Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Mircea, regarding your post #24:
Could you expand upon these three sentences of your response?
How or why is the stated opinion false?
|
Because you made it up.
You've never read the meeting minutes of the Committee of Detail, because you don't even know what the Committee of Detail is. You've never read the letters those men wrote to other members of the Convention and to other interested parties and you've never read their diaries.
These...
1) customs and revenues
2) maritime law and navigation
3) mercantile aspect
4) with foreign nations and among the several States
5) 'Not Commerce' in 1787
...are the actual titles of headings in their meeting minutes, although "maritime law and navigation" actually says "maritime and navigation aspect" (after I re-examined the minutes).
Those are the reasons the Commerce Clause exists, not the false reason you made up.
And, since you aren't that smart, you obviously got your false nonsense from another website, but lack the integrity to admit that.
You have not stated an opinion, you've presented a false belief.
An opinion differs from a belief in that an opinion is a fact-based conclusion:
1) Fact: Motel Room 222 exists
2) Fact: Joe was murdered in Room 222
2) Fact: Bob's fingerprints were found in Room 222
Fact-based conclusion: Suspect Bob was present in Room 222 at some point prior to the murder, although it cannot be established that Bob was present at the time of the murder.
That is a rendered opinion.
What you presented to foist your nonsense on people is a false belief:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention determined a federal law was necessary for reducing the economic harm that a U.S. State may deliberately or inadvertently inflict upon any other State, particularly an adjoining state.
The constitution's commerce clause was enabled by delegates from wealthier states agreeing to sacrifice their own states' advantages
|
No member of the Constitutional Convention ever made any statements to that effect.
You will never find one diary entry or one letter by any member of the Convention or a set of meeting minutes from any of the committees that makes those claims.
The Committee of Detail was the committee that defined the Commerce Clause. The fact that you're totally ignorant of that speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge of the subject matter.
Contrary to your blatantly false claims, delegates from wealthier States did not "
agree to sacrifice their own advantage."
You just made that up.
These are the actual headings written in the minutes of the Committee of Detail as they actually appear with the capitalization and punctuation as used:
1) The Customs and Revenues Aspect
2) The Maritime and Navigation Aspect
3) The Mercantile Aspect
4) With Foreign Nations, and Among The Several States
5) "Not-Commerce" in 1787
Yes, it really says "'Not-Commerce' in 1787."
Those are the reasons you have a Commerce Clause.
They never once discussed States deliberately harming other States and they never once discuss States valiantly surrendering their own advantage.
That you lied and made it up is supported further by this phrase:
"...determined a federal law was necessary..."
The Constitution is not "federal law."
Federal law is separate and apart from the Constitution.
The Constitution can never be judicially reviewed. Federal law can be judicially reviewed and if found to conflict with the Constitution, it is rescinded.
Only a novice who was clueless would make a bone-headed error like that.
The Constitutional Convention had no authority to enact any federal laws. They only had the authority to draft a constitution.
Only a novice who was clueless would make a idiotic error like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
How did you reach the conclusion “then employers would pay the minimum wage and only the minimum wage and no higher wages”?
|
Why don't employers pay only the minimum wage?
There's a reason why
employers pay more than the minimum wage.
There's a reason why my employers pay me $750/hour and not $7.25/hour, although sometimes I will agree to a lesser fees like $350/hour or even $250/hour.
Let us know when you figure out why employers pay more than the minimum wage.
Would you like a hint?
It's called "Supply & Demand."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
What do you mean by the phrase “review of Social Security wages”, and what claim would it “debunk”?
|
How can you be an economist and not know what economic resources are available?
Ah, because you don't really know what you're talking about.
Also, I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that many people are perfectly happy getting paid the minimum wage.
Because if they weren't happy, then they'd take steps to improve their lot.
And, too, there are people who get welfare benefits and they love minimum wage because minimum wage allows them to keep their welfare benefits. Those people actually quit jobs if they get a pay raise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Mircea, I'm aware of some peoples' ignorance.
|
I would be more impressed if you were aware of your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
They're unaware that USA's great chronic annual trade deficits of goods indicate we've purchased more products than we've produced.
|
And everyone's Standard of Living has increased as a result, which is why they're not complaining.
You just can't accept the fact that trade increases the Standard of Living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
USA's trade deficits dragging upon our GDP,...
|
Wrong.
Trade increases your GDP.
A $500 Billion trade deficit generates $3.5 TRILLION in GDP or maybe $4.5 TRILLION in GDP or $6.5 TRILLION in GDP or maybe even $8.5 TRILLION in GDP
If it generates $8,5 TRILLION in GDP then subtracting the trade deficit, you are still +$8 TRILLION to the good.
If you didn't have a $500 Billion trade deficit, that $8 TRILLION in GDP would evaporate, so instead of $17 TRILLION total you'd have $9 TRILLION total and be worse off.
You don't have the population to manufacture everything.
To manufacture everything, you'd need a population of 750 Million to 850 Million in order to have enough labor to manufacture everything.
So, how do you get your population from 320 Million to 750 Million?
I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that importing 400 Million to 500 Million people from other countries would have a political and social impact that might be negative.
For one thing, immigrants would out-number US Citizens.
You can pay a person $10/hour to make toasters or you can off-shore toasters to China and then import them and pay that person $35/hour to make high-tech equipment.
Why would you not want that?
What do you have against workers?
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.
Still out of ammo...
