Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Uncensored2008]

[
Say says, Gravity Payments can supply us with an answer.

You don't make $70K a year slinging dope to kids, Danny?

You're not very good at what you do.

 

[danielpalos]

The 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014 represent about 30% of the total US population.

So you are claiming every person in those 13 states and DC works for minimum wage?

So no, you're wrong as usual. It's not a minuscule percentage. Since when is 30% minuscule?????? Oh right, since you say so. LOL. What a tool.

First off, you are dishonest, California did not raise the MW in 2014, they raised in in 2006, with graduated bumps one of which took effect in 2014.

Secondly, the percentage of men making minimum wage who are 25 or older is 0.7%, for women it is 1.1%

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/mi...racteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

The population affected by changes is less than 2%, in fact using your 30% total population yields .018*.3 or 0.54% of the national population. Yet you claim this is significant.

I stopped conversing with you because you are a hack with an agenda who has no particular respect for facts.

Here is information you will ignore, since you are an ideologue who seeks only to promote the leftist agenda, regardless of facts.

{The minimum wage is not a “protection,” as progressives often style it. It doesn’t confer a “right” to be paid any amount of money, because nobody has an obligation to hire you. The minimum wage only says that it’s illegal to work for less than x, no matter how badly you need that job. To the extent the minimum wage is set above where the market clears on a given wage category, businesses will typically respond with some combination of raising wages, cutting hours, and laying people off. And, to the extent they respond by raising wages, the higher labor costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Many of the affected labor categories are in industries — such as supermarkets and food service — that provide necessaries to poor and rich alike, so the social costs are grossly regressive. If you want to see just how unfair the minimum wage is to poor people, consider the fact that those born into privilege enjoy a huge exemption from it — they can be interns in the profession of their choice. Recent college graduates can walk into the job of their dreams with no experience by offering their services for free as interns. This allows them to “get their foot in the door,” acquire valuable skills, and prove to their hoped-for employer that they’re worth hiring. Now imagine a recent immigrant asking for an “internship” at the local supermarket. Even if the supermarket is willing to open that door, the federal government slams it shut.

Read more at: How the Minimum Wage Hurts Poor People}

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

Say says, State Capitalism should supply a solution that involves, equal protection of the law regarding the supply concept of employment at will, in our at-will employment States, for unemployment compensation purposes; to ensure capital is supplied and circulates to conform to Adam Smith.

So what you're saying is "Herpa derp deperity derp derp derpity?"

Very deep doper boi..

only to dopeless wonders.

State Capitalism can supply equal protection of the law to ensure full employment of capital resources in our economy; it really is that simple.

With Labor having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed; the laws of demand and supply will function more as described by Adam Smith.

 

[danielpalos]

[
Say says, Gravity Payments can supply us with an answer.

You don't make $70K a year slinging dope to kids, Danny?

You're not very good at what you do.

How can Labor ascertain if management is any good or not; management compensation?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
only to dopeless wonders.

State Capitalism can supply equal protection of the law to ensure full employment of capital resources in our economy; it really is that simple.

With Labor having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed; the laws of demand and supply will function more as described by Adam Smith.

State Capitalism? Is that made from "dry water?"

And you have not a clue what Adam Smith described.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Say says, Gravity Payments can supply us with an answer.

You don't make $70K a year slinging dope to kids, Danny?

You're not very good at what you do.

How can Labor ascertain if management is any good or not; management compensation?

Read the company financials. It's real clear whether management is any good or not based on EBIT.

 

[danielpalos]

[
only to dopeless wonders.

State Capitalism can supply equal protection of the law to ensure full employment of capital resources in our economy; it really is that simple.

With Labor having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed; the laws of demand and supply will function more as described by Adam Smith.

State Capitalism? Is that made from "dry water?"

And you have not a clue what Adam Smith described.

It happens via a public sector not a private sector.

Full employment of resources via an Capital, hard working hand.

 

[danielpalos]

[
Say says, Gravity Payments can supply us with an answer.

You don't make $70K a year slinging dope to kids, Danny?

You're not very good at what you do.

How can Labor ascertain if management is any good or not; management compensation?

Read the company financials. It's real clear whether management is any good or not based on EBIT.

That didn't work. Whence any need for bailouts.

 

[danielpalos]

I finally started going through your, "wall of text".

No amount of Keynesian stimulus to the public will alter supply in any way.

Solving a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, will do, just that.

 

[danielpalos]

Really? Maybe you need to do some light reading, pal, and catch up to the rest of 2012. Conservatives deliberately tried to deceive people by pushing this paper whose authors had to lie, manipulate, and omit in order to get the conclusion their ideology had committed them to. Why do you think they didn't want their paper to be peer-reviewed??????? Obviously because doing so would have caught the deliberate data omissions and "spreadsheet errors" that produced the conclusion Conservatives wanted; that high government debt levels translate to slower growth. WHICH IS NOT TRUE AT ALL AND IS FAKE NEWS.

Soooooo...what that means is that if the thing Conservatives were relying on to make their arguments about government debt and spending was a fucking lie, doesn't that make those who spread the fucking lie, fucking liars themselves? And if they lied about that, why wouldn't they lie about other things? I don't feel like these are unfair questions to ask. You either went along with their conclusions because you are stupid, or you did it because you're a liar. Doesn't really matter to me which is which. I think both suck equally.

You state that high government debt levels translate to slower growth are FAKE NEWS.

Do you deny that the annual debt service on $20 TRILLION is at least double that of $10 TRILLION? Where do you imagine the money comes from in order to pay that additional interest? That money will come out of our economy, out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the pockets of those holding our IOU's. Please explain how that does NOT slow our growth.

yes, it is fake to the extent the right wing believes, lowering taxes and speculating on growth, is better than taxing the "one per mil" to balance the budget.

 

[danielpalos]

Really? Maybe you need to do some light reading, pal, and catch up to the rest of 2012. Conservatives deliberately tried to deceive people by pushing this paper whose authors had to lie, manipulate, and omit in order to get the conclusion their ideology had committed them to. Why do you think they didn't want their paper to be peer-reviewed??????? Obviously because doing so would have caught the deliberate data omissions and "spreadsheet errors" that produced the conclusion Conservatives wanted; that high government debt levels translate to slower growth. WHICH IS NOT TRUE AT ALL AND IS FAKE NEWS.

Soooooo...what that means is that if the thing Conservatives were relying on to make their arguments about government debt and spending was a fucking lie, doesn't that make those who spread the fucking lie, fucking liars themselves? And if they lied about that, why wouldn't they lie about other things? I don't feel like these are unfair questions to ask. You either went along with their conclusions because you are stupid, or you did it because you're a liar. Doesn't really matter to me which is which. I think both suck equally.

You state that high government debt levels translate to slower growth are FAKE NEWS.

Do you deny that the annual debt service on $20 TRILLION is at least double that of $10 TRILLION? Where do you imagine the money comes from in order to pay that additional interest? That money will come out of our economy, out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the pockets of those holding our IOU's. Please explain how that does NOT slow our growth.

But the authors stand by their conclusion that higher government debt is associated with slower economic growth.

No one is claiming, cutting taxes reduces the debt; just the opposite. Yet, the right wing insists on being, "opposite".

 

[danielpalos]

[
Supply side economics, is about, "overwhelming supply". There is simply, not enough demand.

Solving simple poverty, would ensure capital circulates in our Republic and engender positive multiplier effects.

For some on the left, it seems, "the poor only get around three fifths", "open interest" on "demand" options.

Again stoner boi, you have not a hint of a clue as to how supply side economics works, nor indeed how Keynesian theory works. You have a sum total of zero knowledge on the subject under discussion.

Supply side economics as proposed by the brilliant economist Dr. Arthur Laffer holds quite simply that production is the single most important factor in economics. (Hence why I earned a Ph.D. in Supply Chain Management to augment my credentials rather than pursuing traditional economics.) The key to macroeconomics is equilibrium. This is the point that demand and supply intersect, which by necessity is the most efficient use of resources.

Now you have never had an economics course, nor did you finish high school, but a universal truth is that scarcity drives all economic systems. To put it in a way you can understand, you as a dope dealer have had times where you couldn't get any pot to sell, supplies were short. What did that do to you dope dealing business? Did demand create a new supply of dope? On the other hand, if you get a shipment of 30 pounds in and can only sell a few ounces a week, you have a lot of capital tied up in weed that isn't moving - which you will end up smoking rather than selling.

So the goal in macroeconomics is to match the supply of goods with the demand.

Now when demand increases, two things can happen, either prices increase to contain the scarcity of the goods, or supply increases to meet the demand. Supply side economics recognizes the fact that only an increase in production can result in an increase in supply. Demand will never, and cannot increase the supply of anything, only production can do this. Hence supply side theory is axiomatically true. No amount of Keynesian stimulus to the public will alter supply in any way. Demand does not increase supply, only production increases supply. In a capitalist society, industrialists will generally monitor demand and increase production if possible, but it is not demand that creates supply, demand only creates opportunity for production. Production alone creates supply. Only the pot growers planting more Marijuana increase the amount of dope you can sell. Your stoner buddies cannot change the amount of weed on the market.

China, though a socialist country is a great example of supply side theory in action. During the heyday of Mao, about a third of the population was technically starving, lacking the food needed to maintain normal health. Mao as you know, ran a purely demand driven economy. The state accounted for demand and allocated production to what they viewed as goods needing supply. 90% of China was in abject poverty

After Nixon opened China, American companies began engaging in production in China. This production transformed the dictatorship to the point that starvation has been entirely eradicated and poverty is under 20%. It was production that changed the dynamic, Demand was irrelevant, the goods produced were not even offered to Chinese consumers. Production created jobs, jobs provided income.

Supply side is about the role of production, not about "trickle down."

The left has dishonestly used the term trickle down due to the supply side remedy to the business cycle. Under Keynesian economics, the response of monetary policy during economic down turns is to create fiat currency and large deficits to pump cash into the economy as a means of "priming the pump." Under the General Theory, Keynes advocated for this stimulus to go directly to individuals, the Roosevelt WPA is prime example, people were employed and paid by the government to build roads and bridges, money went directly to citizens.

Now the Porkulus of Obama is quite different, the trillions of dollars he spent went to public employee unions, auto manufacturers, and other well connected looters, so his fiasco cannot be viewed as a Keynesian stimulus.

Supply side holds that the most effective way to end a recession is to stimulate production, since it is not demand that falters, but supply in a recession. (The poor still want a loaf of bread, they simply cannot afford it due rising prices). To stimulate production, the most direct route is to reduce the amount of capital that the government confiscates from business. This is accomplished by lowering taxes.

One of the lies of the left is that lowering taxes has a unique impact on the public treasury; both a stimulus AND tax breaks have an impact. To claim that only lowering taxes has such and impact is highly dishonest.

Anyway, I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.

Supply side is about the role of production, not about "trickle down."

That only holds true for economics; not right wing fiscal policies. Trickle down simply means, bailout the wealthiest (and their supply side mismanagement), and then let it trickle down to the poor.

 

[danielpalos]

So raising the wages for all minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else. Because, math.
Cool. Let's make it $100/hr, because math.

Stop trolling and flaming. You and I both know what I'm talking about here. So all you're doing by exercising these kinds of hysterics is to prevent any serious debate from moving forward. I'll just take your flaming as a concession on your part. Wouldn't want your ego to get too bruised, right?

There's that phrase again, "I think..." You're basing that thought on what, exactly?
On the fact that making it illegal for someone to work for less than MW harms unskilled workers who are disproportionally minorities.

But that's not a fact. That is what you "think", which would make it your opinion that isn't informed by any actual evidence. There's nothing that shows raising the MW hurts low-skill workers. In fact, from 2014 we know that raising wages results in faster job growth than not raising wages. That's something you have been unable to reconcile in this thread. So you just do what you always do; substitute your precious feelings in place of actual facts.

Why would businesses raise wages if there was no minimum wage?
Considering that fewer than 1 million workers make the Federal minimum wage, your question is fucking stupid.

I'm not talking about just the federal minimum wage, and I notice how you cut that part out of my post from before in your response. You did that because you are exercising sophistry. You are trying to make this about the federal minimum wage, but I'm talking about the minimum wage. So why are you doing that, knowing that many states have minimum wages above the federal one, yet still below the $14/hr it costs to provide basic assistance and benefits?

Conservatives say time after time that businesses look forward at upcoming tax rates and base their hiring on those.
Oh, they ignore tax rates. DERP!

So which is it, do they or don't they? Or is this just another instance of Conservative goalpost shifting? I think that's the likely answer here.

Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.
Well, they did. You claimed they didn't. You were wrong. Again.

LOL! The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. They were passed in 2001. Businesses forecast based on those tax cuts beginning in 2001, because that's what Conservatives always say they do! Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years. He would go on to lose net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts did not spur hiring, the Bush Mortgage Bubble did. But you are the one now tying the Bush Tax Cuts to the Bush Mortgage Bubble by misrepresenting the job growth. Was that your intent?

Setting aside that ridiculously ludicrous premise, you are making a correlation-is-causation argument
Like you when you point out that Reagan's tax cuts occurred the month after the 1981 recession began, and blame the former for the latter.

I never blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the 1981 recession. I blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the job loss that would occur throughout 1982.

Again, why are you saying something that is demonstrably untrue?
Pointing out your correlation=causation fallacy is demonstrably untrue? LOL!

Follow the thread closer. What you tried to say was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs. However, the empirical evidence from 2014 shows the opposite. So either 2014 is a freak outlier, or you're full of shit. Which is it?

No, a higher MW would increase revenues.
And after you subtract wage expenses, profits would be lower.

Not if your revenues are higher. What you have failed to prove is that consumption doesn't increase if wages increase. When a low-wage worker gets paid more money, they spend that money. So you are ignoring the growth in revenues that come from increase consumption which comes from increased wages. So why are you doing that? Why are you ignoring the YUGE piece of the equation? You are assuming revenues stay the same after a wage increase, and that's just not true. So let's figure out why you think that? Why do you personally think raising wages does not translate to increased consumption, yet cutting taxes does???

o explain to me how raising someone's wage won't result in more spending,
When you force an employer to pay a worker worth $7.25/hr,$10/hr, or more, that newly unemployed worker will spend less.

So again, you start off your argument with a flawed premise that has no base of support. Your claim that jobs are lost when the minimum wage is raised is not supported by any empirical evidence, is it? Your personal feelings are not empirical. Job numbers are. And we saw in 2014 that the states that raised their minimum wage had faster job growth than the states that didn't. You also completely avoided the inherent contradiction within your own argument; that somehow reducing taxes increases consumption, yet increases wages doesn't. That's a self-contradiction that pretty much spikes your entire argument from the get-go. So you are arguing a flawed position from a flawed premise that has no actual evidence to support it other than your personal feelings. Such a snowflake!

This is why everything you believe in is a crock of shit...
Liberals who don't understand economics and can't do math often feel that way when reality is explained to them.

You're the one whose governing economic ideology is based on a Hollywood movie about ghostly ballplayers.

There exists a middle ground that makes economic sense between $15/hr and $100/hr.
The correct minimum wage is $0.

Idiot.

I am not an economist.
No fucking kidding.

I don't pretend to be one either, unlike you who does and then just ignores the inherent contradictions in your own argument. So why do you play pretend? Is your ego that fragile that you must posture on internet message boards to feel better about yourself? What a baby!

When it comes to economics, I respect a total of two people on this board, Toro and Toddsterpatriot . To call Todd a troll is patently absurd.I grew bored with you long ago, he is more patient than I.

I haven't taken you seriously since we debated the drug war on ArgueWithEveryone.

And, Todd is just a troll.

 

[danielpalos]

They'd cost less if slackers were removed from the rolls.

Who are the slackers?

danielpalos.......

sure, "blame the poor guy with a hard argument work ethic".

 

[danielpalos]

Let me know when you pay any tax.

We know that you don't pay any taxes because you don't have a job. And we know that because you project that shit out on everyone else.

danielpalos whines that he should receive unemployment benefits to sit in the basement......

It is called, equal protection of the law and supply side economics, by the poor.

 

[danielpalos]

When it comes to economics, I respect a total of two people on this board, Toro and Toddsterpatriot . To call Todd a troll is patently absurd.I grew bored with you long ago, he is more patient than I.

Wondering why you felt the need to respond to a post of which you weren't a part? Seems like you only did so in order to preserve the fragile ego you have here. That you simply cannot stand someone showing you up and making your argument fall apart on its face. The debate was with regard to the minimum wage. You all claim, with no evidence to support your position, that raising the minimum wage somehow hurts low wage workers. No data to support that. No evidence to back that claim up. Nothing other than the flawed theory on which that claim is based. There does exist plenty of evidence, however, showing that when the minimum wage is raised, job growth speeds up. We know this because we saw it happen just three years ago when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and saw job growth outpace the states that didn't.

So either 2014 is an outlier (and a pretty massive one at that since the sample size was 13 states + DC that amount to 30% of the total US population), or you guys are full of shit.

So which is it?

I responded due to your absurd attack on someone clearly your superior in knowledge..

I've not seen you show anyone up.

2014 is neither an outlier nor an indication to raising the wage of a minuscule percent of the population has a positive impact on employment. Employment improved in 2014 simply because we were finally emerging from the 2007 recession.

If you are claiming that 30% of the population earns minimum wage, you are mistaken.

I am claiming supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, not Any form of Trickle down.

 

[danielpalos]

[
Supply side economics, is about, "overwhelming supply". There is simply, not enough demand.

Solving simple poverty, would ensure capital circulates in our Republic and engender positive multiplier effects.

For some on the left, it seems, "the poor only get around three fifths", "open interest" on "demand" options.

Again stoner boi, you have not a hint of a clue as to how supply side economics works, nor indeed how Keynesian theory works. You have a sum total of zero knowledge on the subject under discussion.

Supply side economics as proposed by the brilliant economist Dr. Arthur Laffer holds quite simply that production is the single most important factor in economics. (Hence why I earned a Ph.D. in Supply Chain Management to augment my credentials rather than pursuing traditional economics.) The key to macroeconomics is equilibrium. This is the point that demand and supply intersect, which by necessity is the most efficient use of resources.

Now you have never had an economics course, nor did you finish high school, but a universal truth is that scarcity drives all economic systems. To put it in a way you can understand, you as a dope dealer have had times where you couldn't get any pot to sell, supplies were short. What did that do to you dope dealing business? Did demand create a new supply of dope? On the other hand, if you get a shipment of 30 pounds in and can only sell a few ounces a week, you have a lot of capital tied up in weed that isn't moving - which you will end up smoking rather than selling.

So the goal in macroeconomics is to match the supply of goods with the demand.

Now when demand increases, two things can happen, either prices increase to contain the scarcity of the goods, or supply increases to meet the demand. Supply side economics recognizes the fact that only an increase in production can result in an increase in supply. Demand will never, and cannot increase the supply of anything, only production can do this. Hence supply side theory is axiomatically true. No amount of Keynesian stimulus to the public will alter supply in any way. Demand does not increase supply, only production increases supply. In a capitalist society, industrialists will generally monitor demand and increase production if possible, but it is not demand that creates supply, demand only creates opportunity for production. Production alone creates supply. Only the pot growers planting more Marijuana increase the amount of dope you can sell. Your stoner buddies cannot change the amount of weed on the market.

China, though a socialist country is a great example of supply side theory in action. During the heyday of Mao, about a third of the population was technically starving, lacking the food needed to maintain normal health. Mao as you know, ran a purely demand driven economy. The state accounted for demand and allocated production to what they viewed as goods needing supply. 90% of China was in abject poverty

After Nixon opened China, American companies began engaging in production in China. This production transformed the dictatorship to the point that starvation has been entirely eradicated and poverty is under 20%. It was production that changed the dynamic, Demand was irrelevant, the goods produced were not even offered to Chinese consumers. Production created jobs, jobs provided income.

Supply side is about the role of production, not about "trickle down."

The left has dishonestly used the term trickle down due to the supply side remedy to the business cycle. Under Keynesian economics, the response of monetary policy during economic down turns is to create fiat currency and large deficits to pump cash into the economy as a means of "priming the pump." Under the General Theory, Keynes advocated for this stimulus to go directly to individuals, the Roosevelt WPA is prime example, people were employed and paid by the government to build roads and bridges, money went directly to citizens.

Now the Porkulus of Obama is quite different, the trillions of dollars he spent went to public employee unions, auto manufacturers, and other well connected looters, so his fiasco cannot be viewed as a Keynesian stimulus.

Supply side holds that the most effective way to end a recession is to stimulate production, since it is not demand that falters, but supply in a recession. (The poor still want a loaf of bread, they simply cannot afford it due rising prices). To stimulate production, the most direct route is to reduce the amount of capital that the government confiscates from business. This is accomplished by lowering taxes.

One of the lies of the left is that lowering taxes has a unique impact on the public treasury; both a stimulus AND tax breaks have an impact. To claim that only lowering taxes has such and impact is highly dishonest.

Anyway, I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.

A god supplies morals; where is the demand for more laws that primarily affect the poor.

As I said.

I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.

Red herrings are all the right wing has.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. Fifteen dollars an hour makes rational choice theory sense.

 

[Markle]

So where was all this debt concern back in 2001 when you all erased a surplus and produced record deficits by cutting taxes? We only have the debt today because you fucking assholes cut taxes in 2001, erasing a surplus and producing record deficits.

The National Debt in 2001 was $5.8 TRILLION and 58% of our GDP. By the end of 2016 fiscal year, the debt will be $20+ TRILLION and be 105+% of our GDP.

As to any surplus, I'm curious, how can that be when our debt has NEVER decreased?

 

[danielpalos]

So where was all this debt concern back in 2001 when you all erased a surplus and produced record deficits by cutting taxes? We only have the debt today because you fucking assholes cut taxes in 2001, erasing a surplus and producing record deficits.

The National Debt in 2001 was $5.8 TRILLION and 58% of our GDP. By the end of 2016 fiscal year, the debt will be $20+ TRILLION and be 105+% of our GDP.

As to any surplus, I'm curious, how can that be when our debt has NEVER decreased?

Yet, the right wing still claims we can lower taxes.

 

[Markle]

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. Fifteen dollars an hour makes rational choice theory sense.

If the national minimum wage was raised to fifteen dollars per hour, specifically what would happen to the worker earning $15.00 per hour today?

What about the worker earning $25.00 per hour today. Since the worker formerly earning $7.50 per hour, is now being given $15.00, a 100% increase, should the worker earning $25.00 per hour not be entitled to 100% increase as well?

And so on and so forth. At the end of the day, we are back in exactly the same position.

I doubt there are any such details available but I'd be curious to know how many employees it required on an assembly line to build a car 50 years ago and how many it takes today.

When I teach for our state association, my fee is limited to $250.00 per hour plus expenses, which makes that my fee exactly. Since hourly wages are doubling, why would I not be entitled to $500.00 per hour and the engagements I book at $1,000. or $2,000 per hour, don't they double as well?

 

[Markle]

Yet, the right wing still claims we can lower taxes.

Which increases revenues, as you well know.

The Laffer Curve