Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Feb 5, 2013.
Surely if they're wise, they're also supported by data.
Friedman's ideas have worked in practice around the world. Meanwhile another dead economist's theories have proved to be a disaster.
Then it should be easy to cite data that says so. They're are many dead economists, so I can't be sure which one you're talking about. Let's focus on living ones who've produced data to reinforce their solutions.
Fine, we spent an unprecidented amount on stimulus, nearly a trillion dollars, and all your economists promised the economy would come roaring back. It didn't. In fact we didn't reach even half of their expectations. Give me more Milton Friedman and less Maynard Keynes please.
I don't know why you guys argue this. Political science can tell you why the minimum wage has no effect. All I need is one chart:
In 2008, we had 90% turnout from the richest economic group, compared to about 50% from the lowest economic group. So there's no sense to raise the minimum wage on either party to try and win votes from this group, given that they are also the least informed voting bloc in the country (as a rather humorous aside, I am in this economic tier). However, we still see calls from the Democratic Party to raise the minimum wage every 5-10 years. This is because (okay I lied) of this factor:
Democrats need to win over married women (or just enough of them) to win elections and out-gap the male advantage the GOP has. And as we all know, moms tend to care about their kids getting a good job. If the Democrats raise the minimum wage to help out Junior's first summer job or first college-part time job, Mom's happy and votes for the Democrats. Maybe Junior votes, maybe some low-income voters become more efficacious and vote, but the goal is to boost turnout and support from the high-voting, ever reliable Mom. Republicans don't go for it because they'd lose support from Dad, who earned $.15 an hour when he was a kid and dammit, Junior, you ought to as well.
This is the most honest post you've had. It's a concession that you're merely withdrawing to ideology over evidence. Thanks.
His analysis has no merit and is completely FUBAR, but his basic assumption is true, the minimum wage is more about politics than about economics.
Sure, no problem. I am just glad the GDP didn't contract last quarter and is humming along at that 4% growth rate your economists promised. Oh wait, never mind.
I'm happy to switch to something else with evidence behind it. Surely there's some out there?
Obama economists did project 4% gdp growth for 2012-13 when selling the Stimulus. I am not sure why you're upset with me that these fantasy projections didn't come true, seems like you should be upset with Sir Maynard. After all it's just economics, right?
I never claimed to be excited about the state of the economy. I do want to follow a plan with some evidence behind it. If we're to change, let's not pick something random.
You don't want to hear my prescription.... but it worked in the 20s, in the 80s and 90s, and for a good part of the 2000s.
So what's you answer?
You really want to hang your hat on *those* booms?
Socialism, obviously. I want to provide you access to education.
You're right, I'll go with the 30s, 70s, and this current disaster.
No seriously. What is your answer?
It doesn't have to do with the minimum wage. I'd like to see 75% marginal tax rates on those making above 3 million, a tax deduction for student loans that tops out at four times the present cap, an easy road to citizenship for immigrants with terminal degrees, a luxury tax on all vehicles over 4000 lbs, corporate taxes levied on the non-charitable income of religious organizations, a gas tax that directly funds heavy rail, green city planning incentivized, and nationalization of the trucking industry under the mail service Constitutional authority.
Obama is just using that as a sales pitch. Anyone with 2 brain cells can see that raising the minimum wage is designed to favor the working poor. The jobs the do are still necessary otherwise they wouldn't exists.
What we're talking about is basic human rights. If someone is working hard for 40 hours a week they should have enough money to eat and find shelter.
If a price for a product must go up so that the builders/providers of that product can have a minimum standard of life then the market needs to adjust itself. Consumers will have to prioritize whether that product is essential to them or whether they can find a cheaper alternative. You know ... the free market.
If those bosses want to take those $6.50/hr jobs to China ... feck'em. They should never see another dime or another favor from the American taxpayer. Those bosses that treat their workers with dignity and keep their jobs in the US should get all the tax breaks possible. You know ... like Santorum's 0% tax on domestic manufacturers. Maybe 0% is a tad extreme, but I have no problem with that for companies that keep jobs at home and pay their employees a fair wage by American living standards.
Are you really that ignorant?
Seriously, have you never heard of "monetarism"?
In the meantime, please Google "monetarism".
Except it probably didn't...
From those raging Bolsheviks over at Businessweek:
As for GDP, well, I'm not sure you want to go there...
Oh, and about the deficit that you deficit chickenhawks suddenly discovered in January of 2009...
ratdog, you're doing it wrong...
@VFish, you seen this graph?
Um, this chart is for FY2012, and I imagine while FY2012 was still in progress given that 2011 is an "estimate". These things can, and do, change in an instant, and not just when the Administration changes.
Nah, I've already beaten down the "We spent billions and got nothing" lie that TPfish and other wingnuts repeatedly keep trying to sell us despite it's being so thoroughly disproved. At this point, their meme isn't so much a rational argument as it is a psychological coping mechanism for them. And because it is psychological that lie is impervious to facts and reason. Mastershake's post is a case in point. He doesn't want to accept the implication that Obama has slowed the rate of deficit growth so he tries to hide behind his hope that things will change for the worse.
For Mastershake, I offer the following chart:
So from 2002 to 2009, Bush doubled the debt while tanking our economy. Even with the burden of having to clean up the GOP's Great Recession, Obama has not kept up Bush's pace. If you look at the y-o-y change in debt for the last few years of Bush and Obama's first term using the numbers from the chart, you can see the slowdown in growth:
This supports the main point of the chart to which Mastershake objects due to estimated data. I wonder what sophistic dodge he'll try to hide behind this time.
care to guess why the economy contracted in Q4? A DRAMATIC DECREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING