Rubio/Cruz/Kasich Encourage Rioters

[gtopa1]

Only an idiot like yourself would think that an economy based on real productivity and low unemployment that benefits workers with higher wages is the same thing as the government mandating higher wages through wealth redistribution.

I have a degree in economics, and I am telling you that the economic effects of a minimum wage increase and a higher tariff are about the same, though a tariff is probably worse since a tariff creates a dead-weight loss of wealth in the economy whereas a minimum wage increase shifts the demand curve for labor without inducing a dead-weight loss.

The reason why leftists support both tariffs and minimum wage hikes is because they believe both induce demand. You, without knowing it, are making a leftist economic argument. Both higher tariffs and higher minimum wages are the government coming into the market and dictating prices.

And you have it completely backwards about productivity. Tariffs reduce productivity, not increase it. We've known this since the 19th century. Tariffs reallocate wealth to less efficient industries that cannot exist without protection. It is an axiom in economics. This destroys wealth since capital is allocated within the economy less efficiently. Tariffs are a bane to capitalism.

If a 45% tariff is imposed on Chinese or Mexican goods, then companies will either increase their investments in automation - no, those jobs aren't coming back - or they will route the goods through some other jurisdiction not subject to the tariff, and come into the country anyways.

Donald Trump is lying to you. He is making promises he cannot keep. Those jobs aren't coming back.

I have a degree in economics,

From where?? And I agree on tariffs etc. Seems odd that you're a lefty; you seem unable to link wage rise and increased productivity?? Why is that??

Greg

An increase in wages because of tariffs or minimum wages doesn't increase productivity.

And I'm not a lefty, you idiot, at least not in economics.

Did you deliberately miss the point or are you just trying to point score. I was wondering why you didn't link wage rises and productivity?? Avoiding the issue??

Greg

In theory, rising productivity means rising wages. However, that link appears to have been broken over the past three decades. Instead, the gains have accrued mostly to capital.

Now, why are you talking about rising productivity? What point are you trying to make? That has nothing to do with tariffs. Or are you just as obtuse as SJ?

You said raising wages was related to raising the basic wage. I said it should be linked to productivity. Raising wages without increasing productivity is anathema to a conservative economist. So were you a bank Johnny or a Gov employee??

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Yeah, sure you do.

I have an honours degree in finance and economics, an MBA, a CFA, have lectured at a university, and run an investment department.

Your inability to answer my argument is noted. Your ignorance in economics is obvious.

No one is impressed with a claim from an anonymous person on a message board.

That's ironic, given that you made a claim that I was a liar.

I've made a 20-year career navigating capital markets. I can tell when ignorant fuckstains like yourself have no idea what they're talking about.

Unless you want to back your shit up, which you refuse to do.

How about if you back up YOUR claim of navigating capital markets for 20 years, fuckstain?

I don't have to prove anything to lowlifes like you.

Since you can't provide anything to support your argument, this is the point where you should STFU and slink out of this thread, rather than continue to prove that Trump voters are generally uneducated.

lol. You made a basic error and it's SJ's fault?? You showed a fail; obviously you hadn't thought it through. No worries; just link the two now and be done with it. Unless you increase productivity you get what exactly?/ lol

You know as well as I do; just get it over and done with. Or is Jimmah your hero?? Supply shocks aside of course.

Greg

 

[jon_berzerk]

Totally agree. Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich just showed us who and what they really are. And they wonder why people are fed up with the GOP.

Yup. Kasich and Rubio always were RINOs . Cruz (sadly) just threw himself in with them.

he has always been there

he is just another cog in the establishment progressive system

he was the "bad cop" to Mitch McConnell to quell the peoples as they shoved shit down your throats

oddly the attorney of Mitch McConnell has set up a super pac for the bad boy

 

[gtopa1]

Only an idiot like yourself would think that an economy based on real productivity and low unemployment that benefits workers with higher wages is the same thing as the government mandating higher wages through wealth redistribution.

I have a degree in economics, and I am telling you that the economic effects of a minimum wage increase and a higher tariff are about the same, though a tariff is probably worse since a tariff creates a dead-weight loss of wealth in the economy whereas a minimum wage increase shifts the demand curve for labor without inducing a dead-weight loss.

The reason why leftists support both tariffs and minimum wage hikes is because they believe both induce demand. You, without knowing it, are making a leftist economic argument. Both higher tariffs and higher minimum wages are the government coming into the market and dictating prices.

And you have it completely backwards about productivity. Tariffs reduce productivity, not increase it. We've known this since the 19th century. Tariffs reallocate wealth to less efficient industries that cannot exist without protection. It is an axiom in economics. This destroys wealth since capital is allocated within the economy less efficiently. Tariffs are a bane to capitalism.

If a 45% tariff is imposed on Chinese or Mexican goods, then companies will either increase their investments in automation - no, those jobs aren't coming back - or they will route the goods through some other jurisdiction not subject to the tariff, and come into the country anyways.

Donald Trump is lying to you. He is making promises he cannot keep. Those jobs aren't coming back.

I have a degree in economics,

From where?? And I agree on tariffs etc. Seems odd that you're a lefty; you seem unable to link wage rise and increased productivity?? Why is that??

Greg

An increase in wages because of tariffs or minimum wages doesn't increase productivity.

And I'm not a lefty, you idiot, at least not in economics.

Did you deliberately miss the point or are you just trying to point score. I was wondering why you didn't link wage rises and productivity?? Avoiding the issue??

Greg

In theory, rising productivity means rising wages. However, that link appears to have been broken over the past three decades. Instead, the gains have accrued mostly to capital.

Now, why are you talking about rising productivity? What point are you trying to make? That has nothing to do with tariffs. Or are you just as obtuse as SJ?

Last three decades?? Who's stats are you using?? Think Progress??

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Toro

whereas a minimum wage increase shifts the demand curve for labor without inducing a dead-weight loss.

Reduces the demand for labour so increases unemployment in the most vulnerable section of the economy...unless you have increases in productivity!!

But you know that, of course!!

Comment please:

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp401.pdf

Greg

 

[Toro]

You said raising wages was related to raising the basic wage.

No I did not.

Pay attention.

 

[Toro]

Toro

Reduces the demand for labour so increases unemployment in the most vulnerable section of the economy...unless you have increases in productivity!!

But you know that, of course!!

Yes, I generally agree.

Any other straw men you wish to create, "Greg?"

 

[Toro]

I have a degree in economics, and I am telling you that the economic effects of a minimum wage increase and a higher tariff are about the same, though a tariff is probably worse since a tariff creates a dead-weight loss of wealth in the economy whereas a minimum wage increase shifts the demand curve for labor without inducing a dead-weight loss.

The reason why leftists support both tariffs and minimum wage hikes is because they believe both induce demand. You, without knowing it, are making a leftist economic argument. Both higher tariffs and higher minimum wages are the government coming into the market and dictating prices.

And you have it completely backwards about productivity. Tariffs reduce productivity, not increase it. We've known this since the 19th century. Tariffs reallocate wealth to less efficient industries that cannot exist without protection. It is an axiom in economics. This destroys wealth since capital is allocated within the economy less efficiently. Tariffs are a bane to capitalism.

If a 45% tariff is imposed on Chinese or Mexican goods, then companies will either increase their investments in automation - no, those jobs aren't coming back - or they will route the goods through some other jurisdiction not subject to the tariff, and come into the country anyways.

Donald Trump is lying to you. He is making promises he cannot keep. Those jobs aren't coming back.

I have a degree in economics,

From where?? And I agree on tariffs etc. Seems odd that you're a lefty; you seem unable to link wage rise and increased productivity?? Why is that??

Greg

An increase in wages because of tariffs or minimum wages doesn't increase productivity.

And I'm not a lefty, you idiot, at least not in economics.

Did you deliberately miss the point or are you just trying to point score. I was wondering why you didn't link wage rises and productivity?? Avoiding the issue??

Greg

In theory, rising productivity means rising wages. However, that link appears to have been broken over the past three decades. Instead, the gains have accrued mostly to capital.

Now, why are you talking about rising productivity? What point are you trying to make? That has nothing to do with tariffs. Or are you just as obtuse as SJ?

Last three decades?? Who's stats are you using?? Think Progress??

Greg

Nope.

Inside the Fight Over Productivity and Wages

The debate isn't whether or not the gap between productivity and wage growth has widened, but by how much.

You fail, "Greg."

Profits as a share of the economy is near its all-time high.

Graph: Corporate Profits After Tax (without IVA and CCAdj)/Gross Domestic Product - FRED - St. Louis Fed

That's an empirical fact, not a normative statement.

 

[Toro]

I have an honours degree in finance and economics, an MBA, a CFA, have lectured at a university, and run an investment department.

Your inability to answer my argument is noted. Your ignorance in economics is obvious.

No one is impressed with a claim from an anonymous person on a message board.

That's ironic, given that you made a claim that I was a liar.

I've made a 20-year career navigating capital markets. I can tell when ignorant fuckstains like yourself have no idea what they're talking about.

Unless you want to back your shit up, which you refuse to do.

How about if you back up YOUR claim of navigating capital markets for 20 years, fuckstain?

I don't have to prove anything to lowlifes like you.

Since you can't provide anything to support your argument, this is the point where you should STFU and slink out of this thread, rather than continue to prove that Trump voters are generally uneducated.

In other words, you can't prove a damn thing. Just as I thought.

Yeah, as if I'm going to reveal myself to a nutter like you.

Are you this stupid in real life?

 

[FJO]

One of the most disgraceful things I've eve seen in politics is the encouragement being given to anti-Trump rioters, by the 3 stooges > Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich. While these losers, in their pathetic desperation, seem to be willing to throw common decency to the wind, in order to derail Trump, in any way they can, they are guilty of the same thing they are accusing Trump of doing.

All their anti-Trump talk, trying to paint him as the villain in all this rally turmoil is only lending aid and comfort to the anarchistic, disrupter-protestors. By shifting the blame from the disruptors to Trump and his folks, they have become participants in the sickening actions of those sabatoging our freedom of speech and democracy process.

Adding to the fiasco, is Hillary and Bernie (make that the 5 stooges), who couldn't resist jumping in, to get their Trump hater fans like them a bit more. All these stooges are trying to make a case that Trump and his people are being violent to the protesters who are supposedly only exercising the right to free speech. They do have a right of free speech, but they don't have a right to break laws, such as disrupting a peaceful meeting, disturbing the peace, threats, assault & battery, and inciting riot.

Their MO seems to be taking the lawful "violence" that secret service, police and security use to subdue, control, and expel disruptors, and trying to paint that as being unlawful and improper. I expect to see deceit like that coming from the left, but seeing it from Republicans is disheartening. If there ever was any chance for Rubio, Kasich or Cruz to gain a god job in a possible Trump administration, they have buried that now.

Trump has said when the troublemaker crazies come into his rallies and disrupt and fight with Trump followers, the Trump folks should fight back. Nothing wrong with that. The 5 stooges can go chew on a tree stump.

Do you have a link?

Does one need a link to express one's opinion?

 

[BlueGin]

Quote from Rubio:

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said the president should bear some responsibility for the increasingly hostile tensions in the country.

"We are being ripped apart as a nation," he told Fox News's Megyn Kelly. "The president bears some responsibility for some of his rhetoric. People are angry."

Sounds like he blames the administration.

And rightfully so. They are a huge factor sling with the media.

 

[S.J.]

No one is impressed with a claim from an anonymous person on a message board.

That's ironic, given that you made a claim that I was a liar.

I've made a 20-year career navigating capital markets. I can tell when ignorant fuckstains like yourself have no idea what they're talking about.

Unless you want to back your shit up, which you refuse to do.

How about if you back up YOUR claim of navigating capital markets for 20 years, fuckstain?

I don't have to prove anything to lowlifes like you.

Since you can't provide anything to support your argument, this is the point where you should STFU and slink out of this thread, rather than continue to prove that Trump voters are generally uneducated.

In other words, you can't prove a damn thing. Just as I thought.

Yeah, as if I'm going to reveal myself to a nutter like you.

Are you this stupid in real life?

The point is that making a claim you can't back up doesn't give you any more credibility in a discussion. If you can't back it up, don't use it as the basis for your argument.

 

[jc456]

^^^this ^^^^^^^

 

[jc456]

Rule number ONE!!! Blame the assholes who planned and executed the violence and disruption!!! They were/are Sanders/Hillary supporters and this is what that pair of jerks find quite acceptable. The next are Sanders and Hillary. They should have condemned the rioters FIRST AND FOREMOST!!! Instead, they used the old rapist logic; (s)he deserved it(they had it coming; blame the victim etc etc)!! One suspects that Hillary is rather accepting of that logic due to Bill's antics but that is another question. As for the "observations" of Cruz, Rubio and Kasich; a tad silly quite frankly. Even if they condemned the rioters first and with gusto, which I have not seen, and condemned Sanders and Hillary for NOT dissing their own supporters who were involved in the fracas(which I have not seen) it is just dumb to think that the media would not jump on their references to Trump. They need reminding that the Editor is stronger than the truth!!!

As for Trump; much better than anything Democrat of course but I still can't warm to him. But that is irrelevant; his policies are quite good but not really that much different from the other three. I'd love to see a Trump/Palin ticket quite frankly. Sarah has a great deal to offer.


Greg

Why on earth should the dems get involved with the trouble completely aimed at and contained in GOP rallys for GOP candidates?

It really isn't their problem.

As usual the GOP is putting on a very entertaining selection process. Why don't the RWers just cut off Donald's campaign money? It would be simple. Just get him arrested for something serious and have his assets frozen. The gubmint does it all the time against other criminals.

Good question. What's your answer?

 

[HUGGY]

Rule number ONE!!! Blame the assholes who planned and executed the violence and disruption!!! They were/are Sanders/Hillary supporters and this is what that pair of jerks find quite acceptable. The next are Sanders and Hillary. They should have condemned the rioters FIRST AND FOREMOST!!! Instead, they used the old rapist logic; (s)he deserved it(they had it coming; blame the victim etc etc)!! One suspects that Hillary is rather accepting of that logic due to Bill's antics but that is another question. As for the "observations" of Cruz, Rubio and Kasich; a tad silly quite frankly. Even if they condemned the rioters first and with gusto, which I have not seen, and condemned Sanders and Hillary for NOT dissing their own supporters who were involved in the fracas(which I have not seen) it is just dumb to think that the media would not jump on their references to Trump. They need reminding that the Editor is stronger than the truth!!!

As for Trump; much better than anything Democrat of course but I still can't warm to him. But that is irrelevant; his policies are quite good but not really that much different from the other three. I'd love to see a Trump/Palin ticket quite frankly. Sarah has a great deal to offer.


Greg

Why on earth should the dems get involved with the trouble completely aimed at and contained in GOP rallys for GOP candidates?
It really isn't their problem.
As usual the GOP is putting on a very entertaining selection process. Why don't the RWers just cut off Donald's campaign money? It would be simple. Just get him arrested for something serious and have his assets frozen. The gubmint does it all the time against other criminals.

Good question. What's your answer?

The Donald talks tough. I saw him say he would have punched one of the disruptives in the face himself if the SS hadn't stepped in and got in the way.

Well I think they should pat down one of these guys for weapons and have a fighting cage handy so Trump can go change into boxers and a hoody so he could have a cage match with his enemy intruder.

I'm getting tired of how tough Trump thinks he is. I say let him have an opportunity to prove it. He hasn't exactly been acting "presidential" anyway so it couldn't hurt his reputation.

 

[jc456]

Rule number ONE!!! Blame the assholes who planned and executed the violence and disruption!!! They were/are Sanders/Hillary supporters and this is what that pair of jerks find quite acceptable. The next are Sanders and Hillary. They should have condemned the rioters FIRST AND FOREMOST!!! Instead, they used the old rapist logic; (s)he deserved it(they had it coming; blame the victim etc etc)!! One suspects that Hillary is rather accepting of that logic due to Bill's antics but that is another question. As for the "observations" of Cruz, Rubio and Kasich; a tad silly quite frankly. Even if they condemned the rioters first and with gusto, which I have not seen, and condemned Sanders and Hillary for NOT dissing their own supporters who were involved in the fracas(which I have not seen) it is just dumb to think that the media would not jump on their references to Trump. They need reminding that the Editor is stronger than the truth!!!

As for Trump; much better than anything Democrat of course but I still can't warm to him. But that is irrelevant; his policies are quite good but not really that much different from the other three. I'd love to see a Trump/Palin ticket quite frankly. Sarah has a great deal to offer.


Greg

Why on earth should the dems get involved with the trouble completely aimed at and contained in GOP rallys for GOP candidates?
It really isn't their problem.
As usual the GOP is putting on a very entertaining selection process. Why don't the RWers just cut off Donald's campaign money? It would be simple. Just get him arrested for something serious and have his assets frozen. The gubmint does it all the time against other criminals.

Good question. What's your answer?

The Donald talks tough. I saw him say he would have punched one of the disruptives in the face himself if the SS hadn't stepped in and got in the way.

Well I think they should pat down one of these guys for weapons and have a fighting cage handy so Trump can go change into boxers and a hoody so he could have a cage match with his enemy intruder.

I'm getting tired of how tough Trump thinks he is. I say let him have an opportunity to prove it. He hasn't exactly been acting "presidential" anyway so it couldn't hurt his reputation.

I agree. Let's show who the punks really are, hiding behind their pals in numbers rather than having the courage to stand on a stage alone.

 

[protectionist]

You are a dishonest idiot. My post does not say anything about a link. Do it again and you will be reported.

I don't know how your name got on the quote. Obviously, the link was asked for by BlueGin. Just a simple glitch-mistake I guess. But you can report it if you wish. And then I'll report you for your personal attack (which isn't a mistake).

 

[protectionist]

Do you have a link?

A link to what ? FOR what ?

 

[BlueGin]

Do you have a link?

A link to what ? FOR what ?

Quotes from the three listed in your thread title encouraging riots.

 

[protectionist]

I have a degree in economics, and I am telling you that the economic effects of a minimum wage increase and a higher tariff are about the same, though a tariff is probably worse since a tariff creates a dead-weight loss of wealth in the economy whereas a minimum wage increase shifts the demand curve for labor without inducing a dead-weight loss.

The reason why leftists support both tariffs and minimum wage hikes is because they believe both induce demand. You, without knowing it, are making a leftist economic argument. Both higher tariffs and higher minimum wages are the government coming into the market and dictating prices.

And you have it completely backwards about productivity. Tariffs reduce productivity, not increase it. We've known this since the 19th century. Tariffs reallocate wealth to less efficient industries that cannot exist without protection. It is an axiom in economics. This destroys wealth since capital is allocated within the economy less efficiently. Tariffs are a bane to capitalism.

If a 45% tariff is imposed on Chinese or Mexican goods, then companies will either increase their investments in automation - no, those jobs aren't coming back - or they will route the goods through some other jurisdiction not subject to the tariff, and come into the country anyways.

Donald Trump is lying to you. He is making promises he cannot keep. Those jobs aren't coming back.

First of all, I not only have a degree in economics, I also taught the subject in 4 colleges of the City University of New York.

1. What you are saying about tariffs is poppycock. If any firm (from anywhere) could boost their income and profits with automation, they would already be doing it. Nice try on the scare talk. (Strike 1)

2 Routing goods through some other jurisdiction not subject to the tariff, and come into the country anyway ? Not hardly. If the goods are manufactured in China, that is easily determinable and the goods would still be subject to tariff, no matter where they enter the US from (which is why that secondary country wouldn't take them from China, if they intended to send them here. (Strike 2)

3. Higher tariffs and higher minimum wages may be the government coming into the market yes, but no they are NOT dictating prices. These have nothing at all do with a product's market price, which is determined by the consumer (the market), and a bell-shaped curve of prices vs sales/income. (Strike 3)