Sanders: Universal Healthcare and Free College Aren’t Radical Ideas, They Are ‘Human Rights’

[NYcarbineer]

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

Let me ask: do you think anybody back then started to smoke and say "this is okay for me?"

If you light something up and breathe it in, then cough like you're dying, chances are you know it's not good for you.

Do you need government to tell you everything in life?

Not everything, but some things. The warning label helped convince me to be a non smoker although I smoked on and off during my teen years. When the first labels came out I remember them saying that smoking may be harmful. That was a battle the tobacco companies won, may be harmful instead of is harmful. I think if government can warn us about the harmful effects of certain products, and we become a more healthy society, than goverment has done it's job in promoting the general welfare, which is in the preamble of the constitution.

Well then I guess it's good that I was born into a good family. I didn't need government telling me anything, that's what I had parents for.

I remember back in the 60's as a bored child with nothing to do. My grandfather would call me over to his table and have me roll cigarettes with him. He smoked Bugler.

While rolling cigarettes, he told me never to start. Cigarettes are bad for you. When I asked why he smoked, he explained addiction to me.

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

I know a lot of kids who didn't smoke too. They were usually the boring ones. If you don't experiment when you're young, you may grow up to be a stuffed shirt. Not saying you're one. I lived around Cleveland area at that time if that's where you're from. By the way, I like the calorie count on the menu. Kind of like truth in advertising. Another program corporations hate. What good's government if it can't do something now and then for the little guy? Government mostly works for the very wealthy and corporations, as is evidenced by the thousands of lobbyists assigned to our politicians by corporate america, and our constant military adventures that's drained our wealth.

Government isn't there to run businesses, government is there to govern and that's all they should be doing. If government wants to do something for me, they can get further out of my life. The farther government is from my life, the better.

I don't care if a restaurant has calorie count, I don't care if they prohibit smoking, I don't care if they have a dress code, but as long as it's the restaurants call and not the governments.

Do you care if they have child prostitutes working in the back, as long as it's the business's call and the government stays out of it?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

OK, so most transactions take place with imperfect competition. Note imperfect competition is not no competition. What is your point?

Markets work better with perfect competition. Arguably the beneffit of knowing what's in a product is higher for the whole economy than the cost of disclosing the product information.

You have not proven that point. Any more than requiring disclosing the mine the copper in your wire came from is relevant.

Rabi,
It's almost too evident to require any proof at all. So, assume you buy a car but none of the car makers put any information about the mpg. If you require long commutes , how would you choose the model ? You would have to test drive every model.
Look at what happened with the SPM crisis. There were tons of assets whose content has completely opaque by design.

Now regarding restaurants menu, I'll have to challeng the 500M figure.
The only thing they have to do is download an app ( see link) enter the menu ingredients and print the results. So the cost for each restaurant is at most two workdays of semi-skiled labour ($200) since there are about 600,000 restaurants, the figure must be closer to 120M.

Calorie Counter - Android Apps on Google Play

Well, here's the real question. Does it require a mandate from the government to get companies to provide information the consumers want, or does it just require the consumers demanding it?

You're all orgasmic over restaurants providing menu info, but that doesn't require a government mandate. All it required was consumer interest.

Arguably the same reasoning applied to SPM packages which made broke AIG.
So now tell me that lack of transparency worked well for whom ?

Then consider the building codes for California . If there were no building codes , who would profit and who would loss from that ?

Do you know what an externality is and how they relate to information ?

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so most transactions take place with imperfect competition. Note imperfect competition is not no competition. What is your point?

Markets work better with perfect competition. Arguably the beneffit of knowing what's in a product is higher for the whole economy than the cost of disclosing the product information.

You have not proven that point. Any more than requiring disclosing the mine the copper in your wire came from is relevant.

Rabi,
It's almost too evident to require any proof at all. So, assume you buy a car but none of the car makers put any information about the mpg. If you require long commutes , how would you choose the model ? You would have to test drive every model.
Look at what happened with the SPM crisis. There were tons of assets whose content has completely opaque by design.

Now regarding restaurants menu, I'll have to challeng the 500M figure.
The only thing they have to do is download an app ( see link) enter the menu ingredients and print the results. So the cost for each restaurant is at most two workdays of semi-skiled labour ($200) since there are about 600,000 restaurants, the figure must be closer to 120M.

Calorie Counter - Android Apps on Google Play

Well, here's the real question. Does it require a mandate from the government to get companies to provide information the consumers want, or does it just require the consumers demanding it?

You're all orgasmic over restaurants providing menu info, but that doesn't require a government mandate. All it required was consumer interest.

Arguably the same reasoning applied to SPM packages which made broke AIG.
So now tell me that lack of transparency worked well for whom ?

Then consider the building codes for California . If there were no building codes , who would profit and who would loss from that ?

Do you know what an externality is and how they relate to information ?

Your first point is simply wrong.
Consumers would profit from lower costs.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Bernie is a socialist and that's how socialists think.

Of course he neglects to let everyone know that nothing is free and every taxpayer in America will be footing the bill for his "free" Stuff.

Of course those that can't pay their own way will love it but the taxpayers will be getting the shaft yet again.

Oh and as for universal health care?? Who in their right mind wants the Government responsible for the healthcare of 300 million Americans?

The Govt. who has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history.

The Govt. where everything turns into mountains of red tape, regulations and bullshit.

Yep. That's what we need. The Govt. in control of our health care. Good God. Talk about a moronic idea.

========
Letting you near a computer is the biggest moronic idea I've seen in a long time.

 

[Arizona Willie]

The greatest nation on the face of the earth ought to have the healthiest and most well educated populace on the face of the earth. No?

Silly nutters.

Then how do you explain that our Democrat controlled public schools have 80% of students unable to read at grade level?

Cool stat, bro.......where'd ya get it?

I explain it by calling you out for BS. Schools are run locally. Blue states do better than red.....blue counties DESTROY red counties when it comes to quality of education.

The CONSERVATIVE agenda to make higher education something that only wealthy people can afford has damaged this nation. Ya dumb shit.

========
Republicans only believe in Private Schools.

They believe education is only for the children of the Elite and that children of commoners should only go to school until they are 7 or 8 years old and then go to work in the factories like in the good old days of the 1800's.

 

[Kosh]

Bernie is a socialist and that's how socialists think.

Of course he neglects to let everyone know that nothing is free and every taxpayer in America will be footing the bill for his "free" Stuff.

Of course those that can't pay their own way will love it but the taxpayers will be getting the shaft yet again.

Oh and as for universal health care?? Who in their right mind wants the Government responsible for the healthcare of 300 million Americans?

The Govt. who has never done anything cheaply or well in its entire history.

The Govt. where everything turns into mountains of red tape, regulations and bullshit.

Yep. That's what we need. The Govt. in control of our health care. Good God. Talk about a moronic idea.

========
Letting you near a computer is the biggest moronic idea I've seen in a long time.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

 

[Kosh]

The greatest nation on the face of the earth ought to have the healthiest and most well educated populace on the face of the earth. No?

Silly nutters.

Then how do you explain that our Democrat controlled public schools have 80% of students unable to read at grade level?

Cool stat, bro.......where'd ya get it?

I explain it by calling you out for BS. Schools are run locally. Blue states do better than red.....blue counties DESTROY red counties when it comes to quality of education.

The CONSERVATIVE agenda to make higher education something that only wealthy people can afford has damaged this nation. Ya dumb shit.

========
Republicans only believe in Private Schools.

They believe education is only for the children of the Elite and that children of commoners should only go to school until they are 7 or 8 years old and then go to work in the factories like in the good old days of the 1800's.

More far left propaganda not based in reality..

Unlike the far left , they believe in people having real choices..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let me ask: do you think anybody back then started to smoke and say "this is okay for me?"

If you light something up and breathe it in, then cough like you're dying, chances are you know it's not good for you.

Do you need government to tell you everything in life?

Not everything, but some things. The warning label helped convince me to be a non smoker although I smoked on and off during my teen years. When the first labels came out I remember them saying that smoking may be harmful. That was a battle the tobacco companies won, may be harmful instead of is harmful. I think if government can warn us about the harmful effects of certain products, and we become a more healthy society, than goverment has done it's job in promoting the general welfare, which is in the preamble of the constitution.

Well then I guess it's good that I was born into a good family. I didn't need government telling me anything, that's what I had parents for.

I remember back in the 60's as a bored child with nothing to do. My grandfather would call me over to his table and have me roll cigarettes with him. He smoked Bugler.

While rolling cigarettes, he told me never to start. Cigarettes are bad for you. When I asked why he smoked, he explained addiction to me.

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

I know a lot of kids who didn't smoke too. They were usually the boring ones. If you don't experiment when you're young, you may grow up to be a stuffed shirt. Not saying you're one. I lived around Cleveland area at that time if that's where you're from. By the way, I like the calorie count on the menu. Kind of like truth in advertising. Another program corporations hate. What good's government if it can't do something now and then for the little guy? Government mostly works for the very wealthy and corporations, as is evidenced by the thousands of lobbyists assigned to our politicians by corporate america, and our constant military adventures that's drained our wealth.

Government isn't there to run businesses, government is there to govern and that's all they should be doing. If government wants to do something for me, they can get further out of my life. The farther government is from my life, the better.

I don't care if a restaurant has calorie count, I don't care if they prohibit smoking, I don't care if they have a dress code, but as long as it's the restaurants call and not the governments.

Do you care if they have child prostitutes working in the back, as long as it's the business's call and the government stays out of it?

Of course not, and as a Republican since I believe in the free market, we need to bring back slavery, child labor, the pre-union days where people would work 15 hours a day with no breaks, and women should stay home barefoot and pregnant.

 

[dblack]

Let me ask: do you think anybody back then started to smoke and say "this is okay for me?"

If you light something up and breathe it in, then cough like you're dying, chances are you know it's not good for you.

Do you need government to tell you everything in life?

Not everything, but some things. The warning label helped convince me to be a non smoker although I smoked on and off during my teen years. When the first labels came out I remember them saying that smoking may be harmful. That was a battle the tobacco companies won, may be harmful instead of is harmful. I think if government can warn us about the harmful effects of certain products, and we become a more healthy society, than goverment has done it's job in promoting the general welfare, which is in the preamble of the constitution.

Well then I guess it's good that I was born into a good family. I didn't need government telling me anything, that's what I had parents for.

I remember back in the 60's as a bored child with nothing to do. My grandfather would call me over to his table and have me roll cigarettes with him. He smoked Bugler.

While rolling cigarettes, he told me never to start. Cigarettes are bad for you. When I asked why he smoked, he explained addiction to me.

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

I know a lot of kids who didn't smoke too. They were usually the boring ones. If you don't experiment when you're young, you may grow up to be a stuffed shirt. Not saying you're one. I lived around Cleveland area at that time if that's where you're from. By the way, I like the calorie count on the menu. Kind of like truth in advertising. Another program corporations hate. What good's government if it can't do something now and then for the little guy? Government mostly works for the very wealthy and corporations, as is evidenced by the thousands of lobbyists assigned to our politicians by corporate america, and our constant military adventures that's drained our wealth.

Government isn't there to run businesses, government is there to govern and that's all they should be doing. If government wants to do something for me, they can get further out of my life. The farther government is from my life, the better.

I don't care if a restaurant has calorie count, I don't care if they prohibit smoking, I don't care if they have a dress code, but as long as it's the restaurants call and not the governments.

Do you care if they have child prostitutes working in the back, as long as it's the business's call and the government stays out of it?

Of course. No one is saying business owners shouldn't have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

Do you believe child sex abuse should only be illegal for business?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not everything, but some things. The warning label helped convince me to be a non smoker although I smoked on and off during my teen years. When the first labels came out I remember them saying that smoking may be harmful. That was a battle the tobacco companies won, may be harmful instead of is harmful. I think if government can warn us about the harmful effects of certain products, and we become a more healthy society, than goverment has done it's job in promoting the general welfare, which is in the preamble of the constitution.

Well then I guess it's good that I was born into a good family. I didn't need government telling me anything, that's what I had parents for.

I remember back in the 60's as a bored child with nothing to do. My grandfather would call me over to his table and have me roll cigarettes with him. He smoked Bugler.

While rolling cigarettes, he told me never to start. Cigarettes are bad for you. When I asked why he smoked, he explained addiction to me.

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

I know a lot of kids who didn't smoke too. They were usually the boring ones. If you don't experiment when you're young, you may grow up to be a stuffed shirt. Not saying you're one. I lived around Cleveland area at that time if that's where you're from. By the way, I like the calorie count on the menu. Kind of like truth in advertising. Another program corporations hate. What good's government if it can't do something now and then for the little guy? Government mostly works for the very wealthy and corporations, as is evidenced by the thousands of lobbyists assigned to our politicians by corporate america, and our constant military adventures that's drained our wealth.

Government isn't there to run businesses, government is there to govern and that's all they should be doing. If government wants to do something for me, they can get further out of my life. The farther government is from my life, the better.

I don't care if a restaurant has calorie count, I don't care if they prohibit smoking, I don't care if they have a dress code, but as long as it's the restaurants call and not the governments.

Do you care if they have child prostitutes working in the back, as long as it's the business's call and the government stays out of it?

Of course. No one is saying business owners shouldn't have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

Do you believe child sex abuse should only be illegal for business?

I could think like the gun nuts and believe that there should be a loophole for private pimping of one's children.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The greatest nation on the face of the earth ought to have the healthiest and most well educated populace on the face of the earth. No?

Silly nutters.

Then how do you explain that our Democrat controlled public schools have 80% of students unable to read at grade level?

Cool stat, bro.......where'd ya get it?

I explain it by calling you out for BS. Schools are run locally. Blue states do better than red.....blue counties DESTROY red counties when it comes to quality of education.

The CONSERVATIVE agenda to make higher education something that only wealthy people can afford has damaged this nation. Ya dumb shit.

========
Republicans only believe in Private Schools.

They believe education is only for the children of the Elite and that children of commoners should only go to school until they are 7 or 8 years old and then go to work in the factories like in the good old days of the 1800's.

Yes.we're tired of educating fucking retards (aka: Future Democrat voters) who can't function at grade level.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Markets work better with perfect competition. Arguably the beneffit of knowing what's in a product is higher for the whole economy than the cost of disclosing the product information.

You have not proven that point. Any more than requiring disclosing the mine the copper in your wire came from is relevant.

Rabi,
It's almost too evident to require any proof at all. So, assume you buy a car but none of the car makers put any information about the mpg. If you require long commutes , how would you choose the model ? You would have to test drive every model.
Look at what happened with the SPM crisis. There were tons of assets whose content has completely opaque by design.

Now regarding restaurants menu, I'll have to challeng the 500M figure.
The only thing they have to do is download an app ( see link) enter the menu ingredients and print the results. So the cost for each restaurant is at most two workdays of semi-skiled labour ($200) since there are about 600,000 restaurants, the figure must be closer to 120M.

Calorie Counter - Android Apps on Google Play

Well, here's the real question. Does it require a mandate from the government to get companies to provide information the consumers want, or does it just require the consumers demanding it?

You're all orgasmic over restaurants providing menu info, but that doesn't require a government mandate. All it required was consumer interest.

Arguably the same reasoning applied to SPM packages which made broke AIG.
So now tell me that lack of transparency worked well for whom ?

Then consider the building codes for California . If there were no building codes , who would profit and who would loss from that ?

Do you know what an externality is and how they relate to information ?

Your first point is simply wrong.
Consumers would profit from lower costs.

WTF? Really did people who bought the toxic assets with SPM made a profit?
You're joking right?

 

[Andylusion]

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

And who in this country has "no choice" but to work for $2,500? Answer... None. Yeah, if we make up magical limitations, ok you have a point. In the real world, such limitations do not exist.

You realize that roughly 75% of all McDonalds store managers, and franchise owners started off as minimum wage hourly workers?

If you stick with a job, and work your way up the ladder, you can easily make far more money.

The people who stay at the bottom, generally are there by choice.

For example, when I worked at Wendy's a lady came in, and told all of us, in front of us, that she was only there to work until she could get back on welfare. On the day she said she qualified for welfare again, she stopped showing up for work.

Now that lady, will be at the lowest income bracket for life, and it's her fault, and she deserves it. She is there by choice, and she *SHOULD* get minimum wage... in fact she should be paid a faction of minimum wage.

And I've known dozens of people just like this. Literally. By the way, that even includes myself. I could be a store manager by now, I simply didn't want to do the work. The reason I earn the wages I earn, is because I made choices to that effect. The difference myself, and all these others here, is that I accept it, while others think they are entitled to more.

There are literally millions of jobs for people who want to earn more money. They simply refuse to work. You can buy a $50 lawn mower, and make $30,000 a year easy, just depending on how much you want to mow.

If it's that easy, why don't more people do it? Quite simply... they don't want to work.

And that is my main point. The people who work for very little, do so with few exceptions, by choice. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn more money if they want to.

They don't want to. Well, they might 'want' to, but they don't want to do anything to earn more. They simply want more for doing what little they do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just out of curiosity...

Are any of the countries that are supposedly kicking our asses in the field of education denying college to their poorest children - children who would otherwise benefit from higher education?

Don't care.

You don't care because you're doing your damndest to remain uncivilized.

 

[Andylusion]

You have not proven that point. Any more than requiring disclosing the mine the copper in your wire came from is relevant.

Rabi,
It's almost too evident to require any proof at all. So, assume you buy a car but none of the car makers put any information about the mpg. If you require long commutes , how would you choose the model ? You would have to test drive every model.
Look at what happened with the SPM crisis. There were tons of assets whose content has completely opaque by design.

Now regarding restaurants menu, I'll have to challeng the 500M figure.
The only thing they have to do is download an app ( see link) enter the menu ingredients and print the results. So the cost for each restaurant is at most two workdays of semi-skiled labour ($200) since there are about 600,000 restaurants, the figure must be closer to 120M.

Calorie Counter - Android Apps on Google Play

Well, here's the real question. Does it require a mandate from the government to get companies to provide information the consumers want, or does it just require the consumers demanding it?

You're all orgasmic over restaurants providing menu info, but that doesn't require a government mandate. All it required was consumer interest.

Arguably the same reasoning applied to SPM packages which made broke AIG.
So now tell me that lack of transparency worked well for whom ?

Then consider the building codes for California . If there were no building codes , who would profit and who would loss from that ?

Do you know what an externality is and how they relate to information ?

Your first point is simply wrong.
Consumers would profit from lower costs.

WTF? Really did people who bought the toxic assets with SPM made a profit?
You're joking right?

We have already covered this numerous times. The government, through Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, made sub-prime mortgages ligitimate.

You are looking at the effects of government regulations, and then claiming it's the private markets fault.

Before Freddie Mac guaranteed sub prime mortgages, they were a nich market. In fact, no one ever sold SPMs in mortgage backed securities until the government did.

By the way, the government created mortgage backed securities to begin with.

None of this, not one aspect of the 2007 crash, can be traced to anyone other than the government. Without the government involvement, none of this would have happened.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

And who in this country has "no choice" but to work for $2,500? Answer... None. Yeah, if we make up magical limitations, ok you have a point. In the real world, such limitations do not exist.

You realize that roughly 75% of all McDonalds store managers, and franchise owners started off as minimum wage hourly workers?

If you stick with a job, and work your way up the ladder, you can easily make far more money.

The people who stay at the bottom, generally are there by choice.

For example, when I worked at Wendy's a lady came in, and told all of us, in front of us, that she was only there to work until she could get back on welfare. On the day she said she qualified for welfare again, she stopped showing up for work.

Now that lady, will be at the lowest income bracket for life, and it's her fault, and she deserves it. She is there by choice, and she *SHOULD* get minimum wage... in fact she should be paid a faction of minimum wage.

And I've known dozens of people just like this. Literally. By the way, that even includes myself. I could be a store manager by now, I simply didn't want to do the work. The reason I earn the wages I earn, is because I made choices to that effect. The difference myself, and all these others here, is that I accept it, while others think they are entitled to more.

There are literally millions of jobs for people who want to earn more money. They simply refuse to work. You can buy a $50 lawn mower, and make $30,000 a year easy, just depending on how much you want to mow.

If it's that easy, why don't more people do it? Quite simply... they don't want to work.

And that is my main point. The people who work for very little, do so with few exceptions, by choice. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn more money if they want to.

They don't want to. Well, they might 'want' to, but they don't want to do anything to earn more. They simply want more for doing what little they do.

Millions of jobs?

Then why do we see this?

...hundreds lined up for a few job openings at a Walmart. Happens all the time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rabi,
It's almost too evident to require any proof at all. So, assume you buy a car but none of the car makers put any information about the mpg. If you require long commutes , how would you choose the model ? You would have to test drive every model.
Look at what happened with the SPM crisis. There were tons of assets whose content has completely opaque by design.

Now regarding restaurants menu, I'll have to challeng the 500M figure.
The only thing they have to do is download an app ( see link) enter the menu ingredients and print the results. So the cost for each restaurant is at most two workdays of semi-skiled labour ($200) since there are about 600,000 restaurants, the figure must be closer to 120M.

Calorie Counter - Android Apps on Google Play

Well, here's the real question. Does it require a mandate from the government to get companies to provide information the consumers want, or does it just require the consumers demanding it?

You're all orgasmic over restaurants providing menu info, but that doesn't require a government mandate. All it required was consumer interest.

Arguably the same reasoning applied to SPM packages which made broke AIG.
So now tell me that lack of transparency worked well for whom ?

Then consider the building codes for California . If there were no building codes , who would profit and who would loss from that ?

Do you know what an externality is and how they relate to information ?

Your first point is simply wrong.
Consumers would profit from lower costs.

WTF? Really did people who bought the toxic assets with SPM made a profit?
You're joking right?

We have already covered this numerous times. The government, through Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, made sub-prime mortgages ligitimate.

You are looking at the effects of government regulations, and then claiming it's the private markets fault.

Before Freddie Mac guaranteed sub prime mortgages, they were a nich market. In fact, no one ever sold SPMs in mortgage backed securities until the government did.

By the way, the government created mortgage backed securities to begin with.

None of this, not one aspect of the 2007 crash, can be traced to anyone other than the government. Without the government involvement, none of this would have happened.

Wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

The greatest nation on the face of the earth ought to have the healthiest and most well educated populace on the face of the earth. No?

Silly nutters.

Then how do you explain that our Democrat controlled public schools have 80% of students unable to read at grade level?

Cool stat, bro.......where'd ya get it?

I explain it by calling you out for BS. Schools are run locally. Blue states do better than red.....blue counties DESTROY red counties when it comes to quality of education.

The CONSERVATIVE agenda to make higher education something that only wealthy people can afford has damaged this nation. Ya dumb shit.

========
Republicans only believe in Private Schools.

They believe education is only for the children of the Elite and that children of commoners should only go to school until they are 7 or 8 years old and then go to work in the factories like in the good old days of the 1800's.

Actually, having seen the products left-wing schools are churning out, clearly you are the one who believes education is only for the elite, because your free to the poor public schools, keep passing idiots who can't read or write.

Keep the lower class stupid and ignorant, and claim others only want education for the elite. Brilliant.

 

[Andylusion]

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

And who in this country has "no choice" but to work for $2,500? Answer... None. Yeah, if we make up magical limitations, ok you have a point. In the real world, such limitations do not exist.

You realize that roughly 75% of all McDonalds store managers, and franchise owners started off as minimum wage hourly workers?

If you stick with a job, and work your way up the ladder, you can easily make far more money.

The people who stay at the bottom, generally are there by choice.

For example, when I worked at Wendy's a lady came in, and told all of us, in front of us, that she was only there to work until she could get back on welfare. On the day she said she qualified for welfare again, she stopped showing up for work.

Now that lady, will be at the lowest income bracket for life, and it's her fault, and she deserves it. She is there by choice, and she *SHOULD* get minimum wage... in fact she should be paid a faction of minimum wage.

And I've known dozens of people just like this. Literally. By the way, that even includes myself. I could be a store manager by now, I simply didn't want to do the work. The reason I earn the wages I earn, is because I made choices to that effect. The difference myself, and all these others here, is that I accept it, while others think they are entitled to more.

There are literally millions of jobs for people who want to earn more money. They simply refuse to work. You can buy a $50 lawn mower, and make $30,000 a year easy, just depending on how much you want to mow.

If it's that easy, why don't more people do it? Quite simply... they don't want to work.

And that is my main point. The people who work for very little, do so with few exceptions, by choice. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn more money if they want to.

They don't want to. Well, they might 'want' to, but they don't want to do anything to earn more. They simply want more for doing what little they do.

Millions of jobs?

Then why do we see this?

...hundreds lined up for a few job openings at a Walmart. Happens all the time.

Dude, you don't need to wait for walmart. or anyone.

You can start working tomorrow. Grab a mower, and start mowing grass. Grab a shovel, and start doing yard work.

Start tiling floors. The customer will buy the tile, if you have the ability to show up, and put the tile in right.

Walk some dogs. Baby sit some kids. The lady that was across the street from me, had a daycare in her home. That was her one and only source of income. She was single. No Sugar daddy funding her. It was 100% her making money baby sitting kids.

So why are people lined up around the block for a job at walmart? Because walmart is easy. Working for yourself is hard. And when customers get pissed off because you are a jerk, you can't sue them for racial discrimination.

 

[Andylusion]

Well, here's the real question. Does it require a mandate from the government to get companies to provide information the consumers want, or does it just require the consumers demanding it?

You're all orgasmic over restaurants providing menu info, but that doesn't require a government mandate. All it required was consumer interest.

Arguably the same reasoning applied to SPM packages which made broke AIG.
So now tell me that lack of transparency worked well for whom ?

Then consider the building codes for California . If there were no building codes , who would profit and who would loss from that ?

Do you know what an externality is and how they relate to information ?

Your first point is simply wrong.
Consumers would profit from lower costs.

WTF? Really did people who bought the toxic assets with SPM made a profit?
You're joking right?

We have already covered this numerous times. The government, through Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, made sub-prime mortgages ligitimate.

You are looking at the effects of government regulations, and then claiming it's the private markets fault.

Before Freddie Mac guaranteed sub prime mortgages, they were a nich market. In fact, no one ever sold SPMs in mortgage backed securities until the government did.

By the way, the government created mortgage backed securities to begin with.

None of this, not one aspect of the 2007 crash, can be traced to anyone other than the government. Without the government involvement, none of this would have happened.

Wrong.

Wrong.

(hey if that is a debate tactic for you, then I can use it too)