As a group who think themselves so intelligent, why can't progressives understand the economy? (unemployment, salary)

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

So, you rely upon that WSJ opinion piece as evidence that conservatives are smarter than liberals?

You are making a fool out of yourself using that work, that the author himself retracted as factually incorrect.

You've used links from the NY Times many times.....a publication run by avowed socialists.

I choose liberty, regardless of the possibility of failure. There is also the possibility of great success.

Under socialism, there is only failure.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

Here's a little economic/political insight for ya, son...

Eight years of GOP administration coupled with 6 years of GOP control of congress gave us the Great Recession.

But it also gave us Barack Obama.

Comprende?

I got your "son" right here.

But I digress.

The fact that you do not pay for a service based on the sellers need, but by the value of that service is proof that I'm right.

No, the capitalist system is right. And it works.

Both republicans and democrats have spent with reckless abandon without regard for a way to pay for it.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Capitalism = freedom

Socialism = tyranny

Unbelievably simplistic.

Not even Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, believed that government should not have any power to regulate the private economy.

Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But these exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments…[T]he obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed. (Wealth of Nations)

"Freedom" comes from the word "free." So, what are we free from under pure capitalism? We a free of getting health insurance if we have pre-existing conditions; we are free of any protections in our workplace; we are free of any environmental and safety protections. Basically, you are in a state of nature and must fend for yourself. It's idiotic to think that such a system could succeed in a modern world. We are all inter-related and what someone does, especially an industry, has drastic and severe negative effects to others.

Paul Krugman outlines the basic differences between the ultra-conservatives, like alphamale, and liberals:

What are the differences I’m talking about?

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Unbelievably simplistic.

Not even Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, believed that government should not have any power to regulate the private economy.




"Freedom" comes from the word "free." So, what are we free from under pure capitalism? We a free of getting health insurance if we have pre-existing conditions; we are free of any protections in our workplace; we are free of any environmental and safety protections. Basically, you are in a state of nature and must fend for yourself.

Paul Krugman outlines the basic differences between the ultra-conservatives, like alphamale, and liberals:

Paul Krugman?! Really!?

Do you even know what insurance is? Drive your wrecked car up to an auto insurance company and tell them that you want them to insure it and pay for the repairs.

That is a "pre-existing" condition.

Your poor health is not an insurance company's responsibility.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by alphamale

You've used links from the NY Times many times.....a publication run by avowed socialists.

I choose liberty, regardless of the possibility of failure. There is also the possibility of great success.

Under socialism, there is only failure.

First, the New York Times is not run by a socialist. That's just a dumb comment.
Second, calling a publication, especially one as respected as the New York Times, socialist, in an attempt to marginalize, is pathetic.

More importantly, in the example above, the author of the piece that he wrote in the WSJ he himself retracted and said that the piece he wrote was wrong. How can you defend the original piece when the author himself renounced it?

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

First, the New York Times is not run by a socialist. That's just a dumb comment.
Second, calling a publication, especially one as respected as the New York Times, socialist, in an attempt to marginalize, is pathetic.

More importantly, in the example above, the author of the piece that he wrote in the WSJ he himself retracted and said that the piece he wrote was wrong. How can you defend the original piece when the author himself renounced it?

You are so ingrained in your ideology that you can't see the truth even when the very people who run the times admit that they are socialists.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by alphamale

You are so ingrained in your ideology that you can't see the truth even when the very people who run the times admit that they are socialists.

You are attempting to change the subject to the Times when the real subject is that momonkey was using as evidence for her position an op-ed in the WSJ that the author of that op-ed later retracted because it was false. That's the issue.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by alphamale

The market will always be smarter than the government. Government IS people.

Guess what Einstein... so is the market.

[Mircea]

So.....who should be congratulated for proving the OP's assertions?

Originally Posted by gmagoo

If a person wants to eat they`ll need more than $5 an hour. No matter how crummy the job is,the person showing up every day to do that job should be allowed to buy food and shelter.

What people should or should not be allowed to do is irrelevant, and proves you don't understand Economics.

The majority of people on Planet Earth earn less than $5/hour, yet they have food and shelter.

Oooops.....

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

An oversimplified view. Should we go back to monopoly days of Rockefeller?

An oversimplified view. Should we dodge the OP's position by employing Strawman Fallacies and knee-jerk nonsense?

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Should we allow people to.die without healthcare? Without food? Without housing?

They're going to die anyway, right? I mean we all go down here.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Americans say no, so how do we pay for these things?

People who understand Economics know that you cannot pay for those things.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

They didn't, they died early, that's the point

When did penicillin become available to the general public in America?

1946.

Originally Posted by RogersParkGuy

That's rubbish. It is a purely ideological statement. The idea that there is something called "the market" that operates independently of political considerations is naive.

No, the naive person is also the arrogant one who thinks they can control the Market.

In spite of what you falsely believe, Economics operates independent and outside the realm of political considerations. Economics doesn't give a damn who your god is; what your political views are; what color you are; where you are from; what you social status is or anything else.

It just does what it does, according to certain specific laws which cannot ever be violated without suffering negative consequences.

Originally Posted by Mooseketeer

So to disagree with your views on the economy means to be either ignorant or too dim to understand ?!?!

I don't know that I can speak to that point specifically. What is 1 + 1 equal?

Originally Posted by Mooseketeer

Newsflash but having a different way of looking at things does not necessarily being wrong or ignorant.

Well, it could. Sometimes there is only one correct way of doing things, and there is no other way and no compromise either.

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

How about we start from the fact that Republicans don't even seem to grasp supply & demand.

Why is it that corporate profits & income for the top 20% have jumped over the last decade, yet wages for the bottom 80% have stagnated & the economy struggles?

Oh, that's rich. Another who proves the OP correct.

Wages are based on the Supply & Demand of a select skill-set in a specific market.

The reason your wages started to stagnate/decline in 1990s was the full saturation of the work force by women. When you increase the Supply, and Demand remains constant, then wages fall.

Wages continued to stagnate/decline during the 2000's because of the shift from a US economy to a global economy. Like it or not, this shift is permanent and you cannot undo it or stop it or slow it or mitigate it or anything else, unless you want to start launching nukes.

So, do you? Want to start launching nukes?

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Because 70% of the people in the country in which you are a citizen fundamentally disagree with what you are saying.

Yeah? So what?

The fact that 70% of Americans sticks their heads up their rectums does not obligate me to do the same.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

70% of people, in a center right country, like social security, they like medicare. They don't want to see people die without healthcare, they don't want to see people starve to death, and they don't want people to go without a roof over their head.

And that would all be fascinating if there was even a snowball's chance in hell that you could ever hope to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

People don't want medicare or social security cut or changed in a significant way.

Yet you are unable to deal with the reality that you cannot pay for those programs, and you refuse to entertain any alternatives, and you naively believe that you can pay for those programs and suffer no negative consequences.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

So you are left with three choices. A) Change peoples minds, which no one has been able to do for the last 70 years, and I doubt you have a different argument now. B) Continue to ***** and whine about something you can't change and watch the country go down the tubes by not paying for these things, or C) Find another country.

The choice is yours.

Although I am the forum's only ultra-conservative, I have never once said do away with Social Security. What have I said is that you do not have the money to pay for it. If you attempt to pay for it, you will suffer negative financial consequences such as extremely slow GDP growth, faster declining wages, lower standard of living and a negative impact on your life-style.

If you choose not to pay for them, you'll still suffer negative consequences, just not as much.

As far as Medicare, you can save that, and you can do it without causing any real serious consequences to your economy, but you will have to make major reforms, including the use of "death panels."

That's the reality, like it or not.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Capitalism didn't extend life expectancy, war did.

Penicillin introduced to the general public in 1946 extended life-expectancy, as did the introduction of antibiotics in the 1950s, like Streptomycin.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Capitalism drove down life expectancy, during the depression, capitailism run amuck, lowered life expectancy.

So, you're saying Capitalism caused the Dust Bowl from 1930-1939?

Capitalism caused 2.5 Million Americans to be displaced from their homes forever because of the Dust Bowl?

Capitalism caused Dust Bowl Pneumonia?

Okay, so maybe Capitalism did cause Woody Guthrie to write a song called the Dust Pneumonia Blues.

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Actually no. Life expectancy was extended primarily by government investment in clean water and government funded research into communicable diseases and vaccines, followed by eradication programs by the CDC, the World Health Organization and UNICEF.

Nope, wrong answer. Life-expectancy has been extended by advances in medical technology, including cutting edge pharmaceuticals. That would have happened whether the CDC or the WHO existed or not.

Originally Posted by ThinkBeforeYouVote

So you want Gas to go up in price? Because the price is kept artifically low by government subsidies...

Like what? Like the ethanol subsidy? That expired in January.

Originally Posted by ThinkBeforeYouVote

As are food prices...don't you have any clue about the US Economy? The majority of things you use on a daily basis are subsidized by the US Government.

Which makes them expensive.

And what about patents and unfair business practices? Do you think companies should be allowed to become monopolies?

Originally Posted by ThinkBeforeYouVote

Considering that you people generally have never studied economics, you don't really have any clue how an economic system functions.

Neither do you.

I have an idea, why don't you make a "baseless statement" (your words) like this.....

Originally Posted by ThinkBeforeYouVote

The failing nations in Europe are the ones with the lowest taxes like Greece and Spain.

...and then I can make you look like a fool and prove you know nothing about economics with this....

Personal Income Tax Rates | Global Finance

Out of 100 countries, both Spain and Greece rank in the top 25 highest tax rates.

Spain, like Germany taxes at 45% but lowered their taxes to 43%. Spain has now increased that back to 45%.

40% Chile
40% France
40% Greece
40% Norway
40% Switzerland
40% United Kingdom
41% Slovenia
42% Portugal
42% Italy
43% Spain
45% Croatia
45% Germany
46% Ireland
50% Austria
50% Belgium
52% Netherlands
56.74% Sweden
62.2% Denmark

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Again, you can either get on board and pay for it, complain and watch the ship sink, or move.

Pay for it and you will sink.

Originally Posted by burdell

The fact the NY JETS command the highest ticket prices in the NFL with a less than mediocre team says your theory of the skill/value relationship is hogwash.

Uh, sorry, but ticket prices for the New York Jets is based on the Supply & Demand of tickets for the New York Jets, not the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

Conservatives don't understand the economy. They actually think cutting massive amounts of spending and pushing the FED to constrict monetary policy will grow the economy.

Well, let's see......Volker raised the rate to 13% and then shrunk the money supply and the economy grew.

Oooops.

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

Quick question conservatives, how does depressing consumer spending and demand for goods and services equate to job growth?

You'll find out when the stupid FICA tax rebate Obama wanted ends.....and then you'll find out again when you're paying 12% in FICA payroll taxes.

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

If you cut one trillion from the budget to balance the budget we would go into a depression, not a recession.

I can trim $1 TRILLION without harming your economy.

It's quality, not quantity; it depends on what $1 TRILLION you cut.

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

Where does that money go that was spent on solar investments?

Ask Spain.

They got sucked into the "green job" think before realizing that for every 1 green job created, you lose 2.0 to 2.5 other jobs.

Now Spain is having problems.

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

You never answered my question. How's Somalia's free market conservative paradise working out?

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

Their government acts how you talk. If you want the government out of the economy, take a look at Somalia. It's not pretty.

How's your lobotomy working out?

Apparently quite well.

Somalia is a Straw Man --- and it proves you don't understand Economics.

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

Here, this also took about 3 seconds to google.

CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

And here this is.....took me 3 seconds to google....

Real average weekly earnings fell 0.2 percent over the month due to the decrease in real average hourly earnings combined with an unchanged average workweek. Since reaching a peak in October 2010, real average weekly earnings has fallen 1.8 percent.

Real Earnings

[emphasis mine]

How's your real wages working out?

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

We had a civil war too.

The Somalian economy is unrefined capitalism. Just like you want.

Fail.

Somalia is a tribal society that is heavily subsistence agriculture with small local industries.

Somalia employs both Socialist and Communist Property Theories. The Agent of Socialism is the tribal government or the family clans subordinate to the tribal leaders. Somalia has a mix of both Free Market Economic System and Traditional Economic System (where the distribution of certain goods is based on tribal tradition).

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

They aren't right now. How come the magic of a minimal government hasn't turned Somalia into an economic powerhouse?

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

LOL... I'm running rings around you.

Uh, that is obtuse.

You murdered President Schemarke in cold-blood because he wouldn't fork over Somalia's oil to Chevron, Texaco, Conoco and Standard Oil (I think of New Jersey and not Ohio). Then you installed Mohammed Barre as dictator, and he fleeced you, then after he fled Mohammed Adid took over and now he's gone.

Somalia is a failed state.

Somalia After State Collapse: Chaos or Improvement?

Benjamin Powell is an Assistant Professor of Economics at San Jose State University and the Director of the Center on Entrepreneurial Innovation at the Independent Institute.

Ryan Ford is a graduate student of economics at San Jose State University.

Alex Nowrasteh is an economics major at George Mason University.

Many people believe that Somalia’s economy has been in chaos since the collapse of its
national government in 1991. We take a comparative institutional approach to examine
Somalia’s performance relative to other African countries both when Somalia had a
government and during its extended period of anarchy. We find that although Somalia is
poor, its relative economic performance has improved during its period of statelessness.
We also describe how Somalia has provided basic law and order and a currency, which
have enabled the country to achieve the coordination that has led to improvements in its
standard of living.

[emphasis mine]

http://www.observatori.org/paises/pa...64_somalia.pdf

So in your face.

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

You shouldn't be talking.

Neither should you.

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

If you actually understood how a market economy works you would understand that if labor was not worth minimum wage employers would not pay minimum wage. They would just forego the labor.

But employers do forego the labor. Employers also are unable to provide things like paid holidays, vacations and other benefits.

You fail Economics because you are unable to differentiate between Wage Cost and Labor Cost.

They are not the same thing. The Wage Cost is what the employer pays to the employee, but the Labor Cost is the sum of the Wage Cost, plus all other employment benefits and regulatory requirements levied upon the employer.

Wage Cost + [FICA + HI + SUTA + FUTA + WRKCMP + Holiday + Vacation + Health Plan + Regulatory Costs] = Labor Cost

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

Because in a society where we have come to the conclusion people shouldn't starve the simple fact is somebody has to pay for food. Allowing less then minimum wage compensation would shift the burden of supporting laborers to the state and charities and off those arguably receiving the most benefit from the laboror. Of course this is all moot because compinsation is paid by the value of the labor. If the labor wasn't worth minimum wage the employer would forego it. Again your failure to understand market economics is astounding.

Really? You danced around totally avoiding Market Economics. Your analysis is flawed, because you assume that State action is mandatory or necessary....it is not. Supposed the government stopped paying Food Stamp benefits, what would happen?

Uh....guess what....the Invisible hand comes down and the Market does its thing.

Right?

Right.

Without Food Stamps, people would make the necessary adjustments in accordance with Market Economics. That means they would cancel their cell-phones and get a land-line, so they would have more money to buy food. They would cancel their internet connection; their World of Warcraft subscription; their Netflix subscription; they would start buying clothes at thrift stores to save money; they use hand-me-downs; they would swap clothes with other families; they would dump their car and its car payments and the insurance costs attached to it, and purchase a used car for cash.

If that still wasn't enough, then they would seek alternative living arrangements to share costs for living expenses.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Pure Laizez Faire capitalism is a disaster. Bosses are free to exploit their workforce at will, so they do. In pure capitalism, there are no rules other than the almighty dollar. Corruption becomes rampant, slavery becomes inevitable and conditions for all but the elite are absolutely horrible. The real world end result of pure Laizez Faire is tyranny and slavery.

None of what you said is true. The Market rules, always. Employers must pay the wages that the Market says must be paid, or the employer will suffer negative consequences. Likewise, when unions interfere and coerce employers to pay more than the Market says, then people suffer negative consequences.

And if you knew anything at all about Economics, then you'd know that Capitalism is a Property Theory, not an Economic System.

You can pair Capitalist Property Theory with the Command Economic System.

You want proof? You already had that in your history.

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

You seem to have missed it. The Supreme Court declared it constitutional and Obama won reelection.

Yes, and the Democrats swept the House and Senate taking control of both and everyone lived happily ever after.

Not.

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Uncertainty regarding Obamacare is over.

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

You may not know how its going to affect employers. But I assure you... they already do.

No, the uncertainty still exists. If you bothered to consult with business owners or at least talk to them, you'd know that.

The full-cost of Obamacare will not be known, even when January 1, 2014 rolls around.

There are only 3 ways that health plan providers (what you disingenuously refer to as "health insurance") can hold costs down:

1] Deductibles and Co-Pays
2] Limiting Annual Expenditures Per Person
3] Limiting Life-Time Expenditures Per Person

There are still annual limits, but Obamacare has forced them to be increased, and as of January 1, 2014, there are no longer any annual limits or any life-time limits.

That means if an health plan provider has to pay $1 Million per year for 30 years on just one person, then that's what Obamacare says they must do.

What you don't understand is that after paying a few $Million, health plan providers used to cut people off.....now they will not be able to....so good luck finding the money to pay for that.

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

The Bush tax cuts remain the single biggest component of our structural deficit.

No, deficit spending is the issue.

Originally Posted by Rafo1981

Lets see, diesel is subsidized by the government. The roads that they drive on are paid for by your tax dollars. So if the government stopped spending on those two things, diesel fuel shot up to $6 a gallon and the highways were all cracked and potholed so you couldn't drive on them, how many truck driving jobs do you think you would get?

Strawman. You'll need to show the exact law that provides for diesel fuel subsidies in the US, because I am not aware of any such subsidies for diesel fuel. There is the Foreign Tax Credit which allows oil companies a credit for oil produced overseas, but that does not affect US diesel.

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Why do we have minimum wage laws? Because we, as a society can decide that we won't let employers exploit desperate people.

Are you suggesting that every employer in the US pays minimum wage and only minimum wage?

Show your evidence.

If you cannot provide any evidence to support your claim, then explain why every employer is not currently exploiting people by paying them minimum wage.

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Paul Krugman outlines....

Nobody gives a damn what Krugman thinks.

Dubya's Double Dip?", The New York Times, 2 August 2002:

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

How's the Housing Bubble working out for everyone?

Originally Posted by MTAtech

First, the New York Times is not run by a socialist. That's just a dumb comment.
Second, calling a publication, especially one as respected as the New York Times, socialist, in an attempt to marginalize, is pathetic.

The New York Times is as Left-leaning-Leftist-Liberal as they come.

NYT Headlines.....

LIFE DESTROYING ASTEROID TO DESTROY ALL HUMANS ON EARTH!
Women And Minorities Will Be The Hardest Hit

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

You clearly don't understand the economy, because the government can and does alter it (for better or for worse).

Permanently? No, the government can influence the economy, but it cannot control it.....control is elusive.

Handing out "Fs" in Economics....

Mircea

Originally Posted by alphamale

When lazy people see that they can vote themselves the property of others, they will do so.

That's what Plato said 2,500 years ago.

Originally Posted by Dale Cooper

Then why do they spend all their time whining about profits? They're mad at McDonald's, Hostess, everybody. Why aren't they out there owning their own company if they're so smart?

Because they're not smart enough, that's why!

That, plus they're filled with trivial fears and would never dare take a risk.....blame is better to bestow than to receive.

Originally Posted by boner

ERECTS a strawman called Somalia and starts lovin the boner with it

Originally Posted by boner

Comparing the US to Smalia is an excercise in idiocy and irrelevant

Originally Posted by Kirdik

They don't have a functioning civil society as we do. Our civil war ended more than 100 years ago. It was still going in Somalia just a year ago.

Check out the link on Somalia's economy I gave above.

The next time some ******* stars spewing nonsense about Somalia, throw that in their face.

Originally Posted by wutitiz

No way, the Bush tax cuts were rate cuts, not revenue cuts. Total revenue was basically flat during the Bush years, so the cause of the deficits could not have been the Bush tax cuts. Revenue (inflation adjusted) was 2.215 trillion in 2001, 2.288 trillion in 2008.

It was spending that went up. It's the spending, stupid. In Clinton's last year, spending was 1.77 trillion. By 2010, it was just almost double, 3.72 trillion.
Washington's Phantom Austerity - Reason.com

Very good.

Originally Posted by alphamale

Paul Krugman?! Really!?

Do you even know what insurance is? Drive your wrecked car up to an auto insurance company and tell them that you want them to insure it and pay for the repairs.

That is a "pre-existing" condition.

Your poor health is not an insurance company's responsibility.

*******s are totally clueless about insurance. They've confused "health insurance" (snicker) with the lottery, where you pay $5 and get $50 Million.

Did you know that in the Netherlands and in Germany they deny pre-existing conditions?

Maybe the US should adopt the German or Dutch health care system.

Handing out "As" in Economics....

Mircea

[Memphis1979]

Micera, the simple answer is, because this is a free country, and you can not rule without the consent if the governed.

All the arguments you used, either ignored what I wrote, or ignore the fact that the majority of us citizens disagree with you and the arguments have been rejected summarily.

So, either pay for the programs, see the country falter, or find a different country in which to reside. I say restrict, simplify, and pay for.