The economic Illiteracy of the MOWS crowds.

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Baruch Menachem, Oct 10, 2011.

  1. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    The specifics of the incoherent are kind of vague, but while the specifics of the demand are not clear, the general idea is.

    High Tariffs only encourage monopoly. There is no way monopoly is good for the average citizen. High Tariffs mean high prices for shoddy goods.

    Tariffs on the particular states that have bad human rights and environmental records on a case by case basis might be a rational point of discussion. But just high tariffs on everything is a bad idea.

    I have no idea how they determine "living wage" standards. I would like to know what their criteria are.
     
  2. psikeyhackr
    Offline

    psikeyhackr VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    745
    Thanks Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +71
    Economists don't have economic illiteracy they just LIE.

    Economic Wargames

    How much have American consumers lost on the depreciation of automobiles every year since 1980? Who knows? Who cares? Not the economists. Manufacture more junk. Three cheers for GDP!

    So most people have no wealth because they worked their live away for junk and economists did not explain what was going on. The OWS crowd isn't talking about mandatory accounting and planned obsolescence. But the problem is older than what they talk about.

    psik
     
  3. kwc57
    Offline

    kwc57 BOHICA Obama

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,154
    Thanks Received:
    2,301
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Ratings:
    +2,788
    The same way Obama determines what a "fair share" is. :eusa_whistle: Honestly, these OWS folks have absolutely no idea how life, the world or business really works. They are just like children who think because mom and dad still have checks in the checkbook, they still have money. My step-nephew is one of the OWS types. He is 28 years old, only holds a job for a couple of weeks at a time, mooches of of my brother and his mother to live rent free and eat their food and currently is traveling the country playing folk music in coffee houses for pocket change. He wants to feed the starving children of the world. His mom tells him that he doesn't even know how to feed himself. His greatest ambition is to sit in cafes and coffee houses until 3 in the morning and sleep until 1 or 2 in the afternoon. But he thinks all of those rich people are greedy and stole the money from the people and should fork it over to people like him so he can make the world a better place. I kid you not, I'm serious as a heart attack.
     
  4. caela
    Offline

    caela Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    154
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22
    Why do these people think a "living wage" needs to be 20$ an hour? I don't make that much but I manage to live, relatively, comfortably supporting myself and my daughter. Things get tight sometimes but the bills get paid, we have a roof over our heads, and food on the dinner table. When a couple more of the debts (school loans and the car mostly) are entirely paid off, in a couple years, I'll be able to take the "relative" out of the sentence and just say we live comfortably.

    You don't need an exorbitant wage to live comfortably. You need to live within your means and realize that if you aren't rich, a Rolls Royce is probably not going to fit into the budget.
     
  5. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    They don't.

    Well, one of them does. He posted that on the forum. Most don't, though.
     
  6. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,779
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,289
    This belongs in Economy Section.

    'Living wage' is a tautology and like so many words / concepts only understood in the mind of the user. Is there such a thing as a non-living wage? It would seem that if we live in a civilized and fair society anyone could procure a wage that allow them to live nicely. Now look at wage statistics since Reagan, and tell us all about it. Or don't.

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/183410-the-road-to-prosperity.html
    http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/138954-five-zombie-economic-ideas-that-refuse-to-die.html
    http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/179218-who-speaks-for-the-children.html
    http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/152702-financial-crisis-was-avoidable-inquiry-finds.html


    "['Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act'— now widely referred to as welfare repeal]...fails to acknowledge the role that scientific poverty expertise played in bringing welfare as we knew it to an end. Following a well-established pattern in post–Great Society policy analysis, the Clinton administration’s poverty experts had already embraced and defined the parameters of a sweeping welfare reform featuring proposals that promised to change the behavior of poor people while paying little more than rhetorical attention to the problems of low-wage work, rising income inequality, or structural economic change, and none at all to the steadily mounting political disenfranchisement of the postindustrial working class. Approaching the poverty problem within the narrow conceptual frame of individual failings rather than structural inequality, of cultural and skill “deficits” rather than the unequal distribution of power and wealth, the social scientific architects of President Clinton’s original, comparatively less punitive welfare reform proposal made “dependency” their principal target and then stood by helpless as congressional conservatives took their logic to its radical extreme. Their helplessness in the matter was not just a matter of “bad” politics laying “good” scientific knowledge to waste. It was also a failure of the knowledge itself." Introduction, Alice O'Connor: 'Poverty Knowledge' [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Poverty-Knowledge-Science-Twentieth-Century-Politics/dp/0691102554/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8[/ame]
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2011
  7. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965

    Do the fucking math on a minimum $20 an hour wage.

    Idiot.
     
  8. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    I agree "living wage" is a tautology, but I have heard the phrase used repeatedly by those who want to increase the minimum wage for over 30 years. I still want to know how it is defined. Other than "More than I'g getting now"
     

Share This Page