Conquer Club

Juan_Bottom wrote:And as far as BBS' conclusions, obviously I disagree with all of them, everything he has said here. I'm a liberal, which to a lot of people is synonymous with anti-business, pro-labor. But you can be pro-labor and pro-business at the same time. I do believe in low corporate tax rates, and high income taxes on people. What I'm against is our system of organized greed.

You're a well-intended state socialist who rejects critical thinking and unfortunately supports poor outcomes. Only you can take the first step away from your echo chamber.

Making elaborate straw man fallacies still isn't doing you any favors.

Yeah, cause all those socialist country's are rolling over like the Titanic.
& everyone there is poor as f*ck and all their goods come from China.

With age, comes wisdom--hopefully.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:And as far as BBS' conclusions, obviously I disagree with all of them, everything he has said here. I'm a liberal, which to a lot of people is synonymous with anti-business, pro-labor. But you can be pro-labor and pro-business at the same time. I do believe in low corporate tax rates, and high income taxes on people. What I'm against is our system of organized greed.

You're a well-intended state socialist who rejects critical thinking and unfortunately supports poor outcomes. Only you can take the first step away from your echo chamber.

Making elaborate straw man fallacies still isn't doing you any favors.

Try your own.... you keep harping on your ideals. Fine... carry it out. What would happen if things went the way you wish. I don't mean esoteric, it would all work out. I mean specifics, perferably with historical proof that takes ALL people in a particular society into account.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:And as far as BBS' conclusions, obviously I disagree with all of them, everything he has said here. I'm a liberal, which to a lot of people is synonymous with anti-business, pro-labor. But you can be pro-labor and pro-business at the same time. I do believe in low corporate tax rates, and high income taxes on people. What I'm against is our system of organized greed.

You're a well-intended state socialist who rejects critical thinking and unfortunately supports poor outcomes. Only you can take the first step away from your echo chamber.

Making elaborate straw man fallacies still isn't doing you any favors.

Try your own.... you keep harping on your ideals. Fine... carry it out. What would happen if things went the way you wish. I don't mean esoteric, it would all work out. I mean specifics, perferably with historical proof that takes ALL people in a particular society into account.

Here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wa ... al_studies

I don't even think that you read that all the way through. That actually confirmed what Player is saying.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't even think that you read that all the way through. That actually confirmed what Player is saying.

Until BBS goes in and edits it, perhaps.

But yeah... ALSO, that is just one blip. I said carry it out to full extent, and I don't mean JUST minimum wage, either.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't even think that you read that all the way through. That actually confirmed what Player is saying.

Read the cited articles and start quoting. Then your positions can be taken seriously.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't even think that you read that all the way through. That actually confirmed what Player is saying.

Read the cited articles and start quoting. Then your positions can be taken seriously.

Yeah, we thought you would lapse into "well, you know... its just the accepted view and anyone who disagrees is just dumb".

The basic problem is, you are debating something entirely different than we are, or at least I am.

MY point , to be extremely brief, is that it doesn't matter what economic model you want to believe, any model is only going to be so good as the data put in. Economists have for far too long ignored chunks that really do matter. They have been able to pretend they don't matter for various reasons, but that is no longer the case. Or, worse, they pretend that they understand because they understand part of the human response to various issues. The trouble is, understanding the response is not at all the same as understanding the issue itself.

Okay, explain what's wrong with the substitution effect. Explain which economic models you're talking about. Explain which variables for whatever models are being left out.

Launch into the attack of macro- and microeconomics.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Okay, explain what's wrong with the substitution effect. Explain which economic models you're talking about. Explain which variables for whatever models are being left out.

Launch into the attack of macro- and microeconomics.

Explain why all that is something more important than the right of people to live decently BEFORE whomever happens to own the company, etc gets to take a hefty profit.

Explain why that justifies passing on pollution, medical problems and a bad climate to our grandchildren...

Explain why those models and whatever even justify what you are saying.

The substitution effect is a theory and requires that the rise in wages is above the wage threshold or whatever. We're very well below any wage threshold that would hurt investment. The Obama Administration has cited several studies that show that there would be little or no substitution effect if minimum wage were raised now, in the least of all because businesses have already laid off everyone that they could afford to during the recession. I think it was Sacia who casually remarked that of 100 business owners surveyed, less than 10% said that they would consider firing anyone. Almost all of them said they would try to find stronger ways to encourage workers to produce more. Plus, recent history doesn't support the substitution effect theory. I'm not sure that American History does either. There's always a short break-in period for every law, then industry takes off again. I'm sure you could find substitution effects taking place when businesses became required to install fire protection systems, or carrying insurance. The substitution effect is a kind of dinosaur argument.

As mentioned already, Oregon has raised their minimum wage and tied it to inflation. The state does fine.
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l ... 8284.story

Many economists think Oregon’s minimum wage increase hasn’t hurt the state. Whether they can convince others remains to be seen. After all, it’s taken awhile for the profession to come around.

“While 20 or 30 years ago most economists believed that minimum wage increases invariably cause some job loss, as the data has come in, the profession has updated its beliefs,” Dube <said

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Okay, explain what's wrong with the substitution effect. Explain which economic models you're talking about. Explain which variables for whatever models are being left out.

Launch into the attack of macro- and microeconomics.

Explain why all that is something more important than the right of people to live decently BEFORE whomever happens to own the company, etc gets to take a hefty profit.

Explain why that justifies passing on pollution, medical problems and a bad climate to our grandchildren...

Explain why those models and whatever even justify what you are saying.

I'm not going to sit here for 8 hours teaching you economics. You should be capable of doing that on your own. I've already posted more than enough ITT.

However, if you criticize something (e.g. economics), then actually have something intelligent to say about it. Since you obviously cannot support your previous positions after being asked to do so, then go read a book. Internet dialogue isn't what you need.

sorry guys... cannot afford raises this year. =(

PLAYER57832 wrote:Explain why all that is something more important than the right of people to live decently BEFORE whomever happens to own the company, etc gets to take a hefty profit.

Define "decently" and "hefty profit". Furthermore, how does the government define what is "decently" for every person in a country that is vastly different within?

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Obama Administration has cited several studies that show that there would be little or no substitution effect if minimum wage were raised now, in the least of all because businesses have already laid off everyone that they could afford to during the recession.

Punish them while they're down! Never let a crisis go to waste!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Okay, explain what's wrong with the substitution effect. Explain which economic models you're talking about. Explain which variables for whatever models are being left out.

Launch into the attack of macro- and microeconomics.

Explain why all that is something more important than the right of people to live decently BEFORE whomever happens to own the company, etc gets to take a hefty profit.

Explain why that justifies passing on pollution, medical problems and a bad climate to our grandchildren...

Explain why those models and whatever even justify what you are saying.

I'm not going to sit here for 8 hours teaching you economics. You should be capable of doing that on your own. I've already posted more than enough ITT.

However, if you criticize something (e.g. economics), then actually have something intelligent to say about it. Since you obviously cannot support your previous positions after being asked to do so, then go read a book. Internet dialogue isn't what you need.

Except, this has nothing to do with economics. This has to do with why you think economics should have so much more say in the world than any other piece of data or information.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Explain why all that is something more important than the right of people to live decently BEFORE whomever happens to own the company, etc gets to take a hefty profit.

Define "decently" and "hefty profit". Furthermore, how does the government define what is "decently" for every person in a country that is vastly different within/

"The government" doesn't. People can and do.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Obama Administration has cited several studies that show that there would be little or no substitution effect if minimum wage were raised now, in the least of all because businesses have already laid off everyone that they could afford to during the recession.

Punish them while they're down! Never let a crisis go to waste![/quote]
Businesses are not down.... and the current recession was caused by too high mortgages and banks lying about them.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Okay, explain what's wrong with the substitution effect. Explain which economic models you're talking about. Explain which variables for whatever models are being left out.

Launch into the attack of macro- and microeconomics.

Explain why all that is something more important than the right of people to live decently BEFORE whomever happens to own the company, etc gets to take a hefty profit.

Explain why that justifies passing on pollution, medical problems and a bad climate to our grandchildren...

Explain why those models and whatever even justify what you are saying.

I'm not going to sit here for 8 hours teaching you economics. You should be capable of doing that on your own. I've already posted more than enough ITT.

However, if you criticize something (e.g. economics), then actually have something intelligent to say about it. Since you obviously cannot support your previous positions after being asked to do so, then go read a book. Internet dialogue isn't what you need.

Except, this has nothing to do with economics. This has to do with why you think economics should have so much more say in the world than any other piece of data or information.

But since you can't explain the inadequacies of economics, then your current contention is baseless.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Okay, explain what's wrong with the substitution effect. Explain which economic models you're talking about. Explain which variables for whatever models are being left out.

Launch into the attack of macro- and microeconomics.

Explain why all that is something more important than the right of people to live decently BEFORE whomever happens to own the company, etc gets to take a hefty profit.

Explain why that justifies passing on pollution, medical problems and a bad climate to our grandchildren...

Explain why those models and whatever even justify what you are saying.

I'm not going to sit here for 8 hours teaching you economics. You should be capable of doing that on your own. I've already posted more than enough ITT.

However, if you criticize something (e.g. economics), then actually have something intelligent to say about it. Since you obviously cannot support your previous positions after being asked to do so, then go read a book. Internet dialogue isn't what you need.

Except, this has nothing to do with economics. This has to do with why you think economics should have so much more say in the world than any other piece of data or information.

But since you can't explain the inadequacies of economics, then your current contention is baseless.

Oh, I have done that many times... you just choose to ignore it as a bunch of "irrelevant externalities".

Ergo... why you think your paradigm should hold sway.

Lol, okay. Based on your history of posting, I doubt that. Perhaps you can find a link to your previous posts which allegedly explain the following:

explain what's wrong with the substitution effect. Explain which economic models you're talking about. Explain which variables for whatever models are being left out.


Or maybe the hidden secrets are locked in some random professor?


"you just choose to ignore it as a bunch of "irrelevant externalities"."

Perhaps you can quote me on that?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Lol, okay. Based on your history of posting, I doubt that. Perhaps you can find a link to your previous posts which allegedly explain the following:

explain what's wrong with the substitution effect. Explain which economic models you're talking about. Explain which variables for whatever models are being left out.


Or maybe the hidden secrets are locked in some random professor?


"you just choose to ignore it as a bunch of "irrelevant externalities"."

Perhaps you can quote me on that?

How about you just explain why you seem to think economics is the only subject that matters, overriding everything else.

I'm not going to sit here for 8 hours teaching you economics. You should be capable of doing that on your own. I've already posted more than enough ITT, so if you have a particular problem with something (hence, your baseless criticism against economics), then deal with that instead of dodging.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Lol, okay. Based on your history of posting, I doubt that. Perhaps you can find a link to your previous posts which allegedly explain the following:

explain what's wrong with the substitution effect. Explain which economic models you're talking about. Explain which variables for whatever models are being left out.


Or maybe the hidden secrets are locked in some random professor?


"you just choose to ignore it as a bunch of "irrelevant externalities"."

Perhaps you can quote me on that?

I am saying none of that matters because the real issue that will determine our grandchildren's future is global warming, lack of resources and all the current economic models are about interepreting current business, favor current practices.

That doesn't need to be the case, should not, but you are in the campe that constantly claims any real solution is just not economical or that some magic technological genie will just magically come up with a solution if the free market is allowed to work on its own. You say that, despite the fact that this has not yet happened in the entire history of humanity.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not going to sit here for 8 hours teaching you economics. You should be capable of doing that on your own. I've already posted more than enough ITT, so if you have a particular problem with something (hence, your baseless criticism against economics), then deal with that instead of dodging.

Nor am I going to give you a PhD lesson in natural resources or their usages or limits.

BUT...I am saying why you feel you can ignore the fact that the data you use to make your decisions is utterly skewed by fundamentally ignoring real resource limits, technological limits and basic human rights.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I am saying none of that matters because the real issue that will determine our grandchildren's future is global warming, lack of resources and all the current economic models are about interepreting current business, favor current practices.

Or it'll be about the alarmist governments that will get a windfall of taxes by continuing to push global warming in order to line their pockets with carbon taxes that will utterly devistate businesses and the middle class.