Minimum wage, or Living wage

which brings up the point.

Piezoe seems to support
1. the gov't bringing in low wage workers by the millions
2. the FED creating 700 percent inflation the last 50 years.

So now I ask... does Piezoe and his team support the cronies keeping wages down or the workers receiving them?

Normally I understand what is happening. Most lefties can not or do not think in systems. But I know piezoe is able to think in systems. I therefore wish to illustrate his cognitive dissonance till he decides to turn on his team.

Max E. Pad said:
If the fed would stop pushing inflation maybe wages could keep up, but everyone is on to the scam that we are supposedly in low inflation environment, anyone who buys a bag of groceries knows its b.s.
More...
 
Max E. Pad said:
If the fed would stop pushing inflation maybe wages could keep up, but everyone is on to the scam that we are supposedly in low inflation environment, anyone who buys a bag of groceries knows its b.s.
More...
Real wages haven't even kept up with the government's figure!!! That's causing severe damage to the overall economy.
 
Max E. Pad said:
If the fed would stop pushing inflation maybe wages could keep up, but everyone is on to the scam that we are supposedly in low inflation environment, anyone who buys a bag of groceries knows its b.s.
More...
It's not the fed, it is drought, disease, and herd culls.
 
jem said:
which brings up the point.

Piezoe seems to support
1. the gov't bringing in low wage workers by the millions
2. the FED creating 700 percent inflation the last 50 years.

So now I ask... does Piezoe and his team support the cronies keeping wages down or the workers receiving them?

Normally I understand what is happening. Most lefties can not or do not think in systems. But I know piezoe is able to think in systems. I therefore wish to illustrate his cognitive dissonance till he decides to turn on his team.
More...
Did you mean "illegal immigrants" by "...bringing in ... workers by the millions" ? I have commented on the issue of illegal immigration in past posts. If you were truly interested in what I really said, you might look those posts up.

I thought we had finished our discussion of the Fed some time ago. We disagree.
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
This is a very good article on Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

We disagree on a premise, viz., that free markets actually exist on other than a localized micro scale.
More...

Hello piezoe:

I did not find that article particularly helpful in telling me what you mean when you say you are a libertarian. Perhaps you can give a more direct answer.

The first sentence in the article says:

"Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective."

But later it says:

"libertarian socialists,[4] seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management."

The term "libertarian socialists" is an oxymoron, because what they are defined here as, is the exact opposite of "a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective.".

Why, because in order to achieve their objective "to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production" requires the elimination of private property which by definition means the state owns it.

See the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.

Since the state owns and controls the means of production not individuals, people no longer have the economic freedom to enjoy the fruits of their labor a they see fit. So this is hardly "a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective." in fact it is the exact opposite.

Socialism regardless of what adverb is put in front of requires ownership and control by the state. Calling it "common or cooperative ownership and management" sounds more pleasant but does change the fact that the state "owns and controls businesses" not private individuals. In this type of economy ownership and control is centralized and run by central planning committees, which is anti-democratic. Free market economies are democratic because ownership and control is decentralized and economic decisions are made by the people who make up the economy not central planning committees. The socialist command and control economy is an example of a philosophy that is the exact opposite of "a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective.".

In other words "libertarian socialists" are libertarian in name only.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fhl
piezoe said:
There is a huge fallacy here implicit in this post of yours. What you speak of only holds true in economics text books and theoretical models. In reality, there is hardly ever a free market where, as in in your scenario, labor and employer are equally free to accept or reject an offer. It's reality that intrudes and roughs up our tidy model! And that is why, in reality, we can get a stronger more robust economy by putting a floor under wages or a ceiling above welfare. The devil is in the details.
More...

Hello piezoe:

You say
“In reality, there is hardly ever a free market where, as in in your scenario, labor and employer are equally free to accept or reject an offer.”

Later you say
“We disagree on a premise, viz., that free markets actually exist on other than a localized micro scale.”

I gave you this definition of a free market:
“Free markets are created by people who disagree on value but agree on price.”

I also explained the role of value in a free market:
From “An Introduction to Economic Reasoning” by David Gordon
“An exchange is not an equality, but a double inequality. If I trade one of my apples for one of your oranges, then I value one orange more than one apple, and you value one apple more than one orange. Otherwise, no exchange would take place.”

So by definition a free market cannot exist for some thing if each party values what the other has the same. An exchange will only take place if the two parties have assigned a higher value to what the other has to offer compared to what they have to offer.

So when you say a free market hardly ever exists because labor and employer are not equally free to accept or reject an offer, it makes no sense. If an employer sees no higher value by exchanging wages for some ones labor and the laborer sees no higher value in exchanging his/her labor for the employers wages then no exchange will take place. This inequality of value is fundamental to the whole idea of a free market.

Free markets are every where and are the norm in the world not some thing that hardly ever exists. Look up history and read about the great trade routes. Why trade if there is not an inequality of value ?

Can you give your definition of a free market and the role of value in a free market ?

If we can't agree on the definitions of some thing so basic in economics as a “free market” and “value” we will just be talking past each other and not really communicating.

Anubis
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fhl
dilbert.gif
 
1. just fricken answer the question instead of dodging.

no --- I wrote what I wrote for a reason.
How many times do I have to direct this point at you.
Remember first you tried to blame Reagans tax cuts for poverty related problems.
I showed you in that we have 80 million immigrants and anchor babies here now. Those are legal immigrants who have been allowed in legally by your team and establishment republicans. On top of that we have 20 million illegal immigrants.

That is 100 million people driving up costs and keeping down wages in the last 40 years.

2. With respect to the FED we only got you part of the way to reality. You stated that the regional FED banks are owned by private shareholders. But, you still confused propaganda for fact and mix it in with your statements.




we have 20 million illegals at least and we have 80 million legal immigrants and anchor babies.

[/QUOTE]
piezoe said:
Did you mean "illegal immigrants" by "...bringing in ... workers by the millions" ? I have commented on the issue of illegal immigration in past posts. If you were truly interested in what I really said, you might look those posts up.

I thought we had finished our discussion of the Fed some time ago. We disagree.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top