What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[CultureCitizen]

Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?

What would happen if the government and employers cooperate to boost the minimum wage to say, a very high figure. What would happen to the economy in the short and long run

It is complicated: some businesses would have to raise the prices of their products / services. On the other hand, more money would mean more purchasing power and more expenses.

Other alternatives are to establish a minimum income ( a negative income tax) that is an idea which was supported by both Hayek and Friedman.

 

[Rshermr]

If anyone wants to read a text on economics that makes sense...I strongly suggest reading anything that Sowell has written on the subject.

He wrote just one. Not well received, except in right wing circles. Here is a comment or two.
Responding to the question would you recommend Sowells text, the response was a list of other texts and the following in response to Sowell's text:

"I would say no. A strong and resounding "NO!"
Perhaps if you are looking for a primer on American libertarianism, it's not bad, though Rothbard is perhaps more cited.
But for an unbiased intro to economics, you would be better served by a book written by a mainstream or at least professional economist."
Is the book 'Basic Economics' by Thomas Sowell a decent primer of the study? Will his obvious resent for non-capitalist systems interfere at all? • /r/AskSocialScience

Reviews of the text are generally not favorable. There are good texts, and there are those that fall short. This one falls short, according to the multiple reviews out there.

Reviews of the text are generally not favorable.

Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.

So, that must be why this "leftist" source points favorably toward several Friedman texts. The problem with Sowell's texts are many. But mostly that it is partial. Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement. Which is beyond the understanding of Libertarians like yourself.
Just think what you could learn if you actually read the sources statements.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must. So, me boy, are you suggesting that Samuelson's Economics was a fake impartial text? I think you are a simple con troll, and practicing Libertarian hopeful. Any proof that Samuelson was not impartial?
Do you know what impartial is?
Care to suggest what is partial about samuelson's text?

So, in my humble but correct opinion, having spent hundreds of hours in Samuelson's texts, that the authors have done all possible to make the text's impartial. Which is why I know your assertions are untrue, perhaps lies or ignorance, but without question basically stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If anyone wants to read a text on economics that makes sense...I strongly suggest reading anything that Sowell has written on the subject.

He wrote just one. Not well received, except in right wing circles. Here is a comment or two.
Responding to the question would you recommend Sowells text, the response was a list of other texts and the following in response to Sowell's text:

"I would say no. A strong and resounding "NO!"
Perhaps if you are looking for a primer on American libertarianism, it's not bad, though Rothbard is perhaps more cited.
But for an unbiased intro to economics, you would be better served by a book written by a mainstream or at least professional economist."
Is the book 'Basic Economics' by Thomas Sowell a decent primer of the study? Will his obvious resent for non-capitalist systems interfere at all? • /r/AskSocialScience

Reviews of the text are generally not favorable. There are good texts, and there are those that fall short. This one falls short, according to the multiple reviews out there.

Reviews of the text are generally not favorable.

Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.

So, that must be why this "leftist" source points favorably toward several Friedman texts. The problem with Sowell's texts are many. But mostly that it is partial. Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement. Which is beyond the understanding of Libertarians like yourself.
Just think what you could learn if you actually read the sources statements.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must. So, me boy, are you suggesting that Samuelson's Economics was a fake impartial text? I think you are a simple con troll, and practicing Libertarian hopeful. Any proof that Samuelson was not impartial?
Do you know what impartial is?
Care to suggest what is partial about samuelson's text?

So, in my humble but correct opinion, having spent hundreds of hours in Samuelson's texts, that the authors have done all possible to make the text's impartial. Which is why I know your assertions are untrue, perhaps lies or ignorance, but without question basically stupid.

You've spent hundreds of hours reading Samuelson?

And you're still spreading your economic errors and idiocy? Weird.

 

[Rshermr]

He wrote just one. Not well received, except in right wing circles. Here is a comment or two.
Responding to the question would you recommend Sowells text, the response was a list of other texts and the following in response to Sowell's text:

"I would say no. A strong and resounding "NO!"
Perhaps if you are looking for a primer on American libertarianism, it's not bad, though Rothbard is perhaps more cited.
But for an unbiased intro to economics, you would be better served by a book written by a mainstream or at least professional economist."
Is the book 'Basic Economics' by Thomas Sowell a decent primer of the study? Will his obvious resent for non-capitalist systems interfere at all? • /r/AskSocialScience

Reviews of the text are generally not favorable. There are good texts, and there are those that fall short. This one falls short, according to the multiple reviews out there.

Reviews of the text are generally not favorable.

Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.

So, that must be why this "leftist" source points favorably toward several Friedman texts. The problem with Sowell's texts are many. But mostly that it is partial. Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement. Which is beyond the understanding of Libertarians like yourself.
Just think what you could learn if you actually read the sources statements.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must. So, me boy, are you suggesting that Samuelson's Economics was a fake impartial text? I think you are a simple con troll, and practicing Libertarian hopeful. Any proof that Samuelson was not impartial?
Do you know what impartial is?
Care to suggest what is partial about samuelson's text?

So, in my humble but correct opinion, having spent hundreds of hours in Samuelson's texts, that the authors have done all possible to make the text's impartial. Which is why I know your assertions are untrue, perhaps lies or ignorance, but without question basically stupid.

You've spent hundreds of hours reading Samuelson? Easily. Twas the text of choice for introductory economics, first three quarters. And a version was used for economics for non majors.
And you're still spreading your economic errors and idiocy? One of the things I learned over the years is that those ignorant of economic history and facts can not tell the difference between reality and fantasy. You are an obvious example.

Weird. Yes you are
Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs and make you look silly is no reason for you to feel inferior. I suspect that if you actually tried to understand economics, instead of trying to make it fit the concepts of Conservative Talking points, you would be able to carry on a reasonable conversation relative to the subject. As you are, you would be laughed out of a serious economics discussion.

You made no effort at all at showing me where Samuelson's Economics was not impartial. What a surprise.

 

[OnePercenter]

Three million American workers are at or near minimum wage. THREE MILLION. Pretty bleak for the richest country in the world.

Three million American workers are at or near minimum wage. THREE MILLION.

We don't live in Lake Wobegone.

Pretty bleak for the richest country in the world.

If you raise it to $10 or $15, many multiples of 3 million would be at or near minimum wage.
You'd be making it even bleaker!!!

I care about the three million people. You, not so much. Sociopath.

Except $15.00/hr is closer to where minimum should be, $23.50/hr. More money spent by the middle class, the faster the economy will improve.

Then you hire people to sweep your floors for 25 an hour. If you don't not only are you a hypocrite but by your definition you are a sociopath

People that sweep floors don't maintain the infrastructure of a business?

do you pay people 25 an hour to push a broom?

FYI that's a yes or no question

YES, but like everywhere else, that's only PART of their duties.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reviews of the text are generally not favorable.

Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.

So, that must be why this "leftist" source points favorably toward several Friedman texts. The problem with Sowell's texts are many. But mostly that it is partial. Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement. Which is beyond the understanding of Libertarians like yourself.
Just think what you could learn if you actually read the sources statements.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must. So, me boy, are you suggesting that Samuelson's Economics was a fake impartial text? I think you are a simple con troll, and practicing Libertarian hopeful. Any proof that Samuelson was not impartial?
Do you know what impartial is?
Care to suggest what is partial about samuelson's text?

So, in my humble but correct opinion, having spent hundreds of hours in Samuelson's texts, that the authors have done all possible to make the text's impartial. Which is why I know your assertions are untrue, perhaps lies or ignorance, but without question basically stupid.

You've spent hundreds of hours reading Samuelson? Easily. Twas the text of choice for introductory economics, first three quarters. And a version was used for economics for non majors.
And you're still spreading your economic errors and idiocy? One of the things I learned over the years is that those ignorant of economic history and facts can not tell the difference between reality and fantasy. You are an obvious example.

Weird. Yes you are
Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs and make you look silly is no reason for you to feel inferior. I suspect that if you actually tried to understand economics, instead of trying to make it fit the concepts of Conservative Talking points, you would be able to carry on a reasonable conversation relative to the subject. As you are, you would be laughed out of a serious economics discussion.

You made no effort at all at showing me where Samuelson's Economics was not impartial. What a surprise.

Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs

Where did you correct my beliefs?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you are referring to an economic system that has never in the history of earth worked.

actually our Founders were capitalist libertarians and the they created the greatest country in human history!

 

[Rshermr]

you are referring to an economic system that has never in the history of earth worked.

actually our Founders were capitalist libertarians and the they created the greatest country in human history!

Hardly. the founders were generally afraid of corporations, and legislated to keep them under control. And the nation was NEVER libertarian, except in your little ignorant mind. But the issue was finding a successful libertarian nation, one that succeeded and withstood time. Unlike the US, which got further from the ideal as it became a major country. You loose again, me boy. Just a problem with being stupid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hardly. the founders were generally afraid of corporations, and legislated to keep them under control.

there were not corporations then as we know them today, only govt monopolies. You have learned this 10 times. Shall we try for 11?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. And the nation was NEVER libertarian, .

Welcome to your first lesson in American History:

the govt then was 1% the size of todays on a per capita inflation adjusted basis so that makes it perfectly libertarian!!!

"The path we have to pursue [when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."-Thomas Jefferson

 

[Rshermr]

Reviews of the text are generally not favorable.

Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.

So, that must be why this "leftist" source points favorably toward several Friedman texts. The problem with Sowell's texts are many. But mostly that it is partial. Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement. Which is beyond the understanding of Libertarians like yourself.
Just think what you could learn if you actually read the sources statements.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must. So, me boy, are you suggesting that Samuelson's Economics was a fake impartial text? I think you are a simple con troll, and practicing Libertarian hopeful. Any proof that Samuelson was not impartial?
Do you know what impartial is?
Care to suggest what is partial about samuelson's text?

So, in my humble but correct opinion, having spent hundreds of hours in Samuelson's texts, that the authors have done all possible to make the text's impartial. Which is why I know your assertions are untrue, perhaps lies or ignorance, but without question basically stupid.

You've spent hundreds of hours reading Samuelson? Easily. Twas the text of choice for introductory economics, first three quarters. And a version was used for economics for non majors.
And you're still spreading your economic errors and idiocy? One of the things I learned over the years is that those ignorant of economic history and facts can not tell the difference between reality and fantasy. You are an obvious example.

Weird. Yes you are
Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs and make you look silly is no reason for you to feel inferior. I suspect that if you actually tried to understand economics, instead of trying to make it fit the concepts of Conservative Talking points, you would be able to carry on a reasonable conversation relative to the subject. As you are, you would be laughed out of a serious economics discussion.

You made no effort at all at showing me where Samuelson's Economics was not impartial. What a surprise.

Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs

Where did you correct my beliefs?
Post 94 and 102 in this thread, and many instances over time. As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

Still waiting for you to back up your statement here:
Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must, you said.
But, you can not back up your statement, as it is untrue. Lie?

 

[Rshermr]

. And the nation was NEVER libertarian, .

Welcome to your first lesson in American History:

the govt then was 1% the size of todays on a per capita inflation adjusted basis so that makes it perfectly libertarian!!!

"The path we have to pursue [when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."-Thomas Jefferson

let me try to help you again. Probably impossible, me ignorant con troll. You see, you proved what we all knew. The government was small, but it was not Libertarian. And the country was not yet successful. So, only you believe it was a libertarian economy. And that is because you want to believe it. And, of course, because you are a con troll. And because you are stupid.
Over time, you should also know, the people saw to it that the government got larger (Reagan, for example, increased it in size greatly}. So, as the economy got larger it became more and more socialist in nature, less and less capitalist in nature. Today, it is mixed. Your bike is produced by a capitalist company. Your roads by a socialist entity.
Sorry, Ed. You loose again. As always.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must. So, me boy, are you suggesting that Samuelson's Economics was a fake impartial text? I think you are a simple con troll, and practicing Libertarian hopeful. Any proof that Samuelson was not impartial?
Do you know what impartial is?
Care to suggest what is partial about samuelson's text?

So, in my humble but correct opinion, having spent hundreds of hours in Samuelson's texts, that the authors have done all possible to make the text's impartial. Which is why I know your assertions are untrue, perhaps lies or ignorance, but without question basically stupid.

You've spent hundreds of hours reading Samuelson? Easily. Twas the text of choice for introductory economics, first three quarters. And a version was used for economics for non majors.
And you're still spreading your economic errors and idiocy? One of the things I learned over the years is that those ignorant of economic history and facts can not tell the difference between reality and fantasy. You are an obvious example.

Weird. Yes you are
Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs and make you look silly is no reason for you to feel inferior. I suspect that if you actually tried to understand economics, instead of trying to make it fit the concepts of Conservative Talking points, you would be able to carry on a reasonable conversation relative to the subject. As you are, you would be laughed out of a serious economics discussion.

You made no effort at all at showing me where Samuelson's Economics was not impartial. What a surprise.

Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs

Where did you correct my beliefs?
Post 94 and 102 in this thread, and many instances over time. As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

Still waiting for you to back up your statement here:
Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must, you said.
But, you can not back up your statement, as it is untrue. Lie?

Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.

Where do you feel you corrected this?

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must

Ditto.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Thanks for the laugh.


As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.

 

[Rshermr]

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must. So, me boy, are you suggesting that Samuelson's Economics was a fake impartial text? I think you are a simple con troll, and practicing Libertarian hopeful. Any proof that Samuelson was not impartial?
Do you know what impartial is?
Care to suggest what is partial about samuelson's text?

So, in my humble but correct opinion, having spent hundreds of hours in Samuelson's texts, that the authors have done all possible to make the text's impartial. Which is why I know your assertions are untrue, perhaps lies or ignorance, but without question basically stupid.

You've spent hundreds of hours reading Samuelson? Easily. Twas the text of choice for introductory economics, first three quarters. And a version was used for economics for non majors.
And you're still spreading your economic errors and idiocy? One of the things I learned over the years is that those ignorant of economic history and facts can not tell the difference between reality and fantasy. You are an obvious example.

Weird. Yes you are
Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs and make you look silly is no reason for you to feel inferior. I suspect that if you actually tried to understand economics, instead of trying to make it fit the concepts of Conservative Talking points, you would be able to carry on a reasonable conversation relative to the subject. As you are, you would be laughed out of a serious economics discussion.

You made no effort at all at showing me where Samuelson's Economics was not impartial. What a surprise.

Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs

Where did you correct my beliefs?
Post 94 and 102 in this thread, and many instances over time. As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

Still waiting for you to back up your statement here:
Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must, you said.
But, you can not back up your statement, as it is untrue. Lie?

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
2. It is stupid. Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.
3. Liberals and most all other students get impartial texts, and have no experience with "texts that point out the failures of their economic systems." Perhaps if you went to a good right wing nut case college, like Liberty university, you could find texts suggesting that economic systems are bad in some way. My experience says it does not happen in actual normal higher education. But it does exist, obviously, in the ignorant mind of con trolls.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.
Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, so you have some proof that my statement is untrue? Of course you do not. But thanks for proving again that you are a con troll. There is this thing called integrity. Professors I have met have it. Most cons do not.


As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.
See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've spent hundreds of hours reading Samuelson? Easily. Twas the text of choice for introductory economics, first three quarters. And a version was used for economics for non majors.
And you're still spreading your economic errors and idiocy? One of the things I learned over the years is that those ignorant of economic history and facts can not tell the difference between reality and fantasy. You are an obvious example.

Weird. Yes you are
Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs and make you look silly is no reason for you to feel inferior. I suspect that if you actually tried to understand economics, instead of trying to make it fit the concepts of Conservative Talking points, you would be able to carry on a reasonable conversation relative to the subject. As you are, you would be laughed out of a serious economics discussion.

You made no effort at all at showing me where Samuelson's Economics was not impartial. What a surprise.

Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs

Where did you correct my beliefs?
Post 94 and 102 in this thread, and many instances over time. As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

Still waiting for you to back up your statement here:
Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must, you said.
But, you can not back up your statement, as it is untrue. Lie?

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
2. It is stupid. Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.
3. Liberals and most all other students get impartial texts, and have no experience with "texts that point out the failures of their economic systems." Perhaps if you went to a good right wing nut case college, like Liberty university, you could find texts suggesting that economic systems are bad in some way. My experience says it does not happen in actual normal higher education. But it does exist, obviously, in the ignorant mind of con trolls.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.
Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, so you have some proof that my statement is untrue? Of course you do not. But thanks for proving again that you are a con troll. There is this thing called integrity. Professors I have met have it. Most cons do not.


As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.
See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people.

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.

Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?

Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.

Not the ones I see

See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people

The evidence tells me you aren't rational.

 

[Rshermr]

You've spent hundreds of hours reading Samuelson? Easily. Twas the text of choice for introductory economics, first three quarters. And a version was used for economics for non majors.
And you're still spreading your economic errors and idiocy? One of the things I learned over the years is that those ignorant of economic history and facts can not tell the difference between reality and fantasy. You are an obvious example.

Weird. Yes you are
Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs and make you look silly is no reason for you to feel inferior. I suspect that if you actually tried to understand economics, instead of trying to make it fit the concepts of Conservative Talking points, you would be able to carry on a reasonable conversation relative to the subject. As you are, you would be laughed out of a serious economics discussion.

You made no effort at all at showing me where Samuelson's Economics was not impartial. What a surprise.

Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs

Where did you correct my beliefs?
Post 94 and 102 in this thread, and many instances over time. As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

Still waiting for you to back up your statement here:
Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must, you said.
But, you can not back up your statement, as it is untrue. Lie?

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
2. It is stupid. Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.
3. Liberals and most all other students get impartial texts, and have no experience with "texts that point out the failures of their economic systems." Perhaps if you went to a good right wing nut case college, like Liberty university, you could find texts suggesting that economic systems are bad in some way. My experience says it does not happen in actual normal higher education. But it does exist, obviously, in the ignorant mind of con trolls.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.
Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, so you have some proof that my statement is untrue? Of course you do not. But thanks for proving again that you are a con troll. There is this thing called integrity. Professors I have met have it. Most cons do not.


As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.
See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people.

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
You stated lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems. With no proof.
So, lets dissect your stupidity for a moment : 1. Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems. They are not "their" economic system.
2. Since they do not have the economic system that you said they had, there is no concern on their part should the text show the system's shortcomings.
3. Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems, but point out the potential problems and past failures of all economic systems.
4. Students of all types dislike economic texts because they can be uninteresting. But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked, or the negative aspects of economic systems they liked. Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern. Again, for cons, truth is what they want to believe. For others, truth is what can be proven.
5. I never ever saw an econ professor criticize an economic system unfairly. Ever. I did see conservative students get upset when a professor would discuss the positive aspects of communism, or of socialism.
Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?
My bet is that you do not. You simply, me boy, imagine it.


Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.

Not the ones I see
Yes, but then, you are a con troll. So you are unaffected by the truth.


See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people

The evidence tells me you aren't rational.
You do not look at evidence. See, your malfunction is that you think that con talking points and evidence are the same thing. And you have no integrity.

 

[Rshermr]

Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs

Where did you correct my beliefs?
Post 94 and 102 in this thread, and many instances over time. As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must, you said.
But, you can not back up your statement, as it is untrue. Lie?[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]


Your statement that states: Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
2. It is stupid. Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.
3. Liberals and most all other students get impartial texts, and have no experience with "texts that point out the failures of their economic systems." Perhaps if you went to a good right wing nut case college, like Liberty university, you could find texts suggesting that economic systems are bad in some way. My experience says it does not happen in actual normal higher education. But it does exist, obviously, in the ignorant mind of con trolls.
So, as I expected, you stated that lefties do not like texts.................. But you can not show that it is true. Now, a person with integrity would prove his statement, or admit he was either wrong, or wrong and lying. Do you have any integrity at all?

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.
Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, so you have some proof that my statement is untrue? Of course you do not. But thanks for proving again that you are a con troll. There is this thing called integrity. Professors I have met have it. Most cons do not.


As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.
See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Your statement that states: Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
You stated lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems. With no proof.
So, lets dissect your stupidity for a moment : 1. Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems. They are not "their" economic system.
2. Since they do not have the economic system that you said they had, there is no concern on their part should the text show the system's shortcomings.
3. Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems, but point out the potential problems and past failures of all economic systems.
4. Students of all types dislike economic texts because they can be uninteresting. But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked, or the negative aspects of economic systems they liked. Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern. Again, for cons, truth is what they want to believe. For others, truth is what can be proven.
5. I never ever saw an econ professor criticize an economic system unfairly. Ever. I did see conservative students get upset when a professor would discuss the positive aspects of communism, or of socialism.
Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?
My bet is that you do not. You simply, me boy, imagine it.


Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.

Not the ones I see
Yes, but then, you are a con troll. So you are unaffected by the truth.


See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people

The evidence tells me you aren't rational.
You do not look at evidence. See, your malfunction is that you think that con talking points and evidence are the same thing. And you have no integrity.[/QUOTE]

 

[MindWars]

Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?

What would happen if the government and employers cooperate to boost the minimum wage to say, a very high figure. What would happen to the economy in the short and long run

Businesses shut down and soon human workers aren't going to be needed anyway.
Raise the pay , and everything else around it goes up in price. Meaning the cost of living.
People can't understand simple economics. You can't raise people's pay in an economy that is collapsing anyway.

 

[Moonglow]

It seems silly to raise it at all.

Scrap that! It seems silly for the corporate government to play wage control at all.

It's pure insanity to price yourself out of a job. There are multitudes of scabs eager and willing to do low tech work.

With the exception of degree professionals/certificate/licensed, every job is low tech. Greed is why workers make crap today.

Skilled labor like plumbers welders and electricians are arguably more technical than a barista which is where most people with worthless degrees end up

But Baristas make more revenue for their employer. Besides, any corn hole can do all three jobs......Even you!

Really? You can wire and plumb a house to code?

I know I can because I wired and plumbed my own house you on the other hand I don't think you can

It's so much easier to plumb now with plastics instead of copper.. I would wire in parallel instead of series though....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs

Where did you correct my beliefs?
Post 94 and 102 in this thread, and many instances over time. As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

Still waiting for you to back up your statement here:
Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must, you said.
But, you can not back up your statement, as it is untrue. Lie?

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
2. It is stupid. Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.
3. Liberals and most all other students get impartial texts, and have no experience with "texts that point out the failures of their economic systems." Perhaps if you went to a good right wing nut case college, like Liberty university, you could find texts suggesting that economic systems are bad in some way. My experience says it does not happen in actual normal higher education. But it does exist, obviously, in the ignorant mind of con trolls.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.
Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, so you have some proof that my statement is untrue? Of course you do not. But thanks for proving again that you are a con troll. There is this thing called integrity. Professors I have met have it. Most cons do not.


As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.
See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people.

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
You stated lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems. With no proof.
So, lets dissect your stupidity for a moment : 1. Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems. They are not "their" economic system.
2. Since they do not have the economic system that you said they had, there is no concern on their part should the text show the system's shortcomings.
3. Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems, but point out the potential problems and past failures of all economic systems.
4. Students of all types dislike economic texts because they can be uninteresting. But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked, or the negative aspects of economic systems they liked. Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern. Again, for cons, truth is what they want to believe. For others, truth is what can be proven.
5. I never ever saw an econ professor criticize an economic system unfairly. Ever. I did see conservative students get upset when a professor would discuss the positive aspects of communism, or of socialism.
Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?
My bet is that you do not. You simply, me boy, imagine it.


Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.

Not the ones I see
Yes, but then, you are a con troll. So you are unaffected by the truth.


See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people

The evidence tells me you aren't rational.
You do not look at evidence. See, your malfunction is that you think that con talking points and evidence are the same thing. And you have no integrity.

Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems.

The left has no economic system? LOL!

Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems

On the one hand, Communism, on the other hand, capitalism. LOL!

But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked,

Here's your chance to educate me, name some positive components of Communism.

Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern.

Besides curling up in a ball and looking for their safe space.......

So you are unaffected by the truth.

I'm unaffected by the lies of the left.

I keep having to try to educate you.

But you're so dumb. And so wrong.

You do not look at evidence.

I do. And it shows me the left lies. It's what they do best.

Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?

My bet is that you do not. Hehe.