership.

what if there are no jobs or they pay less than welfare ?

There are always jobs and then welfare would be too high.

Can’t argue with logic like that:)

In fact you can´t.

What you want is to distort the market with minimum wages and welfare while still expecting it to do its job, allocting resources.

Sorry. won´t work that way.

Some people call it living in a civilized society.
You do realize that just because you state your case as though it were fact, it is still just your opinion

No, that you cannot interfere with the market without lowering overall utility is actually a logical necessity.

What utility is going to be lowered ?

ROFL

Utility is the amount of “use or satisfaction” you get from making an economic choice. As in do I get more utility from buying 5 hamburges or one pizza or 3 hamburgers and spliting a pizza? Thus most rational consumers attempt to maximize their total utility. How ever many consume in an irrational manner and thus do not maximize their utility.

You are confusing the term industrial meaning (power company, water board) with an economic function.

This is a sign you aren’t very familiar with even the most basic of economic terminology and as such a sign that you have not been exposed to any real economic education.

Perhaps a bit more reading is in order?

[/quote]

Thanks for the info,

“No, that you cannot interfere with the market without lowering overall utility is actually a logical necessity.”

Maybe could have written better

And we are back to making policy on untried theory again ,

pittbulll · February 26, 2009, 11:54am

What is a big word that means Dick head

orion · February 26, 2009, 3:56pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
JoeGood wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
danc2469 wrote:
jawara wrote:
As a person who has been poor before I dont say FUCK THEM. I say give them the opportunity to better themselves…if they don’t want to then say FUCK THEM. I really don’t care how many ethnic minorities say they are oppressed here in America, if my 13th grade black ass can earn a living, ANYONE can, as long as they are willing to work hard and they have opportunities to better themselves.

X2
I think the problem is they are not willing to work at all. It is easier to sit at home and collect your government subsidy than it is to work 60 hrs a week at a job you don’t like much. Me, I perfer to have the finer things in life. Like food, a car, a house,a cement pond, and a gym memebership.

what if there are no jobs or they pay less than welfare ?

There are always jobs and then welfare would be too high.

Can’t argue with logic like that:)

In fact you can´t.

What you want is to distort the market with minimum wages and welfare while still expecting it to do its job, allocting resources.

Sorry. won´t work that way.

Some people call it living in a civilized society.
You do realize that just because you state your case as though it were fact, it is still just your opinion

No, that you cannot interfere with the market without lowering overall utility is actually a logical necessity.

What utility is going to be lowered ?

ROFL

Utility is the amount of “use or satisfaction” you get from making an economic choice. As in do I get more utility from buying 5 hamburges or one pizza or 3 hamburgers and spliting a pizza? Thus most rational consumers attempt to maximize their total utility. How ever many consume in an irrational manner and thus do not maximize their utility.

You are confusing the term industrial meaning (power company, water board) with an economic function.

This is a sign you aren’t very familiar with even the most basic of economic terminology and as such a sign that you have not been exposed to any real economic education.

Perhaps a bit more reading is in order?

Thanks for the info,

“No, that you cannot interfere with the market without lowering overall utility is actually a logical necessity.”

Maybe could have written better

And we are back to making policy on untried theory again ,

[/quote]

That is not an untried theory that is more like a tautology.

Insofar it is undeniably true but does not prove too much.

Instead of course that you have no idea why, given a certain income structure a market always moves toward the pareto optimum.

Since it does that more or less by itself through myriads of transactions every government action is a step away from it.

In fact the theory of government redistribution is not sound and proven to be false in some cases and yet you have no problem with these types of “experiments”.

And yeah, 2+2=4 is also more or less tautological but it is nonetheless true.

pittbulll · February 26, 2009, 10:34pm

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
JoeGood wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
danc2469 wrote:
jawara wrote:
As a person who has been poor before I dont say FUCK THEM. I say give them the opportunity to better themselves…if they don’t want to then say FUCK THEM. I really don’t care how many ethnic minorities say they are oppressed here in America, if my 13th grade black ass can earn a living, ANYONE can, as long as they are willing to work hard and they have opportunities to better themselves.

X2
I think the problem is they are not willing to work at all. It is easier to sit at home and collect your government subsidy than it is to work 60 hrs a week at a job you don’t like much. Me, I perfer to have the finer things in life. Like food, a car, a house,a cement pond, and a gym memebership.

what if there are no jobs or they pay less than welfare ?

There are always jobs and then welfare would be too high.

Can’t argue with logic like that:)

In fact you can´t.

What you want is to distort the market with minimum wages and welfare while still expecting it to do its job, allocting resources.

Sorry. won´t work that way.

Some people call it living in a civilized society.
You do realize that just because you state your case as though it were fact, it is still just your opinion

No, that you cannot interfere with the market without lowering overall utility is actually a logical necessity.

What utility is going to be lowered ?

ROFL

Utility is the amount of “use or satisfaction” you get from making an economic choice. As in do I get more utility from buying 5 hamburges or one pizza or 3 hamburgers and spliting a pizza?

Thus most rational consumers attempt to maximize their total utility. How ever many consume in an irrational manner and thus do not maximize their utility.

You are confusing the term industrial meaning (power company, water board) with an economic function.

This is a sign you aren’t very familiar with even the most basic of economic terminology and as such a sign that you have not been exposed to any real economic education.

Perhaps a bit more reading is in order?

Thanks for the info,

“No, that you cannot interfere with the market without lowering overall utility is actually a logical necessity.”

Maybe could have written better

And we are back to making policy on untried theory again ,

That is not an untried theory that is more like a tautology.

Insofar it is undeniably true but does not prove too much.

Instead of course that you have no idea why, given a certain income structure a market always moves toward the pareto optimum.

Since it does that more or less by itself through myriads of transactions every government action is a step away from it.

In fact the theory of government redistribution is not sound and proven to be false in some cases and yet you have no problem with these types of “experiments”.

And yeah, 2+2=4 is also more or less tautological but it is nonetheless true.

[/quote]

Tell me who is going to be better off I maybe I can tell you who is going to pay for it.

What does 2+2 =4 have any thing to do with this thread or any thing to do with rhetoric? I assume because you have access to a dictionary on your computer, you believe you are an ace in communication.

You cloud good communication with your tautological self absorbed style of language. Your vocabulary may be better than mine; you may even know how to type better than I. I believe your self valuation only impresses you

What types of experiments do I have no trouble with?

orion · February 26, 2009, 10:49pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
JoeGood wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
danc2469 wrote:
jawara wrote:
As a person who has been poor before I dont say FUCK THEM. I say give them the opportunity to better themselves…if they don’t want to then say FUCK THEM.

I really don’t care how many ethnic minorities say they are oppressed here in America, if my 13th grade black ass can earn a living, ANYONE can, as long as they are willing to work hard and they have opportunities to better themselves.

X2
I think the problem is they are not willing to work at all. It is easier to sit at home and collect your government subsidy than it is to work 60 hrs a week at a job you don’t like much.

Me, I perfer to have the finer things in life. Like food, a car, a house,a cement pond, and a gym memebership.

what if there are no jobs or they pay less than welfare ?

There are always jobs and then welfare would be too high.

Can’t argue with logic like that:)

In fact you can´t.

What you want is to distort the market with minimum wages and welfare while still expecting it to do its job, allocting resources.

Sorry. won´t work that way.

Some people call it living in a civilized society.
You do realize that just because you state your case as though it were fact, it is still just your opinion

No, that you cannot interfere with the market without lowering overall utility is actually a logical necessity.

What utility is going to be lowered ?

ROFL

Utility is the amount of “use or satisfaction” you get from making an economic choice.

As in do I get more utility from buying 5 hamburges or one pizza or 3 hamburgers and spliting a pizza? Thus most rational consumers attempt to maximize their total utility. How ever many consume in an irrational manner and thus do not maximize their utility.

You are confusing the term industrial meaning (power company, water board) with an economic function.

This is a sign you aren’t very familiar with even the most basic of economic terminology and as such a sign that you have not been exposed to any real economic education.

Perhaps a bit more reading is in order?

Thanks for the info,

“No, that you cannot interfere with the market without lowering overall utility is actually a logical necessity.”

Maybe could have written better

And we are back to making policy on untried theory again ,

That is not an untried theory that is more like a tautology.

Insofar it is undeniably true but does not prove too much.

Instead of course that you have no idea why, given a certain income structure a market always moves toward the pareto optimum.

Since it does that more or less by itself through myriads of transactions every government action is a step away from it.

In fact the theory of government redistribution is not sound and proven to be false in some cases and yet you have no problem with these types of “experiments”.

And yeah, 2+2=4 is also more or less tautological but it is nonetheless true.

Tell me who is going to be better off I maybe I can tell you who is going to pay for it.

What does 2+2 =4 have any thing to do with this thread or any thing to do with rhetoric? I assume because you have access to a dictionary on your computer, you believe you are an ace in communication.

You cloud good communication with your tautological self absorbed style of language. Your vocabulary may be better than mine; you may even know how to type better than I. I believe your self valuation only impresses you

What types of experiments do I have no trouble with?
[/quote]

The tautology lies in the idea that a free market always maximizes utility.

The way utility and free markets are defined that is an inevitable conclusion.

That is no problem for the Austrian theory though, because it more or less states that you can derive all of economic theory from a few self-evident ideas.

It is the same concept as mathematics, once you have established that their are natural numbers, a zero and so on, 2+2=4, no way around it really.

The kind of theory you have no problems with is the kind that states that you could raise overall utility by taking money away from some people and giving it to others via welfare, subsidies or tariffs.

We know though that that must necessarily make the system as a whole less efficient, i.e. it makes the overall wealth shrink.

tom63 · February 26, 2009, 11:50pm

Late to the party but there are only reasons people are poor. Stupid, lazy or both. I treat medicaid patients, unfortunately, almost none are worth a damn.

but they do have cell phones, PCs, big screen TVs and such. It’s hard to be very poor in this country if you have a work ethic, save a little money, and make good basic decisions.

I have a buddy who pissed away an 88,000.00 settlement in one year. He could be on relatively easy street by working a regular job if he had any sense. but he pissed the money away and literally has nothing to show for it. In a year.

Now you can go back to arguing.

pittbulll · February 28, 2009, 3:09am

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
JoeGood wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
danc2469 wrote:
jawara wrote:

Tell me who is going to be better off I maybe I can tell you who is going to pay for it.

What does 2+2 =4 have any thing to do with this thread or any thing to do with rhetoric? I assume because you have access to a dictionary on your computer, you believe you are an ace in communication.

You cloud good communication with your tautological self absorbed style of language. Your vocabulary may be better than mine; you may even know how to type better than I. I believe your self valuation only impresses you

What types of experiments do I have no trouble with?

The tautology lies in the idea that a free market always maximizes utility.

The way utility and free markets are defined that is an inevitable conclusion.

That is no problem for the Austrian theory though, because it more or less states that you can derive all of economic theory from a few self-evident ideas.

It is the same concept as mathematics, once you have established that their are natural numbers, a zero and so on, 2+2=4, no way around it really.

The kind of theory you have no problems with is the kind that states that you could raise overall utility by taking money away from some people and giving it to others via welfare, subsidies or tariffs.

We know though that that must necessarily make the system as a whole less efficient, i.e. it makes the overall wealth shrink.

[/quote]

I know what tautology means and I know what utility means, I know where Australia is, but not which Australian theory you are speaking of.
The theory I have problems with are the ones where the wealthy are taking away money fro the poor
Your communications are too hard to follow; either because you are speaking above your means or that you do not totally grasp what you are saying. Either way you are not expressing yourself well.

Beowolf · February 28, 2009, 5:37am

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
JoeGood wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
danc2469 wrote:
jawara wrote:

Tell me who is going to be better off I maybe I can tell you who is going to pay for it.

What does 2+2 =4 have any thing to do with this thread or any thing to do with rhetoric? I assume because you have access to a dictionary on your computer, you believe you are an ace in communication.

You cloud good communication with your tautological self absorbed style of language. Your vocabulary may be better than mine; you may even know how to type better than I. I believe your self valuation only impresses you

What types of experiments do I have no trouble with?

The tautology lies in the idea that a free market always maximizes utility.

The way utility and free markets are defined that is an inevitable conclusion.

That is no problem for the Austrian theory though, because it more or less states that you can derive all of economic theory from a few self-evident ideas.

It is the same concept as mathematics, once you have established that their are natural numbers, a zero and so on, 2+2=4, no way around it really.

The kind of theory you have no problems with is the kind that states that you could raise overall utility by taking money away from some people and giving it to others via welfare, subsidies or tariffs.

We know though that that must necessarily make the system as a whole less efficient, i.e. it makes the overall wealth shrink.

I know what tautology means and I know what utility means, I know where Australia is, but not which Australian theory you are speaking of.

The theory I have problems with are the ones where the wealthy are taking away money fro the poor

Your communications are too hard to follow; either because you are speaking above your means or that you do not totally grasp what you are saying. Either way you are not expressing yourself well.

[/quote]

A) Austria. Not Australia. Very different places. One is the birthplace of Kangaroos. The other is the birthplace of Hitler.

B) What theory involves coercing the poor to give the rich money?

tom63 · February 28, 2009, 2:37pm

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
JoeGood wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
danc2469 wrote:
jawara wrote: