The Democrats do something...intelligent?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
No, the minimum wage exists to make sure we don;t have too many poor, who might get revolutionary ideas and sweep aside and burn the houses of people who are rich in order to redistribute the wealth in a far more direct way, because were are trapped by the notion that the only redeaming way towards life is work.

Gepap hits the nail on the head with this one. Most of our laws designed to take the rough edges off of capitalism are enacted by the wealthy as concessions to the masses to placate them. Personally, I think that's a good idea.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Efficiency is a false idol. Too sad the economist have decided that that value supersedes any other values in the modern world.

This is all you come up with?

What should we design our economy for, then? Waste?

So since when do you start basing your world view on theories that exist only in paper? I thought that was the great Evil of Liberals, who willingly follow theories built upon nothing bu Reason.

What the hell are you talking about?

Tough, cause they will only conitnue to spread and grow.

To the detriment of all involved. Except the politicians.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Gepap hits the nail on the head with this one. Most of our laws designed to take the rough edges off of capitalism are enacted by the wealthy as concessions to the masses to placate them. Personally, I think that's a good idea.

I'm arguing for welfare and you're lumping we with laissez-faire capitalists. Jesus Christ.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

You should see what he said about you in the post before.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Raise it to high and companies will move operations but most won't make massive changes for modest increases. Infact more often then not we see unemployment actually go down after modest increases.

Context.. most min wage increases happen in the middle of boom times when people are saying "why not?".

Gepap hits the nail on the head with this one. Most of our laws designed to take the rough edges off of capitalism are enacted by the wealthy as concessions to the masses to placate them. Personally, I think that's a good idea.

Well if the masses can't even be bothered to vote Democrat, then what sort of placating do they actually need?

[Kuciwalker]

I only respond to actual arguments, not random BAMs.

xpost

[asleepathewheel]

I'm all in favor of increasing the min. wage. I work with/for poor people every day and from what I've seen, if people want a job, they can find one, if they don't then they won't. That's not going to change if the wage is increased. Perhaps even raising the min. wage would actually entice some people to get jobs at fast food and other places low on the chain that they otherwise wouldn't. The ol' can't make ends meet with that crap pay, so why even try.

I wouldn't oppose softening the blow for small businesses.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


This is all you come up with?

What should we design our economy for, then? Waste?

Efficiency has no bearing on the goal. Any goal can be done efficiently, or inefficiently. Efficiency itself is not a value. You can commit mass murder efficiently, or wastefully. You can end hunger efficiently, or wastefully.

The question then, is not whether we want "efficiency", the question is, what should be the goal of the eocnomy. Currently, its "Wealth creation". I question that goal, if the most efficient means to it means more income inequality.

What the hell are you talking about?

The free market is a theory. It assumes rational human beings making informed purchases. I question whether either are even remotely plausible.

You seem to be trying to arrange society based on this theoretical free market. That is supposedly what "liberals" do, arrange the world according to theories.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd rather tie a lot of welfare to having a job.

xpost

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think the best thing for workers is to take away all of Congress' pay raises and institute universal health care... though it may not be enough to cover it. I'm sure we can find a war we can dial down to cover the rest .

From a capitalist standpoint universal healthcare could be the single best thing we could do to improve our nation's economic competitiveness. The thing which is killing most old line companies like GM is the rising cost of healthcare so if the government acted like an insurance company does by spreading the risks and costs around uniformly to insure each person pays the lowest amount possible then we'd eliminate that problem. It also would help if we eliminated absolutely insane subsidies for big pharma which the Republicans forced into the Medicare drug benifet.

It is insane that Medicare should have to pay 100% more for most drugs then Walmart does. Medicare is the single largest purchaser of drugs in the country so they should be able to use their economies of scale to leverage price concessions just like Walmart does. Why is it good for businesses to do this but bad for government to do this? I for one want my government to get the greatest efficiency out of my tax dollars and I am incensed that Republicans are subsidizing big pharma with my tax dollars to buy loyality. These bastards should hang.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Efficiency has no bearing on the goal. Any goal can be done efficiently, or inefficiently. Efficiency itself is not a value. You can commit mass murder efficiently, or wastefully. You can end hunger efficiently, or wastefully.

Efficiency in this context almost universally means producing as much net value as possible.

The question then, is not whether we want "efficiency", the question is, what should be the goal of the eocnomy. Currently, its "Wealth creation". I question that goal, if the most efficient means to it means more income inequality.

I don't care about income inequality - some people just produce more than others. I care about raising everyone's standard of living. Inefficiencies in the economy make everyone worse off.

The free market is a theory. It assumes rational human beings making informed purchases. I question whether either are even remotely plausible.

Go sit in a corner a cry, then, because a few centuries of empirical evidence demonstrates that they are decent approximations.

To use your own argument, can you think of any developed nations that aren't organized around free-market principles?

You seem to be trying to arrange society based on this theoretical free market. That is supposedly what "liberals" do, arrange the world according to theories.

What kind of dumbass would say "liberals just use theories?"

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Odin
in 1968 the minimum wage was over $8 in today's dollars. The Neo-Liberal morons rant on how government intervention is bad for the economy yet government intervention in the economy is responsible for the boom of the 50's and 60's.

Let's be honest. The boom of the 50's was because 3/4 of the world's other industrial economies was FUBAR after WW2 and the other one's which weren't FUBAR were to small to deal with the rest of the world's demand. Thus the US became the world's prime supplier of... just about every manufactured good.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I'm arguing for welfare and you're lumping we with laissez-faire capitalists. Jesus Christ.

If you noticed my response was responding to Gepap and was making a general statement about the origin of most of our social programs. I realize you like to feel important but your and Gepap's debate is a side issue for me except for the specific issues I have specifically addressed to you.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Congress isn't paid enough even so.

Congress is radically over paid given the low quality **** bags who are there and the fact that they produce almost nothing of value. Those lazy self serving pieces of **** won't tackle any of the real issues facing the country and so spend their time "debating" amendments to ban the burning of the flag and to prevent gay people from having equal legal rights as straight people. Let's not forget how they spent weeks, I say agian WEEKS, attempting to grandstand on preventing a brain dead woman's final wish from being carried out.

They should get paid minimum wage because the stuff they pretend is work just isn't worth anything. Not to mention they spend the majority of their time on vacation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Efficiency in this context almost universally means producing as much net value as possible.

That only serves to show the bias.

I don't care about income inequality - some people just produce more than others. I care about raising everyone's standard of living. Inefficiencies in the economy make everyone worse off.

A society in which the Average income is $12,000 but no one is homeless or hungry is for most a better society than one in which the average income is $25,000 but 5% are poor and 1% go hungry every night.

Go sit in a corner a cry, then, because a few centuries of empirical evidence demonstrates that they are decent approximations.

To use your own argument, can you think of any developed nations that aren't organized around free-market principles?

NO. BUt then, no society is willing to let og of socialist principles either, like a minimum wage.....

What kind of dumbass would say "liberals just use theories?"

People like Burke. That dumbass.