Economics 101

[Rshermr]

Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...

• Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work.

• The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work

• The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact

• These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep

• On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer

30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work ’

100% true and outrageous. Prevents untold low-income people from entering higher-paying fields.

Uh, perhaps you have some sort of proof of your statements? Or do you just want people to believe a con troll based on a total lack of proof, no demonstrable knowledge of the subject at all, and no ability to provide a link to someone who is not a nut case. Stupid post.
The subject at hand is what those occupational licenses accomplish. You rather conveniently avoided that whole issue. dipshit.

There is proof "me idiotic boy". Click the freaking link. Oh wait....that's right....you don't know how to use this website yet. Ask an adult to show you how to click on the link.

So, let me see, me boy. If I use a far left bat shit crazy site, you would not take that as a source. And you would be correct, since the site would not be impartial. So, you use the Daily Signal and expect it to be a viable source. Which, me boy, it is not. It is, plain and simple, a bat shit crazy con web site. And you are simply wasting my time. I do not read drivel from such sites.
So, no. You posted nothing to read. Your freaking link is bullshit, and you just showed again that you are a con troll. And dishonest. Dipshit.
I do not waste people's time using bull shit sites, as it is an insult to people with a working mind. Nice try. Now, find a dictionary and try looking up impartial.

 

[Markle]

Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...

• Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work.

• The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work

• The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact

• These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep

• On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer

30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work ’

100% true and outrageous. Prevents untold low-income people from entering higher-paying fields.

Uh, perhaps you have some sort of proof of your statements? Or do you just want people to believe a con troll based on a total lack of proof, no demonstrable knowledge of the subject at all, and no ability to provide a link to someone who is not a nut case. Stupid post.
The subject at hand is what those occupational licenses accomplish. You rather conveniently avoided that whole issue. dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...

• Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work.

• The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work

• The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact

• These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep

• On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer

30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work ’

100% true and outrageous. Prevents untold low-income people from entering higher-paying fields.

Uh, perhaps you have some sort of proof of your statements? Or do you just want people to believe a con troll based on a total lack of proof, no demonstrable knowledge of the subject at all, and no ability to provide a link to someone who is not a nut case. Stupid post.
The subject at hand is what those occupational licenses accomplish. You rather conveniently avoided that whole issue. dipshit.

And, markel posts even more con talking points, from one more bat shit crazy con web site. Because cut and paste requires no intelligence. And, markel has no intelligence. It is perfect for the poor congenital idiot. Economic argument is beyond him. Not his fault. Just bad luck.

 

[P@triot]

Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...

• Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work.

• The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work

• The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact

• These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep

• On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer

30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work ’

100% true and outrageous. Prevents untold low-income people from entering higher-paying fields.

Uh, perhaps you have some sort of proof of your statements? Or do you just want people to believe a con troll based on a total lack of proof, no demonstrable knowledge of the subject at all, and no ability to provide a link to someone who is not a nut case. Stupid post.
The subject at hand is what those occupational licenses accomplish. You rather conveniently avoided that whole issue. dipshit.

And, markel posts even more con talking points, from one more bat shit crazy con web site. Because cut and paste requires no intelligence. And, markel has no intelligence. It is perfect for the poor congenital idiot. Economic argument is beyond him. Not his fault. Just bad luck.

You are the most economically ignorant person here, me boy. Your grammar and your ability to use a website are equally as lacking.

 

[Rshermr]

Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...

• Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work.

• The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work

• The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact

• These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep

• On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer

30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work ’

100% true and outrageous. Prevents untold low-income people from entering higher-paying fields.

Uh, perhaps you have some sort of proof of your statements? Or do you just want people to believe a con troll based on a total lack of proof, no demonstrable knowledge of the subject at all, and no ability to provide a link to someone who is not a nut case. Stupid post.
The subject at hand is what those occupational licenses accomplish. You rather conveniently avoided that whole issue. dipshit.

And, markel posts even more con talking points, from one more bat shit crazy con web site. Because cut and paste requires no intelligence. And, markel has no intelligence. It is perfect for the poor congenital idiot. Economic argument is beyond him. Not his fault. Just bad luck.

You are the most economically ignorant person here, me boy. Your grammar and your ability to use a website are equally as lacking.

No, me boy. I am not. But thanks for your opinion. You know how much I respect your opinion.
Did you have an economic argument you would like to try out, or are you simply a coward who posts personal attacks and lies. Oh, of course. You are a con troll. Personal attacks and lies are all you do.

 

[P@triot]

This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.

The Washington Post recently highlighted a new study from a group of economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle to look at that city's minimum wage hike from $9.96 an hour to $11.14 an hour. What they found was enlightening:

• Some of the workers weren't helped at all, since their pay would have likely gone up anyway with experience and tenure on the job.

• Although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase.

• Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike.

• The economists found that the minimum wage hike that sounded so generous when passed resulted in somewhere between a $5.54 a week raise and a $5.22 a week reduction in pay.

In comments that sounded as if they came straight out of an Econ 101 text, the Post concluded that "Increasing the minimum wage increases the costs of hiring workers. As a result, employers must accept reduced margins or customers must pay steeper prices. If employers cannot stay in business while paying their staff more, they will either hire fewer people or give their workers fewer hours. As a result, even if wages per hour increase workers' total earning could decline."

Turns out distorting the laws of economics for politics does not work after all.

The Bitter Lesson From Seattle's Minimum Wage Hike

Why raising the minimum wage in Seattle did little to help workers, according to a new study

 

[Rshermr]

This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.

The Washington Post recently highlighted a new study from a group of economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle to look at that city's minimum wage hike from $9.96 an hour to $11.14 an hour. What they found was enlightening:

• Some of the workers weren't helped at all, since their pay would have likely gone up anyway with experience and tenure on the job.

• Although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase.

• Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike.

• The economists found that the minimum wage hike that sounded so generous when passed resulted in somewhere between a $5.54 a week raise and a $5.22 a week reduction in pay.

In comments that sounded as if they came straight out of an Econ 101 text, the Post concluded that "Increasing the minimum wage increases the costs of hiring workers. As a result, employers must accept reduced margins or customers must pay steeper prices. If employers cannot stay in business while paying their staff more, they will either hire fewer people or give their workers fewer hours. As a result, even if wages per hour increase workers' total earning could decline."

Turns out distorting the laws of economics for politics does not work after all.

[/QUOTE]
That would be singularly untrue. You just pushed one nut case source, and one rational source by a just out of college author with his first real job, that came to conclusions you like. Most, on the other hand, do not pretend to know what will happen.
The seattle study is particularly interesting to me, since I live in the area and know that at this point no one knows what will happen over time with the min wage increase. And we have had every kind of study known to man. Cons like you only believe the ones they like. Others, who are rational, are waiting to see.
It is early in the progress of raising minimum wages in Seattle. All literature suggests that it will take some time to see the results. And there is not sufficient evidence at this point to be certain of the outcome. As in all previous minimum wage increases, the expected benefits will take a few months, and really a few years, to be truly and rationally measured.

Here is a middle of the road, and realistic study, by a long time economist:

"What happens when a study shows that a minimum-wage increase is simply having its intended effect? When it’s found to raise the pay of low-wage workers without causing much in the way of the job displacements that critics rail about? Unfortunately, one thing that apparently happens is the findings get misinterpreted (though, as I’ll show, this is partly due to the omission of key statistical information).

The study to which I’m referring examines the impact of the first stage of the minimum-wage increase in Seattle. In April 2015, the city raised its minimum wage from around $9.50 to $11, on the way to $15 an hour by 2017 (for employers with 500 or more employees and certain other employers; the minimum wage for most Seattle businesses rose to $10 in April 2015, and $15 will not go into effect for all Seattle businesses until 2021). The pay of affected workers went up almost 12 percent, compared to a 5 percent increase for workers in nearby, similar places that weren’t bound by the increase. The study’s authors concluded that the increase raised the pay of affected workers by seven percentage points more than might otherwise have occurred.

The study also found that, relative to historical trends, the rate at which low-wage workers affected by the increase stayed employed rose by about three percentage points. For workers in the control group, it was up four points. Thus, absent the minimum-wage increase, there’d arguably be one percentage point more affected workers employed in Seattle.

Putting aside for a moment the critical question of whether these changes are actually meaningful in a statistical sense, these outcomes fit comfortably into a view well understood by minimum-wage advocates and increasingly accepted by economists: most increases have their intended effect of lifting the pay of low-wage workers with little in the way of job losses.
To be clear, the fact that the policy has its intended effect doesn’t mean every affected worker ends up ahead (there is no policy on Earth that is always and everywhere costless to its intended beneficiaries). It means that the vast majority of low-wage workers end up with higher earnings. Even if some workers lose some hours of work, their annual income often goes up (which, in fact, is another finding from the study).

Minimum-wage opponents who claim that increases will cripple local economies, either overall or even in their low-wage sectors, thus get no help from the Seattle results. The study’s authors point out that one challenge in teasing out minimum-wage effects was that the Seattle economy “boomed” over this period, posting growth rates that “tripled the national average” and “outpaced Seattle’s own robust performance in recent years.”
Yet, despite these expected, generally positive findings, the study’s press coverage has been pretty negative. Attacks from knee-jerk opponents of the minimum wage — who in some cases are paid by the low-wage employer and lobby to shoot at anything that moves, regardless of the evidence — were expected and are easily dismissed. But writers who are typically more careful have also erroneously declared that “employment went down” in Seattle as a result of the increase (employment actually went up in Seattle relative to past trends), or that it “did little to help workers.” In reality, what’s unfolding in Seattle thus far reflects the conclusion of a recent, exhaustive review of the minimum-wage literature by Dale Belman and Paul Wolfson: “While not a full solution to the issues of low-wage work, [the minimum wage] is a useful instrument of policy that has low social costs and clear benefits.”

The study also has several important limitations, noted by minimum-wage scholar Michael Reich. First, as Reich explains, “The authors did not report the standard errors of the estimates, even though their calculations indicated that the employment effect was not distinguishable from zero.” This is a serious omission; policymakers cannot make informed decisions without that information.

Second, because of data limitations, the study analyzes employment changes solely in single-establishment firms. That means, for example, that retail and restaurant chains — groups significantly affected by the minimum wage — are generally left out of the study (multi-establishment employers account for half of Seattle’s jobs). In fact, when all establishments are included in the analysis, employment outcomes were relatively more positive in Seattle than in the control group, both for all firms and for lower-wage firms.

These and other problems, especially the omission of standard errors, need to be resolved. But for now, here’s what we can conclude: After Seattle raised its minimum wage, low-wage workers’ employment, hours and wages all rose substantially. Neighboring areas that had similar trends in these variables before the increase — and that, by the way, were also bound by the highest state minimum wage in the country when the increase took effect — saw even larger employment and hours gains. In other words, relatively high minimum wages in Seattle and in Washington more broadly have had their intended impact and have been perfectly compatible with a strong economy, one that’s handily beating national averages.

As the Seattle minimum wage phase-in progresses, and the differential between the wage there and elsewhere grows larger, perhaps we’ll get results that really do fall outside the bounds of the standard outcomes. But that hasn’t been the case thus far."
So far, the Seattle minimum-wage increase is doing what it’s supposed to do

So, there you go. Actual results more in line with Economics 101.

 

[phoenyx]

That would be singularly untrue. You just pushed one nut case source, and one rational source by a just out of college author with his first real job, that came to conclusions you like. Most, on the other hand, do not pretend to know what will happen.
The seattle study is particularly interesting to me, since I live in the area and know that at this point no one knows what will happen over time with the min wage increase. And we have had every kind of study known to man. Cons like you only believe the ones they like. Others, who are rational, are waiting to see.
It is early in the progress of raising minimum wages in Seattle. All literature suggests that it will take some time to see the results. And there is not sufficient evidence at this point to be certain of the outcome. As in all previous minimum wage increases, the expected benefits will take a few months, and really a few years, to be truly and rationally measured.

Here is a middle of the road, and realistic study, by a long time economist:

"What happens when a study shows that a minimum-wage increase is simply having its intended effect? When it’s found to raise the pay of low-wage workers without causing much in the way of the job displacements that critics rail about? Unfortunately, one thing that apparently happens is the findings get misinterpreted (though, as I’ll show, this is partly due to the omission of key statistical information).

The study to which I’m referring examines the impact of the first stage of the minimum-wage increase in Seattle. In April 2015, the city raised its minimum wage from around $9.50 to $11, on the way to $15 an hour by 2017 (for employers with 500 or more employees and certain other employers; the minimum wage for most Seattle businesses rose to $10 in April 2015, and $15 will not go into effect for all Seattle businesses until 2021). The pay of affected workers went up almost 12 percent, compared to a 5 percent increase for workers in nearby, similar places that weren’t bound by the increase. The study’s authors concluded that the increase raised the pay of affected workers by seven percentage points more than might otherwise have occurred.

The study also found that, relative to historical trends, the rate at which low-wage workers affected by the increase stayed employed rose by about three percentage points. For workers in the control group, it was up four points. Thus, absent the minimum-wage increase, there’d arguably be one percentage point more affected workers employed in Seattle.

Putting aside for a moment the critical question of whether these changes are actually meaningful in a statistical sense, these outcomes fit comfortably into a view well understood by minimum-wage advocates and increasingly accepted by economists: most increases have their intended effect of lifting the pay of low-wage workers with little in the way of job losses.
To be clear, the fact that the policy has its intended effect doesn’t mean every affected worker ends up ahead (there is no policy on Earth that is always and everywhere costless to its intended beneficiaries). It means that the vast majority of low-wage workers end up with higher earnings. Even if some workers lose some hours of work, their annual income often goes up (which, in fact, is another finding from the study).

Minimum-wage opponents who claim that increases will cripple local economies, either overall or even in their low-wage sectors, thus get no help from the Seattle results. The study’s authors point out that one challenge in teasing out minimum-wage effects was that the Seattle economy “boomed” over this period, posting growth rates that “tripled the national average” and “outpaced Seattle’s own robust performance in recent years.”
Yet, despite these expected, generally positive findings, the study’s press coverage has been pretty negative. Attacks from knee-jerk opponents of the minimum wage — who in some cases are paid by the low-wage employer and lobby to shoot at anything that moves, regardless of the evidence — were expected and are easily dismissed. But writers who are typically more careful have also erroneously declared that “employment went down” in Seattle as a result of the increase (employment actually went up in Seattle relative to past trends), or that it “did little to help workers.” In reality, what’s unfolding in Seattle thus far reflects the conclusion of a recent, exhaustive review of the minimum-wage literature by Dale Belman and Paul Wolfson: “While not a full solution to the issues of low-wage work, [the minimum wage] is a useful instrument of policy that has low social costs and clear benefits.”

The study also has several important limitations, noted by minimum-wage scholar Michael Reich. First, as Reich explains, “The authors did not report the standard errors of the estimates, even though their calculations indicated that the employment effect was not distinguishable from zero.” This is a serious omission; policymakers cannot make informed decisions without that information.

Second, because of data limitations, the study analyzes employment changes solely in single-establishment firms. That means, for example, that retail and restaurant chains — groups significantly affected by the minimum wage — are generally left out of the study (multi-establishment employers account for half of Seattle’s jobs). In fact, when all establishments are included in the analysis, employment outcomes were relatively more positive in Seattle than in the control group, both for all firms and for lower-wage firms.

These and other problems, especially the omission of standard errors, need to be resolved. But for now, here’s what we can conclude: After Seattle raised its minimum wage, low-wage workers’ employment, hours and wages all rose substantially. Neighboring areas that had similar trends in these variables before the increase — and that, by the way, were also bound by the highest state minimum wage in the country when the increase took effect — saw even larger employment and hours gains. In other words, relatively high minimum wages in Seattle and in Washington more broadly have had their intended impact and have been perfectly compatible with a strong economy, one that’s handily beating national averages.

As the Seattle minimum wage phase-in progresses, and the differential between the wage there and elsewhere grows larger, perhaps we’ll get results that really do fall outside the bounds of the standard outcomes. But that hasn’t been the case thus far."
So far, the Seattle minimum-wage increase is doing what it’s supposed to do

So, there you go. Actual results more in line with Economics 101.

Good article

 

[P@triot]

This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.

The Washington Post recently highlighted a new study from a group of economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle to look at that city's minimum wage hike from $9.96 an hour to $11.14 an hour. What they found was enlightening:

• Some of the workers weren't helped at all, since their pay would have likely gone up anyway with experience and tenure on the job.

• Although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase.

• Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike.

• The economists found that the minimum wage hike that sounded so generous when passed resulted in somewhere between a $5.54 a week raise and a $5.22 a week reduction in pay.

In comments that sounded as if they came straight out of an Econ 101 text, the Post concluded that "Increasing the minimum wage increases the costs of hiring workers. As a result, employers must accept reduced margins or customers must pay steeper prices. If employers cannot stay in business while paying their staff more, they will either hire fewer people or give their workers fewer hours. As a result, even if wages per hour increase workers' total earning could decline."

Turns out distorting the laws of economics for politics does not work after all.

That would be singularly untrue. You just pushed one nut case source, and one rational source by a just out of college author with his first real job, that came to conclusions you like. Most, on the other hand, do not pretend to know what will happen.

The seattle study is particularly interesting to me, since I live in the area and know that at this point no one knows what will happen over time with the min wage increase. And we have had every kind of study known to man. Cons like you only believe the ones they like. Others, who are rational, are waiting to see.

As always - you speak from a place of complete and total ignorance. Had you read the article (and you clearly didn't) you would have seen that the city of Seattle hired an independent firm to study the results and the author was sharing that firms findings (which were presented to the city of Seattle). Thank you for illustrating your profound ignorance, the fact that you comment without reading an article, and the fact that you are a blind, partisan buffoon - completely uninterested in the truth and only interested in your ideology.

 

[P@triot]

This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.

The Washington Post recently highlighted a new study from a group of economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle to look at that city's minimum wage hike from $9.96 an hour to $11.14 an hour. What they found was enlightening:

• Some of the workers weren't helped at all, since their pay would have likely gone up anyway with experience and tenure on the job.

• Although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase.

• Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike.

• The economists found that the minimum wage hike that sounded so generous when passed resulted in somewhere between a $5.54 a week raise and a $5.22 a week reduction in pay.

In comments that sounded as if they came straight out of an Econ 101 text, the Post concluded that "Increasing the minimum wage increases the costs of hiring workers. As a result, employers must accept reduced margins or customers must pay steeper prices. If employers cannot stay in business while paying their staff more, they will either hire fewer people or give their workers fewer hours. As a result, even if wages per hour increase workers' total earning could decline."

Turns out distorting the laws of economics for politics does not work after all.

That would be singularly untrue. You just pushed one nut case source, and one rational source by a just out of college author with his first real job, that came to conclusions you like. Most, on the other hand, do not pretend to know what will happen.

You continue to take ignorant to unprecedented levels. Right from the opening of the article:

"The [Washington] Post recently highlighted a new study from a group of economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle to look at that city's minimum wage hike from $9.96 an hour to $11.14 an hour. What they found was enlightening."

Had you actually read the article - you ignorant foreigner - you would have seen that you couldn't blame the author as it was not an opinion piece. He was simply sharing the findings of the economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle.

 

[P@triot]

This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.

The Washington Post recently highlighted a new study from a group of economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle to look at that city's minimum wage hike from $9.96 an hour to $11.14 an hour. What they found was enlightening:

• Some of the workers weren't helped at all, since their pay would have likely gone up anyway with experience and tenure on the job.

• Although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase.

• Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike.

• The economists found that the minimum wage hike that sounded so generous when passed resulted in somewhere between a $5.54 a week raise and a $5.22 a week reduction in pay.

In comments that sounded as if they came straight out of an Econ 101 text, the Post concluded that "Increasing the minimum wage increases the costs of hiring workers. As a result, employers must accept reduced margins or customers must pay steeper prices. If employers cannot stay in business while paying their staff more, they will either hire fewer people or give their workers fewer hours. As a result, even if wages per hour increase workers' total earning could decline."

Turns out distorting the laws of economics for politics does not work after all.

That would be singularly untrue. You just pushed one nut case source, and one rational source by a just out of college author with his first real job, that came to conclusions you like. Most, on the other hand, do not pretend to know what will happen.

Bwahahahaha! The average 8-year old knows what will happen. Minimum wage was implemented more than 75 years ago junior - had has been raised dozens of times ever since. The results are always the same. Only an ignorant liberal ideologue is baffled by what will occur.

 

[phoenyx]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Ah yes, Milton Friedman, the students of whom aided Pinochet's rise to power, complete with all of his atrocities...

****Those of us who imagine economists to be mild souls preoccupied with tedious abstractions are in for a shock from The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein's stunning, polemic re-examination of the last 30-plus years in the history of free-market capitalism. If we bought the myth of corporate globalization as a benign and bloodless process, Klein has more jolts in store.

The Canadian Klein is a columnist for The Nation and The Guardian and a former fellow at the London School of Economics. Her work on this, her third book, began in 2004, when she spent time in Iraq reporting on the reconstruction process for Harper's magazine. Her research is massive, meticulously documented and laid out in fluid, accessible and intriguing stories.

Klein's indictment revolves around Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning guru of the University of Chicago School of Economics and the brains behind the movement for unregulated corporate trade, the elimination of public services and the eradication of organized labor.

Klein begins in the 1950s, the depths of the Cold War, when Friedman refined his theory of pure capitalism as a counter to the threat of communism and a radical alternative to the mixed checks-and-balances system that was installed under the influence of economist John Maynard Keynes to combat the Great Depression. Under Friedman's precise mathematical theorem, the only functions permitted for government are police and armies. Everything else should be privatized.

With eager financial support from corporate interests, Friedman's theories made the Chicago school the powerhouse of academic economics in the U.S. The search for a live test laboratory -- a nation to erase and re-create from scratch -- did not take long.

When Augusto Pinochet's military junta prepared for the takeover of Chile in 1973, Friedman's students handed him a complete plan of economic reform in advance. Friedman himself visited the new dictator, urging him to press even harder -- by dint of troops, tanks and death squads -- at selling state-owned property, utilities and services to American corporations. The plan also included eliminating public medical care, education and transportation; arresting, torturing and executing labor leaders, social workers, academics and other troublemakers; and throwing hundreds of thousands out of work. The aim was to shock the entire population into stunned acquiescence to the new corporate economic policies. The term in use was "shock therapy."

The effect was to impoverish the majority of the population while enriching those in power. International corporations, being on the plush end of the equation, were delighted. The Chicago Boys, as Friedman's students were known, were ready for similar actions in Argentina, southern Brazil, Bolivia and beyond. By the 1980s large segments of Africa and Asia also had submitted to Friedman's shock treatment...**

Source: Caution, 'Disaster Capitalism' at Work | Naomi Klein

 

[P@triot]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Ah yes, Milton Friedman, the students of whom aided Pinochet's rise to power, complete with all of his atrocities...

• If we bought the myth of corporate globalization as a benign and bloodless process, Klein has more jolts in store.

• The Canadian Klein is a columnist

You instantly lost all credibility right there with those two points alone.. You're believing a left-wing columnist (pushing propaganda) over an honest economist.

Everything stated in your post was pure propaganda and history proves as much. Just look at Cuba (the ultimate liberal utopia) - which has wallowed in extreme poverty for about 60 years now. Just look at Venezuela (another liberal utopia) - which has completely collapsed to the point that one of the most coveted items on the black market is toilet paper (yes - toilet paper). Liberalism ensures complete and total economic and moral collapse - to the point where even the most basic necessities are not available.

Conversely - capitalism has lifted every single individual out of poverty. The standard of living has never been higher thanks to capitalism. The people who live in "poverty" in the U.S. today don't even remotely know what poverty is. The average household in "poverty" in America has air conditioning, tv with cable, and even a freaking game console. That is the type of "poverty" that capitalism delivers - where the poorest among us live a life of luxury that includes the most frivolous of items.

As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

 

[edthecynic]

The average household in "poverty" in America has air conditioning, tv with cable, and even a freaking game console.

And yet the Right says that the "War on Poverty" has failed!

 

[Rshermr]

This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.

The Washington Post recently highlighted a new study from a group of economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle to look at that city's minimum wage hike from $9.96 an hour to $11.14 an hour. What they found was enlightening:

• Some of the workers weren't helped at all, since their pay would have likely gone up anyway with experience and tenure on the job.

• Although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase.

• Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike.

• The economists found that the minimum wage hike that sounded so generous when passed resulted in somewhere between a $5.54 a week raise and a $5.22 a week reduction in pay.

In comments that sounded as if they came straight out of an Econ 101 text, the Post concluded that "Increasing the minimum wage increases the costs of hiring workers. As a result, employers must accept reduced margins or customers must pay steeper prices. If employers cannot stay in business while paying their staff more, they will either hire fewer people or give their workers fewer hours. As a result, even if wages per hour increase workers' total earning could decline."

Turns out distorting the laws of economics for politics does not work after all.

That would be singularly untrue. You just pushed one nut case source, and one rational source by a just out of college author with his first real job, that came to conclusions you like. Most, on the other hand, do not pretend to know what will happen.

Bwahahahaha! The average 8-year old knows what will happen. Minimum wage was implemented more than 75 years ago junior - had has been raised dozens of times ever since. The results are always the same. Only an ignorant liberal ideologue is baffled by what will occur.



The average 8-year old knows what will happen.
How many years before you get to be 8 years old?

Minimum wage was implemented more than 75 years ago junior - had has been raised dozens of times ever since.
Yes Indeed. 1938 during the Great Republican Depression of 1929. Did you have a point?

The results are always the same.
Yes, so far, the results have been uniformly positive.

Only an ignorant liberal ideologue is baffled by what will occur.
Name some on who is baffled based on the opinion of an expert in the field. Not a dolt like yourself.

Here. When you learn to read, try this short piece from Brookings:

"In a speech yesterday, President Obama again called on Congress to raise the federal minimum wage. Brookings scholars have continued to offer analysis and recommendations on the issue.

Senior Fellow Gary Burtless offers these six points when thinking about such a policy:

1) The minimum wage is currently lower, in purchasing-power terms, than it was in every year from 1956 through 1983.


2) As the President pointed out in the speech, the minimum wage is even lower in purchasing-power terms than it was in one year of the Truman Administration (1950).

3) Relative to the average wage paid to U.S. workers the current minimum wage is comparatively low by historical standards. Today’s minimum wage is about 37% of the average wage; in 1968 it was a little more than 50% of the average wage. (Source: Economic Policy Institute)

4) The empirical evidence on the effect of boosting the minimum wage, even in slack labor markets, suggests that the adverse employment effects are small. The adverse effects are primarily concentrated on workers who are under age 20, and those minimum-wage workers account for less than a quarter of all workers earning the minimum wage. Even for teenage workers the adverse employment impact is likely to be comparatively small.

5) Even using opponents’ estimates of the adverse employment effects of a minimum-wage hike, low income workers as a whole end up considerably better off after the minimum wage is raised. That is because the weekly earnings gains enjoyed by low-wage workers who remain employed is considerably bigger than the weekly earnings lost as a result of lower employment. Low-wage workers recognize this fact, which is why they support a minimum-wage hike by a sizable margin.

6) In fact, increasing the minimum wage commands broad support in the adult population. It is one of the few explicitly redistributive measures of the government that enjoys such broad popular support."
6 Facts about a Minimum Wage Increase | Brookings Institution

If you are a con, you oppose the minimum wage and any raise in it. Because you believe what you are told to believe.

 

[Rshermr]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Ah yes, Milton Friedman, the students of whom aided Pinochet's rise to power, complete with all of his atrocities...

• If we bought the myth of corporate globalization as a benign and bloodless process, Klein has more jolts in store.

• The Canadian Klein is a columnist

You instantly lost all credibility right there with those two points alone.. You're believing a left-wing columnist (pushing propaganda) over an honest economist.

Everything stated in your post was pure propaganda and history proves as much. Just look at Cuba (the ultimate liberal utopia) - which has wallowed in extreme poverty for about 60 years now. Just look at Venezuela (another liberal utopia) - which has completely collapsed to the point that one of the most coveted items on the black market is toilet paper (yes - toilet paper). Liberalism ensures complete and total economic and moral collapse - to the point where even the most basic necessities are not available.

Conversely - capitalism has lifted every single individual out of poverty. The standard of living has never been higher thanks to capitalism. The people who live in "poverty" in the U.S. today don't even remotely know what poverty is. The average household in "poverty" in America has air conditioning, tv with cable, and even a freaking game console. That is the type of "poverty" that capitalism delivers - where the poorest among us live a life of luxury that includes the most frivolous of items.

As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

So, again, you are incapable of using an impartial source. Instead, you pick the right wing web site heritage. Let me go get you an article from a left case nut case web site to prove you wrong. Na. That would be dishonest, and ruin my integrity. I will leave that to you, since you do not care in the slightest about integrity.

 

[P@triot]

The average household in "poverty" in America has air conditioning, tv with cable, and even a freaking game console.

And yet the Right says that the "War on Poverty" has failed!

And yet the Left declares that we need more money and benefits for those in "poverty"!!! Oops!!

 

[Rshermr]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Ah yes, Milton Friedman, the students of whom aided Pinochet's rise to power, complete with all of his atrocities...

• If we bought the myth of corporate globalization as a benign and bloodless process, Klein has more jolts in store.

• The Canadian Klein is a columnist

You instantly lost all credibility right there with those two points alone.. You're believing a left-wing columnist (pushing propaganda) over an honest economist.

Everything stated in your post was pure propaganda and history proves as much. Just look at Cuba (the ultimate liberal utopia) - which has wallowed in extreme poverty for about 60 years now. Just look at Venezuela (another liberal utopia) - which has completely collapsed to the point that one of the most coveted items on the black market is toilet paper (yes - toilet paper). Liberalism ensures complete and total economic and moral collapse - to the point where even the most basic necessities are not available.

Conversely - capitalism has lifted every single individual out of poverty. The standard of living has never been higher thanks to capitalism. The people who live in "poverty" in the U.S. today don't even remotely know what poverty is. The average household in "poverty" in America has air conditioning, tv with cable, and even a freaking game console. That is the type of "poverty" that capitalism delivers - where the poorest among us live a life of luxury that includes the most frivolous of items.

As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

Wrong. Th only one pushing propoganda is you. And that is simply normal. Because that is what right wing nut case trolls do, which is lie a lot.

 

[P@triot]

Minimum wage was implemented more than 75 years ago junior - had has been raised dozens of times ever since. The results are always the same.

Yes, so far, the results have been uniformly positive.

If the results have been "uniformly positive" then why do libtards insist that we need to keep raising the minimum wage?!?

You continue to take ignorant to unprecedented levels.

 

[P@triot]

This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.

The Washington Post recently highlighted a new study from a group of economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle to look at that city's minimum wage hike from $9.96 an hour to $11.14 an hour. What they found was enlightening:

• Some of the workers weren't helped at all, since their pay would have likely gone up anyway with experience and tenure on the job.

• Although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase.

• Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike.

• The economists found that the minimum wage hike that sounded so generous when passed resulted in somewhere between a $5.54 a week raise and a $5.22 a week reduction in pay.

In comments that sounded as if they came straight out of an Econ 101 text, the Post concluded that "Increasing the minimum wage increases the costs of hiring workers. As a result, employers must accept reduced margins or customers must pay steeper prices. If employers cannot stay in business while paying their staff more, they will either hire fewer people or give their workers fewer hours. As a result, even if wages per hour increase workers' total earning could decline."

Turns out distorting the laws of economics for politics does not work after all.

That would be singularly untrue. You just pushed one nut case source, and one rational source by a just out of college author with his first real job, that came to conclusions you like. Most, on the other hand, do not pretend to know what will happen.

Bwahahahaha! The average 8-year old knows what will happen. Minimum wage was implemented more than 75 years ago junior - had has been raised dozens of times ever since. The results are always the same. Only an ignorant liberal ideologue is baffled by what will occur.



The average 8-year old knows what will happen.
How many years before you get to be 8 years old?

Minimum wage was implemented more than 75 years ago junior - had has been raised dozens of times ever since.
Yes Indeed. 1938 during the Great Republican Depression of 1929. Did you have a point?

The results are always the same.
Yes, so far, the results have been uniformly positive.

Only an ignorant liberal ideologue is baffled by what will occur.
Name some on who is baffled based on the opinion of an expert in the field. Not a dolt like yourself.

Here. When you learn to read, try this short piece from Brookings:

"In a speech yesterday, President Obama again called on Congress to raise the federal minimum wage. Brookings scholars have continued to offer analysis and recommendations on the issue.

Senior Fellow Gary Burtless offers these six points when thinking about such a policy:

1) The minimum wage is currently lower, in purchasing-power terms, than it was in every year from 1956 through 1983.


2) As the President pointed out in the speech, the minimum wage is even lower in purchasing-power terms than it was in one year of the Truman Administration (1950).

3) Relative to the average wage paid to U.S. workers the current minimum wage is comparatively low by historical standards. Today’s minimum wage is about 37% of the average wage; in 1968 it was a little more than 50% of the average wage. (Source: Economic Policy Institute)

4) The empirical evidence on the effect of boosting the minimum wage, even in slack labor markets, suggests that the adverse employment effects are small. The adverse effects are primarily concentrated on workers who are under age 20, and those minimum-wage workers account for less than a quarter of all workers earning the minimum wage. Even for teenage workers the adverse employment impact is likely to be comparatively small.

5) Even using opponents’ estimates of the adverse employment effects of a minimum-wage hike, low income workers as a whole end up considerably better off after the minimum wage is raised. That is because the weekly earnings gains enjoyed by low-wage workers who remain employed is considerably bigger than the weekly earnings lost as a result of lower employment. Low-wage workers recognize this fact, which is why they support a minimum-wage hike by a sizable margin.

6) In fact, increasing the minimum wage commands broad support in the adult population. It is one of the few explicitly redistributive measures of the government that enjoys such broad popular support."
6 Facts about a Minimum Wage Increase | Brookings Institution

If you are a con, you oppose the minimum wage and any raise in it. Because you believe what you are told to believe.

Seriously....could you please ask an adult to show you how to use this website so that my posts don't appear as your posts? You're ignorant - I don't want you taking credit for my work. And I sure as hell don't want my quotes to be attributed to you. I know it's embarrassing that you can't figure out how to use a computer or a website but just tell the adult that you're a liberal. They will immediately understand (after all - you people can't even survive on your own without government taking care of you so nobody expects you to have "advanced" skills like computers and websites if you can't even figure out how to feed yourselves without government food stamps).