simple question for liberals. Do you accept the laws of supply/demand? (Obama, independent)
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.
FYI : "Economics" is a dismal discipline, far from being a science.
Reason #1 : It apologizes for usury, the abomination, which is mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system.
Reason #2 : Its unit of measure, paper currency, is a variable, not a constant.
. . .
Any "laws of Economics" are akin to the rules of a blind madman, explaining a rainbow.
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?
where is
moderate
libertarian
constitutionalist
independent
etc
FYI : "Economics" is a dismal discipline, far from being a science.
Reason #1 : It apologizes for usury, the abomination, which is mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system.
Reason #2 : Its unit of measure, paper currency, is a variable, not a constant.
. . .
Any "laws of Economics" are akin to the rules of a blind madman, explaining a rainbow.
1) "usury" is just the practice of pricing current vs. future spending, and is a recognition of fundamental social behavior.
2) Constant in what sense? How would this work, and why does it matter?
If what you say is correct, that everyone on the right has low or no morality...
Everyone who advocates the right-wing corruption I've been condemning. I think there are a lot of people who go along with the right-wing corruption because they see the personal benefit and don't look into the issues in terms of the other aspects. The difference between right and left is not direction, as it may seem, but rather is more a matter of how many aspects are considered - the left factors in all the same considerations as the right, plus additional considerations on top of those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
And, if you have so much morality, why do you continue to talk down to anyone who questins you?
I suppose those who prefer immorality think morality dictates "don't condemn immorality". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
If you had half the morality you speak of, your comments would not be degrading to others...
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
All of the questions are basically demographic issues conflated with correlation/causation fallacies. Except the first one, that's also explained by the second one. Dumb Republicans give more money to televangelist "charities", good for them.
Basically the answer to all of these questions is "people with more money vote Republican".
Except that's not completely true. Many of the wealthiest actually vote Dem.
So no, it doesn't answer the questions.
Everyone who advocates the right-wing corruption I've been condemning. I think there are a lot of people who go along with the right-wing corruption because they see the personal benefit and don't look into the issues in terms of the other aspects. The difference between right and left is not direction, as it may seem, but rather is more a matter of how many aspects are considered - the left factors in all the same considerations as the right, plus additional considerations on top of those.
O.K, when confronted, that is when you state your differences...you should do that more often, it will make you seem to have more morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
I suppose those who prefer immorality think morality dictates "don't condemn immorality". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Those who think they know everyone and what there motives/beliefs/morality are, based on some internet web page is pertty damn dumb....
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
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, that was and still is the topic of discussion, not because of the content you though you put in it, but the horriable writing that you presented....
Except that's not completely true. Many of the wealthiest actually vote Dem.
So no, it doesn't answer the questions.
Oh God, I knew somebody would respond this way.
Yes, many wealthy people are Dems. Also, I guess the answer to those questions is "some Dems give to charity and some Republicans are in prison." Or maybe that's missing the whole point.
Are you seriously asking why someone you disagree with ignores the "questions" you constructed based on your ridiculously biased premises? I'm sorry Chuck. I can tell from your writing that you are intelligent and therefore intelligent enough to realize the silly games you're playing. That you think others are too stupid to recognize your rhetorical tactics may be another aspect of the innate lack of consideration of the right-wing perspective with regard to others.
That's fine too. We need right-wingers like you to model the behaviors that we expect to evoke a cringing response in those who thereby recognize that it is the natural progression of the corrupt perspectives toward which they are leaning.
In other words, you won't answer the questions because you don't like them.
This is almost as hilarious as these congressional candidates who can't answer a simple "yes or no" question on if they voted for Obama.
Most conservatives believe supply and demand is something that should never be questioned....
But what about the popular and often repeated " tax cuts for job creators will create more jobs"????
Seems to go against that theory doesn't it?
If you cut taxes for job creators with 10% tomorrow, you will see more jobs being created.
But what about long term? Well, demand and supply can be affected by multiple factors. I see no reason why you have to question supply and demand, when you can instead use supply and demand to prove your point.
Quote:
If you own a business and have enough employees to keep up with the work load than why on earth would you hire more people with your "tax break" when the demand for your products and services hasn't increased?
Because you need to put your extra money somewhere. Also they need to invest, because most companies want to expand their market share. Even if you put it into the bank, then the banks will have more liquidity.
Also, even if that is the case. It does not go against supply and demand. It just means that supply did not increase from the tax break.
Quote:
The problem with many of the "rock solid" ideologies of many conservatives is that they are often so rigid that they become hypocritical and wind up countering each other.
SIMPLE BLACK AND WHITE SOLUTIONS AND IDEOLOGIES SUCH AS SUPPLY AND DEMAND ARE OFTEN TIMES NOT APPLICABLE TO OUR INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED WORLD.
You are focusing on the wrong enemy. Arguing against supply and demand is like arguing against Newton's Laws. They may be slightly wrong in some cases, but it is still a law and is true under normal circumstances.
When you hear a conservative say
"supply and demand proves ... "
Instead of saying supply and demand is black and white and then be laughed at by people who economics. Why not say instead
"No, supply and demand does not prove that. Here is why ... "
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.
