Tax the Rich!!! - Wait, Tax the Elderly!!!

[Rickson]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

I'm going to assume this is sarcasm.

Ever heard of the natural rate of unemployment?

Yeah dude you are clueless....

@Hawk - we got us a fresh clueless one...ha ha

[jas66Kent]

Originally Posted by Rickson

What are expenditures are they not consumption?

Is someone (business owner/payer) not consuming the persons labor?

You should read economics in one lesson...seriously.

GDP = Consumption

I honestly think I have reached my quota for stupidity for the day.

So when you export stuff to other countries, you are "consuming" those exports?

lol damn That is certainly news to me.

In reality (if you care to join us there) they represent income. You get paid for those exports. You however do not "consume" then.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

lol wow, this is honestly like trying to explain the concept of a cell phone to a caveman.

You've just got such amazing tunnel vision that it's positively scary.

Anything that doesn't fit into your version of "Economics" just doesn't exist.

Well, those pesky workers working for min. wage do in fact exist, and they are in fact your fellow Americans. So, it would behoove you to not be such a jackass about it.

So do everyone a favour, and put your thinking cap on.

You must be new here. This is his thinking cap

[Standtall]

Originally Posted by Harry

You must be new here. This is his thinking cap

C'mon Harry, I realize you aim low but being involved in this "thinking contest" is even below you.

Just step away and let these special minds go at it.

[Rickson]

Failure of New Economics Pages 261-262 You should read it!

Stabilize Wage-Rates—or Employment?
If competition between unemployed workers always led to
a very great reduction in money-wage, there would be violent
instability in the price level. . . . The wage-unit might have
to fall without limit until it reached a point where the effect
of the abundance of money in terms of the wage-unit on the
rate of interest was sufficient to restore a level of full employment
(p. 253).
There are more fallacies in this passage than the reader
is likely to have patience to examine. Keynes is apparently
trying to prove that if there were free competition among
workers, instead of union-enforced or law-enforced inflexibility
downwards, the result would be intolerably and limitlessly
violent oscillations in prices.
The proposition is just as absurd as it sounds. Price
changes normally come first, and determine wage-rate
changes, rather than vice versa. It is far better, when the
choice must be made, to have wide oscillations in prices
than wide oscillations in production and employment. The
attempt to "stabilize" farm prices at levels above those thatwould be set by a free, competitive market, as American
experience has so dramatically proved, merely leaves unsold
farm "surpluses" that pile up in government warehouses.
The attempt to stabilize wages at levels above those that
would be set by a free, competitive market leaves unemployed
surpluses of labor that pile up on government unemployment
insurance or relief rolls. We do not stabilize the
economy by trying to hold up wages regardless of what happens
to prices. We unstabilize it, and create the very mass
unemployment that Keynes professes to wish to cure.

It is significant that the Keynesians do not dare to apply
their theory both ways. They do not urge that wage-rates
be held down when prices soar, in order to stabilize prices
by bringing them down again.
Keynes's wage theories are useful only as labor-union
propaganda. Their "scientific" pretensions are pure quackery.
In the passage quoted above from page 253 of the General
Theory, Keynes drags in the effect of a reduction of
wage-rates on the interest rate. Of course, the interconnection
of all prices (and both wage-rates and interest rates
are "prices" in the broadest sense) is such that there is
some interrelationship between wage-rates and interest
rates. But the interrelationship is so complex and for the
most part so indirect that a lengthy discussion of this point
would be largely irrelevant digression.
We have already seen that Keynes had a false theory of
interest. We shall soon see that he had also a false theory
of wage-rates, a false theory of money and credit, and a false
theory of prices.

[ubernerd]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

I'm going to assume this is sarcasm.

Ever heard of the natural rate of unemployment?

Yep. I've heard of the Tooth fairy too.

Take away unemployment benefits and minimum wage and anyone capable of working can find something. I'm not counting people who are non-functioning - paraplegics, mentally incompetent, Keynesian economists, etc.

[jas66Kent]

Originally Posted by ubernerd

Yep. I've heard of the Tooth fairy too.

Take away unemployment benefits and minimum wage and anyone capable of working can find something. I'm not counting people who are non-functioning - paraplegics, mentally incompetent, Keynesian economists, etc.

Sorry, but reality does not work that way.

Please educate yourself.

[deathfrombelow]

Originally Posted by SamCook

Keep the garbage comming

Troll the trolls!

You owe me money for this. I take AmEx and all other major cards.

[Rickson]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

Sorry, but reality does not work that way.

Please educate yourself.

Can you dispute this with a logically valid argument?

Simply stating that we need higher wages fails as if the marginal production of the wage hour of the unemployed was lower than the benefit they would provide, business would be stupid not to hire them. Because people can chose to not work and still be paid or will only work for a wage that is higher than their net marginal value we have very high unemployement.

The misallocation of capital caused people to have jobs that they shouldn't have. As soon as the inflationary boom (that's the cause of the misallocation) went bust their jobs no longer made sense. Rather than go out and find a job they can chose to be unemployed and be paid a wage higher than what than their marginal value (unemployment benefit is greater than what they would make if someone were to hire them) Their old job wage is too high, if it wasn't they'd still be working...

Seriously...do tell me how it 'works'...

[FormLetter]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

This is why GOP Economics do not work:

1. Cut taxes

Ok, fine, there's no real issue with that.


but then they,

2. RAMP UP SENDING TO ABSURD LEVELS

and then they complain when the debt balloons and the Economy goes into the shitter.

well, DUH.

FWIW there is almost nobody posting here that they support cutting taxes and ramping up spending. No need to punch that straw man.