Poll: Most People Want County's Minimum Wage at $15.25 (Los Angeles: credit card, schools)

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Milton Friedman is the reason we as a nation fell into the mess we have And the vast majority of other economists from all political persuasions now agree.

You haven't "studied economists". You have bought a load of crap from some AM radio dope that champions Friedman. One nut ball economist gets put in front of you and you buy in to it and now hold him up as an example of "studying economists".

As for the LA Times piece, as I just pointed out to you in my previous post: No, they didn't "get it" your way. Are you serious that you can't understand the article you linked?

First of all, it's a fair piece of oatmeal filler daily journalism - in that it fairly raises questions on an issue. It does NOT, however, arrive at ANY conclusion one way or another. Plain as the nose on your face, it doesn't.

Secondly, it IS NOT, by any measure, in-depth "investigative journalism", let alone an actual study.

If you don't know these differences you should refrain from posting links.

A nobel prize winner, tenured professor for over 3 decades and internationally respected economist who advised 2 presidents and several foreign leaders is a "nutball"? Okay.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

A nobel prize winner, tenured professor for over 3 decades and internationally respected economist who advised 2 presidents and several foreign leaders is a "nutball"? Okay.

Yes.

Friedman is more ridiculed now and disrespected than respected.

He advised Ronald Reagan on the now disastrous economic foundations of "trickle-down". Arguably among the worst financial policies of the modern day world.

And note, without me supporting or denigrating, is there any controversy over the advocacies of Nobel-economics-winner Paul Krugman? Yet you validate Friedman based on his winning the prize? How about the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama? Yet you validate Friedman based on his Prize?

You have chosen one economist as an example. That does not constitute "studying economists".

You have linked one "filler" media article that presents opposing positions but draws no conclusion. That does not constitute investigative journalism, there is a major difference. Nor does it constitute fact-finding analysis and study.

As I said before, if you don't know the difference, you should refrain from presenting as if with expertise and erudition on the topic. Your opinion is your business. But, as the late Patrick Monyhan famously stated: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yes.

Friedman is more ridiculed now and disrespected than respected.

He advised Ronald Reagan on the now disastrous economic foundations of "trickle-down". Arguably among the worst financial policies of the modern day world.

And note, without me supporting or denigrating, is there any controversy over the advocacies of Nobel-economics-winner Paul Krugman? Yet you validate Friedman based on his winning the prize? How about the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama? Yet you validate Friedman based on his Prize?

You have chosen one economist as an example. That does not constitute "studying economists".

You have linked one "filler" media article that presents opposing positions but draws no conclusion. That does not constitute investigative journalism, there is a major difference. Nor does it constitute fact-finding analysis and study.

As I said before, if you don't know the difference, you should refrain from presenting as if with expertise and erudition on the topic. Your opinion is your business. But, as the late Patrick Monyhan famously stated: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

You're spouting a bunch of opinion too, just using flowery language to make it sound "factual"

The only FACTS are scientific.

Trickle down economics have not been PROVEN wrong scientifically. The theory can and does work. Does it always - no - but it has.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

You're spouting a bunch of opinion too, just using flowery language to make it sound "factual"

The only FACTS are scientific.

Trickle down economics have not been PROVEN wrong scientifically. The theory can and does work. Does it always - no - but it has.

Economics isn't a hard science. It's just convenient that what's lauded and touted by the American right, corporations and conservative politicos is Milton Friedmans economics.

Before the 70s the Chicago school of economics was seen as a bunch of hooey. Its rise to prominence was more a result of a push right ward by business interests.

[MordinSolus]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

You're spouting a bunch of opinion too, just using flowery language to make it sound "factual"

The only FACTS are scientific.

Trickle down economics have not been PROVEN wrong scientifically. The theory can and does work. Does it always - no - but it has.

Economics is not a science and trickle-down economics has never worked. It's been tried in America half a dozen times and it's always failed to anything but make the rich richer.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Conservatives despise wealth distribution when it flows down to the working/middle classes (the true drivers of our economy btw) but have no problem when it flows upward, like it did in the years following the failed Bush Tax Cuts. They took money that was circulating through the economy and put it right into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans, where it sits to this day. And then people wonder why wages have been stagnant for over a decade. It's a race to the bottom, and the Koch brothers of the world have given us the finest running shoes money can buy.

More proof Americans need a raise:



I'm all for the government stepping in and making it happen--Lord knows the Walmarts of the world aren't going to voluntarily raise wages. They'd pay less if they could!

[radiolibre99]

Of course they'd pay less. It's not a supply and demand thing really. They've artificially kept wages down for decades and told us they'd lend us the money with interest to buy their crap.

They only trump out the "economics 101" card when it's convenient for them and try to push Chicago School BS as the only real economics theory out there.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

You're spouting a bunch of opinion too, just using flowery language to make it sound "factual"

The only FACTS are scientific.

Trickle down economics have not been PROVEN wrong scientifically. The theory can and does work. Does it always - no - but it has.

You're pretty amusing, really.

Trickle Down has been proven factually to not work - by virtue of every measurable evaluation over the past 30+ or so years of its failure to produce the results it was claimed it would produce. The world economy is in dismal failure as a result of the Trickle Down Chicago bull tweet. Have you read any of the other responses to your protestations here? Find some credible stats to show we are all wrong. Go ahead. We'll all wait.

"Flowery language" my pattotie:

Fact: Friedman is not held in any high regard anymore by hardly anyone knowledgable in economics.
Fact: Friedman counseled Reagan to champion what is now infamously regarded as the failed Trickled Down".
Fact: winning a Nobel Prize doesn't prove the recipient right.
Fact: you haven't provided examples of"studying economists" other than referring to one, whose theories crashed.
Fact: you provided one inconclusive, oatmeal filler article to try and support your claim - as if one article is proof of universal truth.

Fact: there's not a bit of "flowery language" in any of the above.

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You're pretty amusing, really.

Trickle Down has been proven factually to not work - by virtue of every measurable evaluation over the past 30+ or so years of its failure to produce the results it was claimed it would produce. The world economy is in dismal failure as a result of the Trickle Down Chicago bull tweet. Have you read any of the other responses to your protestations here? Find some credible stats to show we are all wrong. Go ahead. We'll all wait.

"Flowery language" my pattotie:

Fact: Friedman is not held in any high regard anymore by hardly anyone knowledgable in economics.
Fact: Friedman counseled Reagan to champion what is now infamously regarded as the failed Trickled Down".
Fact: winning a Nobel Prize doesn't prove the recipient right.
Fact: you haven't provided examples of"studying economists" other than referring to one, whose theories crashed.
Fact: you provided one inconclusive, oatmeal filler article to try and support your claim - as if one article is proof of universal truth.

Fact: there's not a bit of "flowery language" in any of the above.

"Fact" #1 - Your opinion. No science there.

2 - It didn't fail. The 80s were prosperous.

3 - Agreed. (though still an opinion, just one I happen to agree with)

4 - And you quoted Paul Krugman who's widely seen as a buffoon. Yes, that's my opinion but when you put down Milton Friedman as a "fact" well I can put down Krugman as a "fact" too.

5 - LA Times is about the most unbiased as you'll get. And they even lean left.

Trickle down works because when the wealthy have more money to spend, they spend back into the economy, which creates jobs.

Like it or not, more than half of the US and a significant portion of the world support conservative economy policies. Sorry that your "facts" are only geared toward the far left. My "facts" know that a free market works. is it perfect? No. But it sure is a hell of a lot better than the socialism you support.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

"Fact" #1 - Your opinion. No science there.

2 - It didn't fail. The 80s were prosperous.

3 - Agreed. (though still an opinion, just one I happen to agree with)

4 - And you quoted Paul Krugman who's widely seen as a buffoon. Yes, that's my opinion but when you put down Milton Friedman as a "fact" well I can put down Krugman as a "fact" too.

5 - LA Times is about the most unbiased as you'll get. And they even lean left.

Trickle down works because when the wealthy have more money to spend, they spend back into the economy, which creates jobs.

Like it or not, more than half of the US and a significant portion of the world support conservative economy policies. Sorry that your "facts" are only geared toward the far left. My "facts" know that a free market works. is it perfect? No. But it sure is a hell of a lot better than the socialism you support.

Lmao Hilarious!
1) Friedman is very widely discredited. That is not opinion.

2) the 80's were prosperous for reasons other than Trickle Down, and, most importantly, at the expense of our economy's subsequent devolution.

3) you're the one who used the Nobel Prize as a benchmark. Now you "agree" it is meaningless. OK

4) I never quoted Krugman. I used him and Obama as examples of controversial Nobel's.

5) I don't care if you quote from a communist newspaper. One single article does not a proof make. Especially when the article doesn't draw any conclusion. You keep overlooking that. Your one solitary link isn't investigative in nature in the slightest. It is "filler journalism". It raises questions on a topic. And does so to fill space by selling controversial counterpoint that sells for-profit media to readers. And, one more time: it didn't even draw a conclusion to support your position. So I don't know why you even used it.

Now then, the wealthy have more money. Yeppers. Do you see it "trickling down" into the economy? Because nobody else does. The wealthy now own a greater share of world wealth than ever in history since Feudal times. But they are a VERY small percentage of the population. So no, the amount of that wealth that actually is spent back into the economy is minuscule.

The rich are choking the entire economy, including themselves. They are killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. The money is NOT recirculating. And that is a fact that no one denies. Except I guess you. Certainly no economists deny it. In fact, economists on the right are now raising red flags about the issues just as has the left.

And finally, my facts aren't skewed left or right. I am not socialist or even a democrat. I am a-political. A logician. Ideologies are for lazy intellects.