Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? Oh, I get it. That is out of the Anarchy 101 silly bus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
One of the hallmark characteristics of right-wing perspective is the dumbing down of all issues to insulate themselves from having to deal with the truth that reality is not as clear-cut and as simplistic as their avaricious and self-centered attitudes would wish them to be. For that reason, right-wingers are seemingly incapable of understanding how something they look at with their tunnel-vision fully engaged, i.e., the reality of supply and demand, must be viewed as one of many facets of the situation for which they're attempting to pretend to be intelligent and proactive. They work hard to dodge the fact that these different aspects, especially aspects that are higher in priority than petty concerns such as money, such as human decency and the responsibility of a society to its most vulnerable members, that ruin their egoistic narrative. This is why, incidentally, right-wing perspective favors regressive policy so much. It is a reflection of how that perspective favors the more puerile nature, barbarism, callous disregard for others, self-centeredness, and why it cannot abide the trappings of civilization, such as society, government, the general welfare, etc.
Almost giddy with this new-found knowledge, the WaPo suggests that tobacco tax hikes are in order:
If you remember your econ 101, you know that the same applies to labor and the minimum wage. As the price of labor goes up, the quantity of labor demanded by employers goes down. Here's a 2 minute video showing how this plays out in terms of supply/demand:
Yet in discussions of the minimum wage, liberals always assure us that, no, minimum wage laws do not cause job loss or unemployment. Well clearly they do if you believe that the law of demand works. Unless, as the above video points out, the law sets the minimum wage at or below the market wage. In which case the minimum wage law is unnecessary, and a waste ink and paper.
Please explain, liberals. How is it that the law of demand works when it comes to a discussion of raising sin taxes, but not when it comes to a discussion of the minimum wage?
I think the reasoning with increasing minimum wage is that a higher minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of those MOST likely to spend it, most likely to keep it moving in the economy and multiplying, thereby expanding the economy as a whole even if employers are worse off in the short run. More consumer spending will be good for some employers.
I simply put forth the theory that we havent met the market wage yet, which negates your entire argument
thread closed.
Seeing how HUD will not subsidize rent for certain single people earning $4.55/hour, that negates your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
It's pretty simple: If conservatives want to bask in the glory of their charitable going, they should at least acknowledge that a good chunk of those donations are directed at churches, and that a good number of churches use those funds on things having nothing to do with charity.
Wow, just like government....imagine that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
This whole thread is predicated on ignorance.
Then get educated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Doubtful. Demand creates jobs, not available capital.
Because Capital falls out of the sky whenever anyone needs it, right?
It doesn't matter how high Demand is, if you don't have the Cash/Credit Capital to convert into other Capital, you're not going to be producing squat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
That is, if you actually believe that supply and demand can be elevated to "law" status.
Oh, so that's why scalpers give away Super Bowl tickets for free.
Tell us again why food prices are rising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Liquidity without demand does nothing to help a sound economy. Heck, the housing bubble was partly fueled by the banks having an oversupply of capital.
Due to Liberal policies.
How's that working out for everyone?
You must feel good about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
It's just that in real-life economic scenarios, it's very rare to have a market where supply and demand are the only influences.
That's because Liberals keep interfering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Right wingers are upset about the cost of cigarettes now? Who cares, maybe the cost reflects the small percentage of Americans still dumb enough to smoke cigarettes.
You mean like the Welfare Class?
Hey.....why don't you give them Food Stamps so they have money to buy alcohol and tobacco and gamble?
Oh, you're already doing that and fleecing the snot out of tax-payers....
For the TLDR crowd, heres a summary of mirceas response:
1. hah! one statistic thats not truly related negates your entire argument!
2. random unrelated comment
3. personal attack on another poster
4. Oh look sarcasm, followed up by the completely rational argument about lack of cash or capital impacting productivity-which is irrelevant to our current situation
5. irrelevant
6. insult someone while blaming liberal policies
7. blames liberals
8. and off on a unrelated topic that somehow involves people on welfare buying alcohol and tobacco.
For the TLDR crowd, heres a summary of mirceas response:
1. hah! one statistic thats not truly related negates your entire argument!
2. random unrelated comment
3. personal attack on another poster
4. Oh look sarcasm, followed up by the completely rational argument about lack of cash or capital impacting productivity-which is irrelevant to our current situation
5. irrelevant
6. insult someone while blaming liberal policies
7. blames liberals
8. and off on a unrelated topic that somehow involves people on welfare buying alcohol and tobacco.
Holy cow greywar your throwing the book at him throwing the book.
OK, you are stuffing words into my mouth. The question was just whether liberals believe in a downward sloping demand curve or not. It was Sen. Ted Kennedy who got me thinking about this many years ago. He was an outspoken advocate of the minimum wage, but also an early advocate of raising tobacco taxes as a way to reduce smoking. He effectively renounced the downward sloping demand curve in one case, but not the other.
Why the inconsistency? In the case of the minimum wage, obviously Ted was not affected by any deleterious effects. He was not a low wage worker; he was a Kennedy. In the case of the tobacco tax, all that money was coming into DC and flowing through his hands.
I will give you props for perfectly representing the liberal position--basically some jargon strung together with little to no meaning. Special props for 'nuance' and 'aggregate behavior.' No one knows what you are talking about, including you.
It's not an inconsistency, you're just not considering all the factors. If you're asking "do you believe the demand curve is always a straight downward-sloping line", anyone who has studied the issue will say "no". Any basic econ textbook will have dozens of counterexamples demonstrating why your position is untenable. I said earlier in the thread, if we established price controls on CEOs would there be higher demand for them?
"Nuance" means positions with more values than "yes or no". "Aggregate behavior" means you're committing a logical fallacy of composition that needs to be acknowledged to progress the discussion.
It's not an inconsistency, you're just not considering all the factors. If you're asking "do you believe the demand curve is always a straight downward-sloping line", anyone who has studied the issue will say "no". Any basic econ textbook will have dozens of counterexamples demonstrating why your position is untenable. I said earlier in the thread, if we established price controls on CEOs would there be higher demand for them?
"Nuance" means positions with more values than "yes or no". "Aggregate behavior" means you're committing a logical fallacy of composition that needs to be acknowledged to progress the discussion.
OK that is not a bad point. I have always said that CEO's (and senior execs in general) abuse the democracy-based system of publicly traded companies (every stockholder has a vote) to vacuum money into their pockets, much as US congress critters do. They use and abuse the low-info voter; it's all a rigged game.
But how does this relate to the tobacco tax or the low wage worker? Both face a downward sloping demand curve for what they sell. If someone if Washington DC boosts the price, the quantity demanded by the market goes down.
11 pages, and no one has explained to me why libs excitedly embrace the idea of a downward-sloping demand curve in the case of tobacco taxes, but reject it in the case of the minimum wage.
OK that is not a bad point. I have always said that CEO's (and senior execs in general) abuse the democracy-based system of publicly traded companies (every stockholder has a vote) to vacuum money into their pockets, much as US congress critters do. They use and abuse the low-info voter; it's all a rigged game.
But how does this relate to the tobacco tax or the low wage worker? Both face a downward sloping demand curve for what they sell. If someone if Washington DC boosts the price, the quantity demanded by the market goes down.
11 pages, and no one has explained to me why libs excitedly embrace the idea of a downward-sloping demand curve in the case of tobacco taxes, but reject it in the case of the minimum wage.
You're asking for logic from a group who supports programs based on how they make them feel. Good luck with that.
O.K, when confronted, that is when you state your differences...
I stated my perspective clearly from the start and all along the way. You just won't admit it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Those who think they know everyone and what there motives/beliefs/morality are, based on some internet web page is pertty damn dumb....
Which is nothing but ridiculous nonsense intended to try to run away from what you've posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Quote:
I don't post comments that are degrading to others. I condemn the perspectives you advocate, not you personally. The fact that you cannot differentiate between your self and your perspectives is your own fabrication.
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” ― Eleanor Roosevelt
You need to go back and read this thread then, you clearly degraded others because of your first post
Incorrect. Refusing to acknowledge and understand what I wrote and instead arguing against things I didn't write isn't a reasonable way to try to respond to my comments. Again: The fact that you cannot differentiate between your self and your perspectives is your own fabrication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxrckr
In other words, you won't answer the questions because you don't like them.
Wrong. There are no other words, other than the ones I used, to described my perspective. The fact that you find yourself incapable of defending your perspective without arguing against something no one has said is your problem. It should be an indication to you that your perspective is faulty.
Only an idiot answers questions that assume conflicting premises. Again, if you don't understand the reference to "Have you stopped beating your wife?" then you need to read up a bit more on rhetoric. Regardless, stop making excuses for the weakness of your own perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
I don't sit behind the comptuer telling people how the suck by using big words...
Indeed. You sit behind the computer spewing hatred toward the poor by using small, misspelled words, faulty logic, and indefensible rationalizations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
According to you moral perspective, our purpose on this Earth is to be slaves in your service and do whatever you tell us to do without question.
Incorrect. My perspective says nothing of the sort. You clearly have nothing to say and that frustrates you. I'm sorry you're frustrated, but even sorrier that you feel you need to defend indefensible corruption.
What is most telling is that all the usual right-wing suspects have been replying to my comments simply by attacking me personally, instead of even attempting to attack my perspective. Thanks for ratifying my perspective by making it clear you have no defense for yours.
Almost giddy with this new-found knowledge, the WaPo suggests that tobacco tax hikes are in order:
If you remember your econ 101, you know that the same applies to labor and the minimum wage. As the price of labor goes up, the quantity of labor demanded by employers goes down. Here's a 2 minute video showing how this plays out in terms of supply/demand:
Yet in discussions of the minimum wage, liberals always assure us that, no, minimum wage laws do not cause job loss or unemployment. Well clearly they do if you believe that the law of demand works. Unless, as the above video points out, the law sets the minimum wage at or below the market wage. In which case the minimum wage law is unnecessary, and a waste ink and paper.
Please explain, liberals. How is it that the law of demand works when it comes to a discussion of raising sin taxes, but not when it comes to a discussion of the minimum wage?
This couldn't be more clear, and I can't understand why liberals (the Occupiers) who demand an increase in the minimum wage are not smart enough to figure this out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
