What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[danielpalos]

a minimum wage can be fixed as a Standard.

Which makes it arbitrary. We knew that.

fiat money is arbitrary; our Congress can fix the value of it by enacting a Standard. you have no valid point in our First World economy.

They can fix the value of the currency, but they cannot fix the actual costs involved in producing goods and services. Face it, socialism has been tried several times and always fails when enough people realize they don't have to be productive to get paid. Then it all collapses, every time. You can't fight human nature.

yes, they can; it is called, taxation and regulation. this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Socialism worked in Venezuela.....but only for people who don't need food or toilet paper.

just lousy management; socialism works fine in the US.

 

[danielpalos]

a minimum wage can be fixed as a Standard.

Which makes it arbitrary. We knew that.

fiat money is arbitrary; our Congress can fix the value of it by enacting a Standard. you have no valid point in our First World economy.

They can fix the value of the currency, but they cannot fix the actual costs involved in producing goods and services. Face it, socialism has been tried several times and always fails when enough people realize they don't have to be productive to get paid. Then it all collapses, every time. You can't fight human nature.

yes, they can; it is called, taxation and regulation. this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Taxation and regulation just end up killing the economy and ultimately the nation. You know this to be true, we all do. I have no idea why you continue spouting this line when we've seen untold millions of people die because their leaders are determined to force them to stay in socialist hellholes. When given a choice, people always go for freedom.

price controls. it is a power delegated to Government; why no complaints about our expensive, War on Drugs?

 

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law is a natural right.

That's one vote for Donald Trump getting welfare benefits.

Only in right wing fantasy.

So answer the question, yes or no.

you are the one begging the question. only the right seems to care about that gossip.

You don't want to answer, because your ideology insists on no means testing, but you don't want to be caught advocating that Trump should receive welfare benefits. You can dance all you want, but it won't help at all.

yes, it is about employment at will and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Anyone could apply if they need money and are unemployed.

 

[hadit]

Which makes it arbitrary. We knew that.

fiat money is arbitrary; our Congress can fix the value of it by enacting a Standard. you have no valid point in our First World economy.

They can fix the value of the currency, but they cannot fix the actual costs involved in producing goods and services. Face it, socialism has been tried several times and always fails when enough people realize they don't have to be productive to get paid. Then it all collapses, every time. You can't fight human nature.

yes, they can; it is called, taxation and regulation. this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Taxation and regulation just end up killing the economy and ultimately the nation. You know this to be true, we all do. I have no idea why you continue spouting this line when we've seen untold millions of people die because their leaders are determined to force them to stay in socialist hellholes. When given a choice, people always go for freedom.

price controls. it is a power delegated to Government; why no complaints about our expensive, War on Drugs?

Nixon tried price controls. They didn't work. When price cannot adjust to meet market reality, shortages ensue. We're not talking about any war on drugs, we're talking about the horrors of socialism.

 

[hadit]

That's one vote for Donald Trump getting welfare benefits.

Only in right wing fantasy.

So answer the question, yes or no.

you are the one begging the question. only the right seems to care about that gossip.

You don't want to answer, because your ideology insists on no means testing, but you don't want to be caught advocating that Trump should receive welfare benefits. You can dance all you want, but it won't help at all.

yes, it is about employment at will and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Anyone could apply if they need money and are unemployed.

That's called welfare. They didn't earn it. You can't admit that you think Donald Trump, billionaire that he is, should receive welfare benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

fiat money is arbitrary; our Congress can fix the value of it by enacting a Standard. you have no valid point in our First World economy.

They can fix the value of the currency, but they cannot fix the actual costs involved in producing goods and services. Face it, socialism has been tried several times and always fails when enough people realize they don't have to be productive to get paid. Then it all collapses, every time. You can't fight human nature.

yes, they can; it is called, taxation and regulation. this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Taxation and regulation just end up killing the economy and ultimately the nation. You know this to be true, we all do. I have no idea why you continue spouting this line when we've seen untold millions of people die because their leaders are determined to force them to stay in socialist hellholes. When given a choice, people always go for freedom.

price controls. it is a power delegated to Government; why no complaints about our expensive, War on Drugs?

Nixon tried price controls. They didn't work. When price cannot adjust to meet market reality, shortages ensue. We're not talking about any war on drugs, we're talking about the horrors of socialism.

a minimum wage is a price control. so is the cost of money. socialism can be wonderful, if Only we could be moral enough for free, to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth. But, that takes a moral of Goodness and not a moral of Badness.

 

[hadit]

They can fix the value of the currency, but they cannot fix the actual costs involved in producing goods and services. Face it, socialism has been tried several times and always fails when enough people realize they don't have to be productive to get paid. Then it all collapses, every time. You can't fight human nature.

yes, they can; it is called, taxation and regulation. this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Taxation and regulation just end up killing the economy and ultimately the nation. You know this to be true, we all do. I have no idea why you continue spouting this line when we've seen untold millions of people die because their leaders are determined to force them to stay in socialist hellholes. When given a choice, people always go for freedom.

price controls. it is a power delegated to Government; why no complaints about our expensive, War on Drugs?

Nixon tried price controls. They didn't work. When price cannot adjust to meet market reality, shortages ensue. We're not talking about any war on drugs, we're talking about the horrors of socialism.

a minimum wage is a price control. so is the cost of money.

Irrelevant. We saw what happened with price controls on gasoline in the 1970's. Because the price was kept artificially low, people had no incentive to conserve and the result was long lines at gas stations, rationing, and locks on cars' fill caps to prevent siphoning. If the price was allowed to fluctuate to meet reality, gas would have been more expensive, but more available. That's reality.

 

[danielpalos]

Only in right wing fantasy.

So answer the question, yes or no.

you are the one begging the question. only the right seems to care about that gossip.

You don't want to answer, because your ideology insists on no means testing, but you don't want to be caught advocating that Trump should receive welfare benefits. You can dance all you want, but it won't help at all.

yes, it is about employment at will and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Anyone could apply if they need money and are unemployed.

That's called welfare. They didn't earn it. You can't admit that you think Donald Trump, billionaire that he is, should receive welfare benefits.

You are simply ignorant and resort to diversion. Employment at will is a legal relationship, recognized in at-will employment States. That is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

It depends on the price. Unemployment compensation could pay the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. Anyone who is unemployed and needs capital to function in our economy, could simply apply for it. The alternative would be to find a job at a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour. It really is that simple for socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, they can; it is called, taxation and regulation. this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Taxation and regulation just end up killing the economy and ultimately the nation. You know this to be true, we all do. I have no idea why you continue spouting this line when we've seen untold millions of people die because their leaders are determined to force them to stay in socialist hellholes. When given a choice, people always go for freedom.

price controls. it is a power delegated to Government; why no complaints about our expensive, War on Drugs?

Nixon tried price controls. They didn't work. When price cannot adjust to meet market reality, shortages ensue. We're not talking about any war on drugs, we're talking about the horrors of socialism.

a minimum wage is a price control. so is the cost of money.

Irrelevant. We saw what happened with price controls on gasoline in the 1970's. Because the price was kept artificially low, people had no incentive to conserve and the result was long lines at gas stations, rationing, and locks on cars' fill caps to prevent siphoning. If the price was allowed to fluctuate to meet reality, gas would have been more expensive, but more available. That's reality.

the outright communism of price controls and rationing, helped us win WWII; it was, command economics, all the way.

 

[hadit]

Taxation and regulation just end up killing the economy and ultimately the nation. You know this to be true, we all do. I have no idea why you continue spouting this line when we've seen untold millions of people die because their leaders are determined to force them to stay in socialist hellholes. When given a choice, people always go for freedom.

price controls. it is a power delegated to Government; why no complaints about our expensive, War on Drugs?

Nixon tried price controls. They didn't work. When price cannot adjust to meet market reality, shortages ensue. We're not talking about any war on drugs, we're talking about the horrors of socialism.

a minimum wage is a price control. so is the cost of money.

Irrelevant. We saw what happened with price controls on gasoline in the 1970's. Because the price was kept artificially low, people had no incentive to conserve and the result was long lines at gas stations, rationing, and locks on cars' fill caps to prevent siphoning. If the price was allowed to fluctuate to meet reality, gas would have been more expensive, but more available. That's reality.

the outright communism of price controls and rationing, helped us win WWII; it was, command economics, all the way.

Extraordinary circumstances, such as when the nation's entire production needs to be focused on a war, cannot really be successfully compared to what works best in peace time. You really can't argue with the track record. The US and freedom became the world's economic powerhouse. All the socialist nations fell apart or went nowhere (and killed untold millions of their own people either forcing them to stay or starving them to death). Given a choice between the misery of socialism and freedom, people risk their lives to gain freedom.

 

[hadit]

So answer the question, yes or no.

you are the one begging the question. only the right seems to care about that gossip.

You don't want to answer, because your ideology insists on no means testing, but you don't want to be caught advocating that Trump should receive welfare benefits. You can dance all you want, but it won't help at all.

yes, it is about employment at will and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Anyone could apply if they need money and are unemployed.

That's called welfare. They didn't earn it. You can't admit that you think Donald Trump, billionaire that he is, should receive welfare benefits.

You are simply ignorant and resort to diversion. Employment at will is a legal relationship, recognized in at-will employment States. That is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

It depends on the price. Unemployment compensation could pay the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. Anyone who is unemployed and needs capital to function in our economy, could simply apply for it. The alternative would be to find a job at a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour. It really is that simple for socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Then be honest and admit you want a guaranteed income, provided by welfare. Stop trying to call it something else.

 

[danielpalos]

price controls. it is a power delegated to Government; why no complaints about our expensive, War on Drugs?

Nixon tried price controls. They didn't work. When price cannot adjust to meet market reality, shortages ensue. We're not talking about any war on drugs, we're talking about the horrors of socialism.

a minimum wage is a price control. so is the cost of money.

Irrelevant. We saw what happened with price controls on gasoline in the 1970's. Because the price was kept artificially low, people had no incentive to conserve and the result was long lines at gas stations, rationing, and locks on cars' fill caps to prevent siphoning. If the price was allowed to fluctuate to meet reality, gas would have been more expensive, but more available. That's reality.

the outright communism of price controls and rationing, helped us win WWII; it was, command economics, all the way.

Extraordinary circumstances, such as when the nation's entire production needs to be focused on a war, cannot really be successfully compared to what works best in peace time. You really can't argue with the track record. The US and freedom became the world's economic powerhouse. All the socialist nations fell apart or went nowhere (and killed untold millions of their own people either forcing them to stay or starving them to death). Given a choice between the misery of socialism and freedom, people risk their lives to gain freedom.

This is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

If we don't have a warfare-State economic paradigm, why do we have our alleged Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror?

We don't have a Welfare-State, we have a Warfare-State. Yet, the right wing Only complains about social spending for the poor.

 

[danielpalos]

you are the one begging the question. only the right seems to care about that gossip.

You don't want to answer, because your ideology insists on no means testing, but you don't want to be caught advocating that Trump should receive welfare benefits. You can dance all you want, but it won't help at all.

yes, it is about employment at will and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Anyone could apply if they need money and are unemployed.

That's called welfare. They didn't earn it. You can't admit that you think Donald Trump, billionaire that he is, should receive welfare benefits.

You are simply ignorant and resort to diversion. Employment at will is a legal relationship, recognized in at-will employment States. That is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

It depends on the price. Unemployment compensation could pay the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. Anyone who is unemployed and needs capital to function in our economy, could simply apply for it. The alternative would be to find a job at a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour. It really is that simple for socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Then be honest and admit you want a guaranteed income, provided by welfare. Stop trying to call it something else.

Ok. It is providing for the general welfare; through equal protection of the law.

 

[hadit]

Nixon tried price controls. They didn't work. When price cannot adjust to meet market reality, shortages ensue. We're not talking about any war on drugs, we're talking about the horrors of socialism.

a minimum wage is a price control. so is the cost of money.

Irrelevant. We saw what happened with price controls on gasoline in the 1970's. Because the price was kept artificially low, people had no incentive to conserve and the result was long lines at gas stations, rationing, and locks on cars' fill caps to prevent siphoning. If the price was allowed to fluctuate to meet reality, gas would have been more expensive, but more available. That's reality.

the outright communism of price controls and rationing, helped us win WWII; it was, command economics, all the way.

Extraordinary circumstances, such as when the nation's entire production needs to be focused on a war, cannot really be successfully compared to what works best in peace time. You really can't argue with the track record. The US and freedom became the world's economic powerhouse. All the socialist nations fell apart or went nowhere (and killed untold millions of their own people either forcing them to stay or starving them to death). Given a choice between the misery of socialism and freedom, people risk their lives to gain freedom.

This is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

If we don't have a warfare-State economic paradigm, why do we have our alleged Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror?

We don't have a Welfare-State, we have a Warfare-State. Yet, the right wing Only complains about social spending for the poor.

You're wandering off the reservation now, and making even less sense than before. Why is it that when I pin you down on an issue, you wander off onto another subject? Run out of platitudes and talking points?

 

[hadit]

You don't want to answer, because your ideology insists on no means testing, but you don't want to be caught advocating that Trump should receive welfare benefits. You can dance all you want, but it won't help at all.

yes, it is about employment at will and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Anyone could apply if they need money and are unemployed.

That's called welfare. They didn't earn it. You can't admit that you think Donald Trump, billionaire that he is, should receive welfare benefits.

You are simply ignorant and resort to diversion. Employment at will is a legal relationship, recognized in at-will employment States. That is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

It depends on the price. Unemployment compensation could pay the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. Anyone who is unemployed and needs capital to function in our economy, could simply apply for it. The alternative would be to find a job at a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour. It really is that simple for socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Then be honest and admit you want a guaranteed income, provided by welfare. Stop trying to call it something else.

Ok. It is providing for the general welfare; through equal protection of the law.

Completely unsustainable. It's been tried and millions died.

 

[danielpalos]

a minimum wage is a price control. so is the cost of money.

Irrelevant. We saw what happened with price controls on gasoline in the 1970's. Because the price was kept artificially low, people had no incentive to conserve and the result was long lines at gas stations, rationing, and locks on cars' fill caps to prevent siphoning. If the price was allowed to fluctuate to meet reality, gas would have been more expensive, but more available. That's reality.

the outright communism of price controls and rationing, helped us win WWII; it was, command economics, all the way.

Extraordinary circumstances, such as when the nation's entire production needs to be focused on a war, cannot really be successfully compared to what works best in peace time. You really can't argue with the track record. The US and freedom became the world's economic powerhouse. All the socialist nations fell apart or went nowhere (and killed untold millions of their own people either forcing them to stay or starving them to death). Given a choice between the misery of socialism and freedom, people risk their lives to gain freedom.

This is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

If we don't have a warfare-State economic paradigm, why do we have our alleged Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror?

We don't have a Welfare-State, we have a Warfare-State. Yet, the right wing Only complains about social spending for the poor.

You're wandering off the reservation now, and making even less sense than before. Why is it that when I pin you down on an issue, you wander off onto another subject? Run out of platitudes and talking points?

It takes wartime tax rates to have a necessary and proper warfare-State. Only the fantastical right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it is about employment at will and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Anyone could apply if they need money and are unemployed.

That's called welfare. They didn't earn it. You can't admit that you think Donald Trump, billionaire that he is, should receive welfare benefits.

You are simply ignorant and resort to diversion. Employment at will is a legal relationship, recognized in at-will employment States. That is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

It depends on the price. Unemployment compensation could pay the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. Anyone who is unemployed and needs capital to function in our economy, could simply apply for it. The alternative would be to find a job at a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour. It really is that simple for socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Then be honest and admit you want a guaranteed income, provided by welfare. Stop trying to call it something else.

Ok. It is providing for the general welfare; through equal protection of the law.

Completely unsustainable. It's been tried and millions died.

only in right wing fantasy. we resort to Yankee forms of ingenuity. we have the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World (and some on the left are proud of it); not Only can the rich keep their mulitmillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare, but even the least wealthy can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.

 

[hadit]

Irrelevant. We saw what happened with price controls on gasoline in the 1970's. Because the price was kept artificially low, people had no incentive to conserve and the result was long lines at gas stations, rationing, and locks on cars' fill caps to prevent siphoning. If the price was allowed to fluctuate to meet reality, gas would have been more expensive, but more available. That's reality.

the outright communism of price controls and rationing, helped us win WWII; it was, command economics, all the way.

Extraordinary circumstances, such as when the nation's entire production needs to be focused on a war, cannot really be successfully compared to what works best in peace time. You really can't argue with the track record. The US and freedom became the world's economic powerhouse. All the socialist nations fell apart or went nowhere (and killed untold millions of their own people either forcing them to stay or starving them to death). Given a choice between the misery of socialism and freedom, people risk their lives to gain freedom.

This is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

If we don't have a warfare-State economic paradigm, why do we have our alleged Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror?

We don't have a Welfare-State, we have a Warfare-State. Yet, the right wing Only complains about social spending for the poor.

You're wandering off the reservation now, and making even less sense than before. Why is it that when I pin you down on an issue, you wander off onto another subject? Run out of platitudes and talking points?

It takes wartime tax rates to have a necessary and proper warfare-State. Only the fantastical right wing, never gets it.

So, since you advocate such high tax rates, you are advocating constant warfare to justify them?

 

[hadit]

That's called welfare. They didn't earn it. You can't admit that you think Donald Trump, billionaire that he is, should receive welfare benefits.

You are simply ignorant and resort to diversion. Employment at will is a legal relationship, recognized in at-will employment States. That is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

It depends on the price. Unemployment compensation could pay the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. Anyone who is unemployed and needs capital to function in our economy, could simply apply for it. The alternative would be to find a job at a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour. It really is that simple for socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Then be honest and admit you want a guaranteed income, provided by welfare. Stop trying to call it something else.

Ok. It is providing for the general welfare; through equal protection of the law.

Completely unsustainable. It's been tried and millions died.

only in right wing fantasy. we resort to Yankee forms of ingenuity. we have the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World (and some on the left are proud of it); not Only can the rich keep their mulitmillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare, but even the least wealthy can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.

That can only be done when a nation is tremendously wealthy, and the greater the degree of socialism, the greater the drain on the economy, and the less wealth a nation can generate. Socialism, as always, fails.

 

[danielpalos]

the outright communism of price controls and rationing, helped us win WWII; it was, command economics, all the way.

Extraordinary circumstances, such as when the nation's entire production needs to be focused on a war, cannot really be successfully compared to what works best in peace time. You really can't argue with the track record. The US and freedom became the world's economic powerhouse. All the socialist nations fell apart or went nowhere (and killed untold millions of their own people either forcing them to stay or starving them to death). Given a choice between the misery of socialism and freedom, people risk their lives to gain freedom.

This is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

If we don't have a warfare-State economic paradigm, why do we have our alleged Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror?

We don't have a Welfare-State, we have a Warfare-State. Yet, the right wing Only complains about social spending for the poor.

You're wandering off the reservation now, and making even less sense than before. Why is it that when I pin you down on an issue, you wander off onto another subject? Run out of platitudes and talking points?

It takes wartime tax rates to have a necessary and proper warfare-State. Only the fantastical right wing, never gets it.

So, since you advocate such high tax rates, you are advocating constant warfare to justify them?

i am advocating ending our drug war; you only talk about it.