Dubai's free market capitalism

[DiamondDave]

Nice. When you have no rebuttal, you attack a poster based on your misrepresentation of their political beliefs

I did rebut.. and called you out for trying to change the statements I made to fit your argument, since you had lost it

 

[antagon]

Austrian business cycle theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you been paying attention the last few years?

i guess i could be quoted yapping about the interest rates and the bust. but the libertarian resolution to not have central banking is retarded. the politics and borrowing behind the interest rates since 2003 is worthy of review, and presents an argument for conservatism within the existing paradigm.

changing the paradigm entirely as the libertarians propose, rescinding regulation and moderation, would create worse examples of overconsumption... try the carnegie fed on for size. <-- the austrian bs im referring to.

ideally, the fed actively softens consumption in anticipation of common, juglar business cycles. the idea is that the abject low of a cycle could be avoided by altering the rate, and that the value to the economy would outshine the cost of the regulation.

case/point: the great depression. moderated properly, the inevitable contraction would not have been so grave. also today's economy. the depth of the contraction curve exsacerbates the economy's expansion woes, opportunity cost and the money multiplier being simple cofactors to that arguement.

 

[Toro]

A truly 'free' (unregulated) market leads to greater wealth for the wealthy. Everyone else gets screwed. History has shown this time and again.

The truest free market was probably the United States in the 19th century, and it paid the highest wages in the world.

Other places like Hong Kong and Singapore were probably the truest free markets of the last half of the 20th century, and became amongst the richest places on earth.

 

[Toro]

it doesnt take an encyclopedia shogun. i was in shanghi and nanjing in 2002.

i dont think any of those buildings are public. the people FLOODING the streets below are paid in cash by companies and individuals, and the occasional lamborghini gave the rest away. there is certainly capitalism thriving in china.

i was there on business, fancy that.

The business that is going on in China is amazing. Its a far cry from what it was 30 years ago.

 

[Bern80]

A truly 'free' (unregulated) market leads to greater wealth for the wealthy. Everyone else gets screwed. History has shown this time and again.

No.. it leads to greater wealth and advancement for those who actually accomplish... and those who do nothing, get nothing

In other words, the haves get richer and the have nots get screwed

kinda like sharecropping, the feudal system, robber barons...

Wow you have poor translation skills. NO. The DOERS get richer the DO NOTHINGS get poorer. There's a difference.

 

[Ravi]

A truly 'free' (unregulated) market leads to greater wealth for the wealthy. Everyone else gets screwed. History has shown this time and again.

The truest free market was probably the United States in the 19th century, and it paid the highest wages in the world.

Other places like Hong Kong and Singapore were probably the truest free markets of the last half of the 20th century, and became amongst the richest places on earth.

Since they don't pay for their own defense, how can they be considered free markets??

 

[antagon]

A truly 'free' (unregulated) market leads to greater wealth for the wealthy. Everyone else gets screwed. History has shown this time and again.

The truest free market was probably the United States in the 19th century, and it paid the highest wages in the world.

Other places like Hong Kong and Singapore were probably the truest free markets of the last half of the 20th century, and became amongst the richest places on earth.

cities are different than countries. like i said, ive been to shanghai (and hk) and to suburban nanjing.

same country, different feel: backs prole's arguement, believe me.

 

[antagon]

it doesnt take an encyclopedia shogun. i was in shanghi and nanjing in 2002.

i dont think any of those buildings are public. the people FLOODING the streets below are paid in cash by companies and individuals, and the occasional lamborghini gave the rest away. there is certainly capitalism thriving in china.

i was there on business, fancy that.

The business that is going on in China is amazing. Its a far cry from what it was 30 years ago.

i couldnt talk or keep my food down thirty years ago, but i bet you could get shot for capitalist thinking back then.

there was some blatent big brother going on when i was there, too, but i understand thats mellowing off now too.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not willing to consider a mixed economy. A free market would lead to greater wealth creation than a mixed economy would, and raise everybody's standard of living. However, I'm not prone to call something other than what it is. The U.S. has a mixed economy, not a communist or socialist economy, and the same is true of China.

OH GAHD! its the kevken show again.

fine, youre not willing...

but the US and all other capitalist mixed economies are a testament to how false your...

'A free market would lead to greater wealth creation than a mixed economy would'

... statement is.

i'd accept that a free or freer market would beget faster growth in the economy, but that growth will not disperse sufficient to forge a middle class.

the middle class is the linchpin of the highest-functioning economies in the world where 'greater wealth creation' is realised.

your free market developing economies rely on developed nations for their economic growth, as they simply lack consumers en masse.

wealth creation in capitalism occurs when there is consumption and the cost of production is lesser than the realized price.

again, dont claim that austrian garbage as fact. people arent stupid; there's no merit to it.

Yes, and the middle class would be even better off under a real free market.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

but the libertarian resolution to not have central banking is retarded.

Do you know what ideology first forwarded the idea of a central bank in its modern form- the system upon which Keynes drew?

I'll give you a hint: the Communist Manifesto calls for the creation of a central bank in order to control the economy in the style later elaborated upon by Keynes.

changing the paradigm entirely as the libertarians propose,

Your understanding of history is lacking

rescinding regulation and moderation, would create worse examples of overconsumption... try the carnegie fed on for size. <-- the austrian bs im referring to.

um, genius... the Austrian School doesn't support an unregulated market; it calls for a minimally regulated market and intelligent investing without the Moral HAzard presented by federal backing of moronic financial institutions that make stupid decisions. That's why it tends to draw libertarians.

ideally, the fed actively softens consumption in anticipation of common, juglar business cycles. the idea is that the abject low of a cycle could be avoided by altering the rate, and that the value to the economy would outshine the cost of the regulation.

wow... you just swallowed Keynes General Theory whole, didn't you? Keynesian neo-socialist central planning leaves politicians in charge of the central bank (the first sign something bad is going to happen). They use it as a political tool and artificially low interest rates (among other factors such as the inflated money supply- a problem of fiat currency) lead to the illusion of greater wealth than their really is- the bubble. When the bubble bursts and the market rights itself, stupid people run around screaming about a 'crash' and can't understand why it's happening. Meanwhile, the Austrians just shake their heads in dismay.

case/point: the great depression. moderated properly, the inevitable contraction would not have been so grave.

Without Keynesian stupidity and the inflated money supply, it never would have gotten as bad as it did.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

No.. it leads to greater wealth and advancement for those who actually accomplish... and those who do nothing, get nothing

In other words, the haves get richer and the have nots get screwed

kinda like sharecropping, the feudal system, robber barons...

Wow you have poor translation skills. NO. The DOERS get richer the DO NOTHINGS get poorer. There's a difference.

You think the Lords laboured/worked more than the peasants?

Are you fucking retarded?

 

[Bern80]

In other words, the haves get richer and the have nots get screwed

kinda like sharecropping, the feudal system, robber barons...

Wow you have poor translation skills. NO. The DOERS get richer the DO NOTHINGS get poorer. There's a difference.

You think the Lords laboured/worked more than the peasants?

Are you fucking retarded?

A) we don't have lords in this country. Unless you're talking about jolly old england in which case that would be apples to oranges.

B) It isn't about how hard you work. I'm not saying everyone should do back breaking labor for 50 hours a week to get ahead. People need to start working smarter not 'harder'.

 

[Contumacious]

If this system heralded by "conservatives", republicans and corporatists is so unshakably sound and the best system out there - and self-correcting... what the heck happened? Dubai is the "shining Jewel" of free market capitalism in the middle east. Now it is pretty much bankrupt and having to be bailed out by the Saudis.

HUH?

The Emirate of Dubai, is one of seven sheikdoms that form the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). An emirate is a political territory that is ruled by a dynastic Muslim Monarch styled emir. They practice mercantilism - not Capitalism.

.

 

[antagon]

but the libertarian resolution to not have central banking is retarded.

Do you know what ideology first forwarded the idea of a central bank in its modern form- the system upon which Keynes drew?

I'll give you a hint: the Communist Manifesto calls for the creation of a central bank in order to control the economy in the style later elaborated upon by Keynes.

changing the paradigm entirely as the libertarians propose,

Your understanding of history is lacking


um, genius... the Austrian School doesn't support an unregulated market; it calls for a minimally regulated market and intelligent investing without the Moral HAzard presented by federal backing of moronic financial institutions that make stupid decisions. That's why it tends to draw libertarians.

ideally, the fed actively softens consumption in anticipation of common, juglar business cycles. the idea is that the abject low of a cycle could be avoided by altering the rate, and that the value to the economy would outshine the cost of the regulation.

wow... you just swallowed Keynes General Theory whole, didn't you? Keynesian neo-socialist central planning leaves politicians in charge of the central bank (the first sign something bad is going to happen). They use it as a political tool and artificially low interest rates (among other factors such as the inflated money supply- a problem of fiat currency) lead to the illusion of greater wealth than their really is- the bubble. When the bubble bursts and the market rights itself, stupid people run around screaming about a 'crash' and can't understand why it's happening. Meanwhile, the Austrians just shake their heads in dismay.

case/point: the great depression. moderated properly, the inevitable contraction would not have been so grave.

Without Keynesian stupidity and the inflated money supply, it never would have gotten as bad as it did.

its 2am over here and ive got an early one tomorrow.

by no means does the US abide by strict keynesian econ. i had alluded to the political basis of the recent rate issue. dunno too much about the austrian stuff, admittedly, but feel the measures are extreme to remedy what i dont feel is at all broke: the US economy.

what do they propose as the alternative mechanism for adding/burning money in the market? who do they propose affects that, and how do they propose isolating that device from political/private influence?

you cant take the chicken out of the chicken and egg conundrum by removing the central bank. theres still corruptible roles being played. that leaves the mint to handle monetary policy!??

theres some other shit that that poses, like demand in secondary debt markets corrupting the rate of interest in primary markets if theyre hoping that price mechanics would just transfer over to interest rates??

whats the point when shit works relatively fine to start with?

but duty calls... gnite

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

what do they propose as the alternative mechanism for adding/burning money in the market?

You can't 'add money to the market'; inflating the monetary supply devalues the means of exchange (printing more dollars makes each dollar worth less). An example of this is post WWI Germany or modern day Kenya, Ethiopia, or- taken to the point of utter absurdity- Zimbabwe. One must keep in mind the subjective manner in which people ascribe value to goods and services (this in opposition to the theories of Marx and Keynes*, which believe that all goods are always equal to the amount of labour taken to create them). When people invest resources and effort to create goods which they or others perceive as having greater value than the raw materials and trade these products for goods or services (or means of exchange, or money) the producer perceives as more valuable to him/herself than the product they have created, the overall wealth of the persons involved increases (each person now possesses something they feel is more valuable to them than they possessed prior the transaction. In the case of producers who make many instances of a good for sale to a large population, the seller will seek to increase his perceived wealth as much as possible, as will the buyer- this is the basis of the supply-and-demand relationship which determines the market value of the goods or services in question- the price for which it is traded (usually in the form of a given amount of another material recognized by both parties as having value and being convenient for exchange- this is currency and can take the form of fiat, which represents some portion of the overall wealth of the market, or some material, such as gold, which is itself valued).

Moving along, as the process continues, people amass things which they believe holds value- TVs, houses, etc),m thereby increasing their overall wealth. Due to the nature of people's desires, some things are created to be resold- a refrigerator company buys materials (invests capital) to produce goods with a surplus value and make a profit. This is the creation of new wealth which the Keynesian seeks, in his foolishness, to achieve by simply creating more fiat currency (inflating the money suplpy and devaluing the currency; the effects are delayed by the manner in which this new fiat enters the market and multiplied further by the banks)
further downstream if the initial inflation was started by a central bank (in the absence of a central bank, it is the banks that interact directly with the populace which can each inflate their own monetary supply- bank notes which they issue- but no one bank can effect the entire economy without other banks also taking such actions).

An added risk of the central bank is that the government which runs it likely to use it as a political tool (as we see with the Fed constantly) and having the backing of the State (much as we saw with the bailouts on Wall Street) encourages dangerous policies and unnecessary risk taking. Such policies, including artificially low interest rates and the inflated money supply, cause the illusion of greater wealth than their really is, encouraging investments and obligations that cannot be met (Thomas E. Woods uses the analogy of a man building a house who believes he has three times as many bricks as he truly possess (this is the bubble); when he cannot complete the house, he has squandered his resources and does not receive the expected return because he cannot complete his project; he finds himself without the resources he needs and the banks no longer have anyone to loan out (this is the bust). This gives birth to the boom-bust cycle inherent in Keyne's fantasy of a 'permanent semi-boom' **'

how do they propose isolating that device from political/private influence?

Through open competition of banking institutions on the free market without the existence of a central bank engaged in Mark's central planning*** Minimal regulation would be involved- that is, instead of trying to manipulate the markets, the government should enforce transparency laws and work to prevent abuses and dishonesty such as we saw with Enron, SubPrime loans (which, to be fair, were largely required by federal law at the behest of Acorn and other racist groups), and the numerous repackaging of the market that contributed to America's latest economic troubles. Moral hazard is avoided by allowing banks and other cooperationsthat make poor decisions to go under, thus giving them a reason to be wise in their decisions and avoid unnecessary risks as well as putting limits on fees and fines that banks can charge to prevent abuse and exploitation by the banks (the last bit is a point of contention for some more extreme laissez faire Austrians and are naturally opposed by the banks themselves; my support for such protections putts me a bit to the left within the Austrian school, which is perhaps not surprising given my support of Social Democracy rather than a more strict Classical Liberal ideology).

you cant take the chicken out of the chicken and egg conundrum by removing the central bank. theres still corruptible roles being played. that leaves the mint to handle monetary policy!??

The mint would be dissolved as part of the central bank. The print produces the equivalent of bank notes for the central bank- fiat bills backed by US political influence and military power. Under the Austrian system, banks would use commodities such as gold as the means of exchange, possible returning to the issuance of bank notes which can redeemed for the means of exchange kept in the bank's vault (eg: the Gold Standard)

whats the point when shit works relatively fine to start with?

The point is that is doesn't.b Fiat currency and the central bank both lead to instability fiat money is easily inflated and the central bank quickly becomes a political tool first and a banking institution second (if it even remembers its task as such).

*'Keynes did adopt labor hours as the measure of value and said he agreed that labor produces all value' Theories of Value and the Monetary Theory of Production

* The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom.
The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money (1935)
o Book 6, Chapter 22, Section 3, pg.322


The Fifth PLank of the Communist Manifesto reads:
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

damn, that took a long time to type ._.;;

If you want to know more about the Austrian system, a librarian can offer more help than I can

 

[antagon]

keynesian countries have their flaws; my flight to london was cancelled this morning because of snow at gatwick. not chicago snow, a london dusting.

that aside, i got more time to look at your original post.

Do you know what ideology first forwarded the idea of a central bank in its modern form- the system upon which Keynes drew?

I'll give you a hint: the Communist Manifesto calls for the creation of a central bank in order to control the economy in the style later elaborated upon by Keynes.

im not sarah palin, so the origins of theory doesnt scare me per sa. communist theory and socialism evolved from capitalist ideas anyhow. (sure, hunter gatherers may have been communal, but i mean the theory/study)

um, genius... the Austrian School doesn't support an unregulated market; it calls for a minimally regulated market and intelligent investing without the Moral HAzard presented by federal backing of moronic financial institutions that make stupid decisions. That's why it tends to draw libertarians.

ok. i think the market is minimally regulated as it is. most of the regulations are based on standards of ethics and qualification and on the same transparency that you call for in your latter post. its not clear how or why to strip that down further, and what gain can be gleaned from that is my point.

partisan perspectives on clinton's dismantling glass-stegal paint it as precursory to the crisis now, but i am all for that move. it was precursory to the boom, i remind. the reflex to regulate is retarded, but its not really a modern response. so far bush and obama have just verbally chastised bankers, but 'reforms' have not been regulations which reduce freedoms in the market.

libertarians have centrists and radicals. radicals like kevken think markets self regulate, and that the government should force that freedom, rather than looking out for the economy altogether.

i dont think freedom is the only factor in economic growth, health or stability.

wow... you just swallowed Keynes General Theory whole, didn't you?

i dont know if thats a good attribution on your part. central banking predates keynes. he's an interventionist, but moreso with stimulus through government expansion. i want to say modifying rates of interest would be pigouvian?

i think regulation and moderation through pigouvian devices (tax/rates) is the way to go. it uses market responses to affect changes in the value of currency, a constitutional obligation of our (US) govt.

case/point: the great depression. moderated properly, the inevitable contraction would not have been so grave.

Without Keynesian stupidity and the inflated money supply, it never would have gotten as bad as it did.

keynesesian policy in the US predating the depression? you said my history is lacking??..
then you taut gold standard???... that was the stupidity in '29, buddy. eat it...

moving on...

You can't 'add money to the market'; inflating the monetary supply devalues the means of exchange (printing more dollars makes each dollar worth less). An example of this is post WWI Germany or modern day Kenya...

you continue into some econ basics...

there is a requirement to regulate the money supply. what do you mean you cant? when the market, wall street or main street, needs more (or less) money supply to express price as related to supply and demand, without the supply and demand for money itself corrupting the equation (extreme inflation/deflation), you have to alter the supply.

your gold standard, again, was the was the impotice of the german crisis in the 20s, not fiat. there was demand for d-marks, but not enough gold to back it, notwithstanding -- bad deal; shitty conundrum.

africans *sigh*... sometimes i wonder if they think its how pretty the design on the paper is. or they get a volume discount on printing... malpractice at any rate. i speak of sound monetary policy. [segue]

this is not sound monetary policy...

The mint would be dissolved as part of the central bank. The print produces the equivalent of bank notes for the central bank- fiat bills backed by US political influence and military power. Under the Austrian system, banks would use commodities such as gold as the means of exchange, possible returning to the issuance of bank notes which can redeemed for the means of exchange kept in the bank's vault (eg: the Gold Standard)

whats the point when shit works relatively fine to start with?

The point is that is doesn't.b Fiat currency and the central bank both lead to instability fiat money is easily inflated and the central bank quickly becomes a political tool first and a banking institution second (if it even remembers its task as such).

the gold-standard is garbage. why not let markets determine the value of money? that is a more substantial arguement for market freedom than what the aus propose with the gold standard. the gold standard politicizes the seizure of gold everywhere in the world through war or colonization, does it not? no coincidence that the gold standard and colonial policy vanished the same generation. theres a degree that the US is operating on an quasi-oil standard, and that that's the motivation for our 'interest' in the ME. i guess that theres always got to be a backing for currency, but thats best appraised at market.

with respect to the mint and the fed... the fed is a separate, arguably private, lets say privatish, entity and should be more immune to political influence than we've seen just these last few years. adjusting rates of interest has the effect of migrating investment from debt to equity investment. i think the simpleton's conjecture that the stock market is the economy was prevalent the last decade. there was a political obsession with the same, which is the seat of the political basis for the flat low rate in trend started in 2003, as i see it. part of neoconservative stimulus..cut taxes and rates.

i bet the next ten years folks will be obsessed with the debt-end.

the idea that you could smooth out cycles entirely shouldnt be pursued. no nation's quite on board with keynes with that one... maybe pre-thatcher england?

damn, that took a long time to type ._.;;

If you want to know more about the Austrian system, a librarian can offer more help than I can

i wish i typed this fast when i was in school. ive got to be doing 50-60words. i know you hate i dont capitalize much, but that makes all this way faster for me.

ive got to say that if the austrian deal is based on the gold standard im willing to write the shit off without going to a library.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

nd socialism evolved from capitalist ideas anyhow.

What schools of communism are you referring to?

i think the market is minimally regulated as it is.

How is the market minimally regulated when the Fed tells banks whom they must give loans to, what interest rates they must loans to eachother at, and how many dollars should be printed?

How can you have interventionist stimulus without expansion of the central government to 'manage' it? They're a package deal.

You're attaching the gold standard? The precious metals standard was stablefor thousands of years. It's a lot harder to inflate the amount of gold/silver (or other commodity) in your vaults than it is to print more fiat.

there is a requirement to regulate the money supply.

Not if you have a commodity-based currency. In such a system, you'rereally only practicing barter with a common commodity being traded because of its perceived value. You' don't print gold

your gold standard, again, was the was the impotice of the german crisis in the 20s, not fiat. there was demand for d-marks, but not enough gold to back it,

You just proved the Austrians correct. By inflating the money supply (printing more deutchmarks), they devalued the currency, as each d-mark now represented a smaller fraction of the gold that represented their overall wealth. Printing more d-marks gives the illusion of greater wealth than there really was, and by the time the effect was felt by the common man, the d-mark was worth as much as toilet paper (possibly less).

the gold-standard is garbage. why not let markets determine the value of money?

The market does determine the value of the means of exchange when you have the gold standard. With a fiats system, it's the government which tries to assign value to the State's money. When they wish to increase wealth, they then print more d-marks or dollars, but this makes the currency less rare and therefore less valuable. This is the devaluation of currency caused by an inflated money supply- this is inflation, which the end consumer experiences as 'higher prices'. Under the gold standard, you can't inflate the money supply by simply printing more bills (it's still possible to misrepresent available wealth, but it's far more difficult); the only way to increase the means of exchange (assuming it remains unchanged) is to amass more of that which is valuable in exchange.

no coincidence that the gold standard and colonial policy vanished the same generation

No coincidence that colonialism ended when the major powers destroyed eachother and begun dismantling their own economies. To imply that Keynes saved the world from colonialism is dishonest at best. You can, btw, have a silver standard, diamond standard, or any other standard, so long as you back the currency with something of value in trade (not just your alleged political might) and each unit of the means of exchange can be exchanged for that commodity at any time.

theres a degree that the US is operating on an quasi-oil standard, and that that's the motivation for our 'interest' in the ME.

You can't back you currency with something you don't have. The american dollar is backed by nothing but bombs and the Army.

ive got to say that if the austrian deal is based on the gold standard im willing to write the shit off without going to a library

The Austrian School is based in common sense. I suppose it could be summed up as:
-If you want your currency to be valuable, back it with something valuable

-If you flood the market with something, it becomes less valuable

-If you think you have more wealth than you really do, you're gonna be in trouble when the bills come in after yous pend it all

-The market is people. People cannot be predicted with mathematical formulas; to understand the market, you must understand the people in it, thier motivations, their desires, and the manner in which they act. One cannot sit in one's ivory tower with mathematics and plot out, plan, and manipulate the desires and actions of the numerous bodies which compose the open market. (Austrian Economics is sometimes referred to as a psychological school of economics; it is a descrioptive school, nota prescriptive belief)

You've already shown yourself, through your German example, how an inflated money supply leads to disaster. The reason Austrians support a commodities-based currency is because it is a protection against such inflation and it provides a meaningful measure of wealth by which to judge a nation's economic state as well as a means of enabling the currency to acquire true market value (the value of a note that can be traded for one ounce of silver is the market value of one ounce of silver).

 

[Shogun]

it doesnt take an encyclopedia shogun. i was in shanghi and nanjing in 2002.

i dont think any of those buildings are public. the people FLOODING the streets below are paid in cash by companies and individuals, and the occasional lamborghini gave the rest away. there is certainly capitalism thriving in china.

i was there on business, fancy that.

There were busnesses happening in East Germany in 1977 too. Imaging that.


Again, go ahead and let Britannica know about their errors. Clearly, state owned enterprises are a half step away from entrepreneurial ownership.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not willing to consider a mixed economy. A free market would lead to greater wealth creation than a mixed economy would, and raise everybody's standard of living. However, I'm not prone to call something other than what it is. The U.S. has a mixed economy, not a communist or socialist economy, and the same is true of China.

OH GAHD! its the kevken show again.

fine, youre not willing...

but the US and all other capitalist mixed economies are a testament to how false your...

'A free market would lead to greater wealth creation than a mixed economy would'

... statement is.

i'd accept that a free or freer market would beget faster growth in the economy, but that growth will not disperse sufficient to forge a middle class.

the middle class is the linchpin of the highest-functioning economies in the world where 'greater wealth creation' is realised.

your free market developing economies rely on developed nations for their economic growth, as they simply lack consumers en masse.

wealth creation in capitalism occurs when there is consumption and the cost of production is lesser than the realized price.

again, dont claim that austrian garbage as fact. people arent stupid; there's no merit to it.

Yes, and the middle class would be even better off under a real free market.

oh yea! Like they are doing RIGHT NOW every year that more jobs are hemmoraged to Mexico, right dude? Nothing says "even better" than two part time service jobs at retail stores instead of a single 40 hour protected week.