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

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lousy economics, lousy management....that's socialism.

yes, even democracy is a form of socialism not capitalism.

Yes, socialism is lousy....all around.

too bad capital-ism isn't as easy to find as social-ism.

It is too bad, because socialism is so awful.

why is that? not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" to around.

Ignorance of economics, ignorance of human nature.

The ignorance of socialists covers a lot of ground.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Capitalism leverages man's selfishness for the greater good.

capitalism punishes selfishness. You succeed under Republican capitalism only if you are unselfish toward your customers. The selfish competitor will always lose and go bankrupt. Smith and Rand got that part wrong I'm afraid.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about lowering Taxes; only right, never gets it.

You need high taxes to fund your socialist utopia. In fact, you need them so high you kill the economy.

only bad management needs high taxes.

some on the left are learning to merely use Capitalism for all of its worth in modern times.

We merely need more public sector means of production like Hoover Dam and the Fed; there are capital opportunities all around; only the right, prefers socialism to capitalism.

A bull elk is a large animal, a tick is a small animal. The elk does not even notice when a tick fastens on and drinks his blood. When, however, untold thousands of ticks fasten on and drink his blood, he is weakened and becomes a target for a wolf pack. Likewise, a society may be wealthy enough to sustain itself if a small number of individuals who otherwise cannot contribute instead are given what they need to sustain themselves. But, should that number of takers become large enough, society will become weakened and eventually collapse. Far better for society to expect the able bodied to work and take care of only those who cannot take care of themselves and have no one to help.

It is why a minimum wage for a work ethic should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

Not without means testing. Too many takers to too few producers is unsustainable. That's the bottom line.

being unemployed is a qualification for unemployment. by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, there will be more producers.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about lowering Taxes; only right, never gets it.

You need high taxes to fund your socialist utopia. In fact, you need them so high you kill the economy.

only bad management needs high taxes.

some on the left are learning to merely use Capitalism for all of its worth in modern times.

We merely need more public sector means of production like Hoover Dam and the Fed; there are capital opportunities all around; only the right, prefers socialism to capitalism.

IOW, you need capitalism to thrive in order for socialism to survive. We knew that.

Socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

Capitalism only needs capital morals for a price.

And therein lies the rub. Man is inherently immoral and selfish. That's why socialism always fails. Capitalism leverages man's selfishness for the greater good.

Should we not believe the Religious when they claim it Only takes social morals for free, to merit a divine, Commune of Heaven for free?

 

[danielpalos]

lousy management, you mean.

Lousy economics, lousy management....that's socialism.

yes, even democracy is a form of socialism not capitalism.

Yes, socialism is lousy....all around.

too bad capital-ism isn't as easy to find as social-ism.

It is too bad, because socialism is so awful.

it depends on whether or not you can find Persons of social morals for free.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, even democracy is a form of socialism not capitalism.

Yes, socialism is lousy....all around.

too bad capital-ism isn't as easy to find as social-ism.

It is too bad, because socialism is so awful.

why is that? not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" to around.

Ignorance of economics, ignorance of human nature.

The ignorance of socialists covers a lot of ground.

It only takes social morals for free. Only the right keeps trying to "purchase a stairway to Heave".

 

[danielpalos]

. Capitalism leverages man's selfishness for the greater good.

capitalism punishes selfishness. You succeed under Republican capitalism only if you are unselfish toward your customers. The selfish competitor will always lose and go bankrupt. Smith and Rand got that part wrong I'm afraid.

capitalism reward capital morals not social morals.

 

[dblack]

. Capitalism leverages man's selfishness for the greater good.

capitalism punishes selfishness. You succeed under Republican capitalism only if you are unselfish toward your customers. The selfish competitor will always lose and go bankrupt. Smith and Rand got that part wrong I'm afraid.

capitalism reward capital morals not social morals.

Official at-will Poverty will abide equal Protection among the several states.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lousy economics, lousy management....that's socialism.

yes, even democracy is a form of socialism not capitalism.

Yes, socialism is lousy....all around.

too bad capital-ism isn't as easy to find as social-ism.

It is too bad, because socialism is so awful.

it depends on whether or not you can find Persons of social morals for free.

Socialism isn't moral. I guess you're out of luck.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, socialism is lousy....all around.

too bad capital-ism isn't as easy to find as social-ism.

It is too bad, because socialism is so awful.

why is that? not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" to around.

Ignorance of economics, ignorance of human nature.

The ignorance of socialists covers a lot of ground.

It only takes social morals for free. Only the right keeps trying to "purchase a stairway to Heave".

And the left wants one handed to them.

 

[danielpalos]

. Capitalism leverages man's selfishness for the greater good.

capitalism punishes selfishness. You succeed under Republican capitalism only if you are unselfish toward your customers. The selfish competitor will always lose and go bankrupt. Smith and Rand got that part wrong I'm afraid.

capitalism reward capital morals not social morals.

Official at-will Poverty will abide equal Protection among the several states.

the equivalent to an oil pump; for those of you who hate reading dictionaries on a rainy day.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, even democracy is a form of socialism not capitalism.

Yes, socialism is lousy....all around.

too bad capital-ism isn't as easy to find as social-ism.

It is too bad, because socialism is so awful.

it depends on whether or not you can find Persons of social morals for free.

Socialism isn't moral. I guess you're out of luck.

it depends on the practice. some believe social morals for free will merit a divine, Commune of Heaven for those who believe, and practice their beliefs.

 

[danielpalos]

too bad capital-ism isn't as easy to find as social-ism.

It is too bad, because socialism is so awful.

why is that? not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" to around.

Ignorance of economics, ignorance of human nature.

The ignorance of socialists covers a lot of ground.

It only takes social morals for free. Only the right keeps trying to "purchase a stairway to Heave".

And the left wants one handed to them.

moral practice should make moral perfect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is too bad, because socialism is so awful.

why is that? not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" to around.

Ignorance of economics, ignorance of human nature.

The ignorance of socialists covers a lot of ground.

It only takes social morals for free. Only the right keeps trying to "purchase a stairway to Heave".

And the left wants one handed to them.

moral practice should make moral perfect.

And socialism still sucks. Still fails.

 

[danielpalos]

why is that? not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" to around.

Ignorance of economics, ignorance of human nature.

The ignorance of socialists covers a lot of ground.

It only takes social morals for free. Only the right keeps trying to "purchase a stairway to Heave".

And the left wants one handed to them.

moral practice should make moral perfect.

And socialism still sucks. Still fails.

God is all about socialism, not capitalism. Only the (semi-)Religious right, never gets it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ignorance of economics, ignorance of human nature.

The ignorance of socialists covers a lot of ground.

It only takes social morals for free. Only the right keeps trying to "purchase a stairway to Heave".

And the left wants one handed to them.

moral practice should make moral perfect.

And socialism still sucks. Still fails.

God is all about socialism, not capitalism. Only the (semi-)Religious right, never gets it.

God wants higher taxes and UE benefits for people who quit?

Link?

 

[danielpalos]

It only takes social morals for free. Only the right keeps trying to "purchase a stairway to Heave".

And the left wants one handed to them.

moral practice should make moral perfect.

And socialism still sucks. Still fails.

God is all about socialism, not capitalism. Only the (semi-)Religious right, never gets it.

God wants higher taxes and UE benefits for people who quit?

Link?

Bearing false witness to our own laws is a moral turpitude; only the (semi-)Religious right wing, never gets it.

 

[hadit]

You need high taxes to fund your socialist utopia. In fact, you need them so high you kill the economy.

only bad management needs high taxes.

some on the left are learning to merely use Capitalism for all of its worth in modern times.

We merely need more public sector means of production like Hoover Dam and the Fed; there are capital opportunities all around; only the right, prefers socialism to capitalism.

A bull elk is a large animal, a tick is a small animal. The elk does not even notice when a tick fastens on and drinks his blood. When, however, untold thousands of ticks fasten on and drink his blood, he is weakened and becomes a target for a wolf pack. Likewise, a society may be wealthy enough to sustain itself if a small number of individuals who otherwise cannot contribute instead are given what they need to sustain themselves. But, should that number of takers become large enough, society will become weakened and eventually collapse. Far better for society to expect the able bodied to work and take care of only those who cannot take care of themselves and have no one to help.

It is why a minimum wage for a work ethic should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

Not without means testing. Too many takers to too few producers is unsustainable. That's the bottom line.

being unemployed is a qualification for unemployment. by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, there will be more producers.

That's a nice sounding platitude. It is, however, directly contradicted by history. Inevitably, the number of takers grows while the number of producers shrinks.

 

[hadit]

You need high taxes to fund your socialist utopia. In fact, you need them so high you kill the economy.

only bad management needs high taxes.

some on the left are learning to merely use Capitalism for all of its worth in modern times.

We merely need more public sector means of production like Hoover Dam and the Fed; there are capital opportunities all around; only the right, prefers socialism to capitalism.

IOW, you need capitalism to thrive in order for socialism to survive. We knew that.

Socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

Capitalism only needs capital morals for a price.

And therein lies the rub. Man is inherently immoral and selfish. That's why socialism always fails. Capitalism leverages man's selfishness for the greater good.

Should we not believe the Religious when they claim it Only takes social morals for free, to merit a divine, Commune of Heaven for free?

Irrelevant. Put down the bong and return to the topic, please.

 

[danielpalos]

only bad management needs high taxes.

some on the left are learning to merely use Capitalism for all of its worth in modern times.

We merely need more public sector means of production like Hoover Dam and the Fed; there are capital opportunities all around; only the right, prefers socialism to capitalism.

A bull elk is a large animal, a tick is a small animal. The elk does not even notice when a tick fastens on and drinks his blood. When, however, untold thousands of ticks fasten on and drink his blood, he is weakened and becomes a target for a wolf pack. Likewise, a society may be wealthy enough to sustain itself if a small number of individuals who otherwise cannot contribute instead are given what they need to sustain themselves. But, should that number of takers become large enough, society will become weakened and eventually collapse. Far better for society to expect the able bodied to work and take care of only those who cannot take care of themselves and have no one to help.

It is why a minimum wage for a work ethic should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

Not without means testing. Too many takers to too few producers is unsustainable. That's the bottom line.

being unemployed is a qualification for unemployment. by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, there will be more producers.

That's a nice sounding platitude. It is, however, directly contradicted by history. Inevitably, the number of takers grows while the number of producers shrinks.

that used to be true in the past; take pre-WWII Germany, for example. Those conditions no longer exist and that point of view is obsolete in modern times.