Can There Be A Compromise on Minimum Wage?
- Thread starter Glensather
- Start date
JamesInFlorida
Senior Member
- Dec 18, 2010
- 1,501
- 186
- 48
The problem is your average American knows nearly nothing about economics. Raising the minimum wage could hurt the middles class. A simple viewing of that statement is "no way!". But think about it:
Let's say minimum wage is $8/hour in your state. It gets raised to $10. That's good if you're making $8-9.....what if you're making $15? Do you get a raise? Of course not.
Money is only worth how scarce it is. Think about it. If everybody in American woke up tomorrow with an extra $1million in their bank. We'd all be millionaires. But would everybody be rich? No, of course not-your SES wouldn't change at all.
If you have more money to the lowest earners in society, it naturally will drag those who're a little bit above it down, unless they get an equal raise (not going to happen obviously).
Let's say minimum wage is $8/hour in your state. It gets raised to $10. That's good if you're making $8-9.....what if you're making $15? Do you get a raise? Of course not.
Money is only worth how scarce it is. Think about it. If everybody in American woke up tomorrow with an extra $1million in their bank. We'd all be millionaires. But would everybody be rich? No, of course not-your SES wouldn't change at all.
If you have more money to the lowest earners in society, it naturally will drag those who're a little bit above it down, unless they get an equal raise (not going to happen obviously).
auditor0007
Gold Member
Actually, raising the minimum wage does raise all worker's wages in the long run.
The ?Ripple Effect? of a Minimum Wage Increase on American Workers | Brookings Institution
gnarlylove
Senior Member
This is patently false. There are plenty of variables you are excluding to reach your conclusion. By increasing wages demand would be stimulated and there would be economic growth. I thought economic growth was the #1 principle? Why is growth only good when it applies to the "job creators"? Isn't the working class also part of civil society? Are they not our neighbors and passer-bys? Absolutely!
To think having fellow human beings do a tiny bit better somehow DRAGS your life down shows a fundamental disconnect between consciousness and reality. When people become healthier and wealthier, we all benefit by not having as much mess and confusion among the poor. This issue is a no-brainer. And the populous knows it, some 70% support minimum wage increase.
IMF Warns Inequality is a Drag on Growth - WSJ.com
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Sure you can. It all depends on what you think you have to have, to survive. I know many people who have worked for barely more than that, and did just fine.
The difference is what you consider a necessity in life.
If you think you have to have cable TV, and a cell phone, and broadband internet, and a nice car, and a big flat screen TV, and on and on and on...
well then no, obviously you can't have all that from a minimum wage income.
But you can most certainly live on very little, if you don't have all of these *wants* that you think are *needs*.
When I was in high school, I worked at Wendy's. There was a guy there, who was from Romania. He had two kids, and his wife didn't work.
They had no car. She walked to the store. He walked to work. Their kids had bicycles to get to school. He fed his family from that minimum wage job flipping burgers over. Worked there several years. And that's when the minimum wage was $5.25. So he was only making $11K a year. He could make it. And by the way, unlike the high school students who had cars, he was on time every single day.
See the difference is, he didn't have this American entitlement mentality. He didn't have this belief system that he 'deserved' cell phones, and cars, and TVs and cable, and blaw blaw blaw.
The reason why Americans think that no one can possibly make it with only a minimum wage income, is because you demand all this crap that makes you poor.
Well I HAVE TO HAVE a cool car, with low miles, and that 'new car' smell, and I HAVE TO HAVE a cool smart phone and Ipad, with nation wide G28 internet speed, and I HAVE TO HAVE, a $3,000 computer with super duper ultra uber high speed internet, and I HAVE TO HAVE, a 359" Flat Screen Ultra HD with Uber PX5 7.1 DOLBY SURROUND SOUND Wireless 15 speak theater system...........
And then you wonder why you can't make it on minimum wage? Dur.... you are blowing your money.
Yeah yeah, but I want all that!!!!!
Fine... work for it. You know... like the previous generation did.
That's what you people seem to forget. Your grand parents spent 40 years working, earning, saving, to gain the standard of living, that you people seem to want to walk off your parents property, and just magically have.
Doesn't work that way.
If you want something you have to work for it.
That dude from Romania? He worked, and saved, and earned enough money to buy a cheap car. He then got a new job, for Hertz-Rent-a-Car. He then worked and moved up, until he became store manager of the largest Hertz in Columbus Ohio, the one by the air port.
The average store manager at Hertz earns $50K, plus $5K year end bonus, plus profit sharing. And that's the average. I wager the one by the air port does better.
But knowing this guy, he likely has moved on to big and better things.
That's how you do it. If that guy had been like these idiots, screaming and yelling about the minimum wage, he'd still be working at Wendy's, still earning minimum wage.
Instead, he ignored the whiny bitchy minimum wage screamers, and bettered himself. He moved on, to better jobs, with better pay.
Now, those jobs are more difficult, and more demanding. That's what the minimum wage whiny people don't like. They want to have job with little responsibility, and zero stress, and just stand there flipping burgers over.... but they also want the money that someone working his butt off at a more stressful more demanding job makes.
There's the issue. They want to be as lazy as possible, and do as little work as possible, but they also want $50K a year income.
Well... that's not going to happen, and I don't support it. We should cut the minimum wage if anything.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
But it's just not true. There are hundreds of reasons why. Did raising the labor costs in France create higher demand?
No, McDonald's replaced 7,000 employees in France, with kiosks.
McDonald's hires 7,000 touch-screen cashiers | Crave - CNET
Unemployment rate in France is 10%, Youth unemployment in France is 25%.
Does that sound like higher wages increased economic demand to you? 25% of the exact group of people McDonald's would hire, are unemployed, and Cashiers are replaced with Kiosks.
How much demand are they creating with an income of ZERO? HUH?!
Further, we've heard this before. Greece in 2010 raised their minimum wage to spur demand. At that time Unemployment was supposed to fall.
I predicted then, that not only would the unemployment rate not fall, and not only would the minimum wage hike of 2009, and 2010, not spur economic demand, but unemployment would go higher than ever, the economy sink further than expected.
As it turns out, I was completely right about both claims. And even the Greek government figured this out.
Greece Draft Cuts Minimum Wage 20% - Bloomberg
So even the Greek government has figured out that their minimum wage has killed jobs, not spurred economic growth. And this is how it always is. Minimum wage kills jobs. Always has. Always will.
There is not one country in the entire world, that has ever raised the minimum wage continuously to economic prosperity. Not one.
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
I said some should be paid what they are worth. And from some of the encounters iv'e had with fast food workers I would consider a buck fifty as over paid.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
It's not a matter of corruption. Yes, corruption is bad, but that's not really the issue.
What's the issue, is bad policies. You can have a very un-corrupted government, and have bad policies that kill the economy. You can equally have a highly corrupted government, and policies that grow the economy.
Same is true of Unions.
Good honest, decent union people, that push bad policies, will ruin themselves. Equally a corrupted self-centered union people, that push good policies, will grow and benefit their members.
This is true throughout the world. Many people point to the Unionized German auto makers. But not many people know that the Unions who sit on the board of directors, often are very pro-company, pro-corporate, pro-business.
For example, did you know that Unions themselves pushed for temporary workers at German auto plants?
German Labor Reforms Create Greater Gap Between Rich and Poor - SPIEGEL ONLINE
As you can clearly see from this German news outlet, outsourcing, and temporary workers, have drastically increased.
Now in the US Unions, they would be throwing a fit about this. But in Germany, it's actually the Unions themselves pushing this. Why? Because the Unions want their companies to grow and succeed. When the company saves money, this benefits all the Union employees.
Compare that to the US. US Unions, were told directly by GM and Chrysler, and Hostess, and Armco Steel, and numerous others, that if they didn't cut costs, the company would be ruined.
In each case, the Unions said 'screw you' to the companies, and the result was the companies went bankrupt, the employees laid off, and thousands were unemployed.
Didn't matter if they were corrupt or not. They fought against their own companies, and the result was thousands lost their jobs.
Another perfect example of this, was the tale of two factories in France.
BBC World Service - Assignment , France ? The Tale of Two Factories
I'll give you the highlights.
There is a town in France called Amiens. In this town, there are two Tire Plants.
One plant was built by Goodyear, the other Dunlop. Dunlop sold their plant to Goodyear. So Goodyear owns both plants. Both plants were under the same employee Union. Both plants made the same type of tires, namely that of Agricultural Tires. Tires used on farming equipment.
Both plants started going into the red, meaning the company was losing money on both plants. Goodyear pushed for changes in pay, changes in shifts, changes in production, and changes in benefits.
The Unions refused. The Goodyear plant, started losing more money. Goodyear filed to close the plant. The French government pushed to sell the plant, and sought buyers. No one in France would buy the plant, so international buyers were sought... only one responded, that of Titan CEO Maurice Taylor.
Taylor went to France, went to the Goodyear plant, and then abruptly cut off all talks, and left for the US. The French government desperate to save the plant in a country with 10% unemployment for years, sent a letter to Titan to ask why the talks ended. If you remember back in early 2013, Taylor's letter in response sent off a fire storm.
Titan CEO Scoffs At France's Work Ethic And Its 'So-Called Workers'
Taylor said that the Unionized employees were lazy, and the unions responded to him "it's the French way". Taylor said he would be stupid to buy a plant that had no chance of being profitable under these conditions.
In the time since then, Goodyear has pushed to close the plant, and currently the plant is largely idle. Goodyear has even hinted that they would be willing to leave France entirely just like Dunlop before, which would force French farmers to import tires from outside the country.
But all of that, ignore the obvious question.... what happened to the other plant?
The other factory, is actually just down the road. Same people, same union, same tires, same company. What happened to that plant?
If you read the Tale of Two Factories, story, you'll find out. The employees of that plant, got together, and rejected the Union. The voted to support the Goodyear plan, and deal with a pay cut, a shift change, and production change.
The Union was so angered by the Employees rejecting the Union, that they kicked them out of the Union. The employees now have their own Union, separate from the other plant. Now that factory is profitable again. In fact, the work from the plant that is now idled, was moved to this profitable plant, which then hired more employees to make the larger production.
This is the fundamental difference. Are some Unions corrupt? Sure. But the big problem is are they fighting against the company? Are they against the corporation? Are they pushing unprofitable policies?
If they do that, they ruin themselves, their members, and the economy.
Are they pro-business? Pro-corporate? Pro-company? Pro-Profitability?
If they do that, they will grow, and expand, and benefit their employees, and the economy.
The sad fact is, at least here in America, most Unions are only good for tearing down their companies, ruining their businesses, and unemploying their members.
That's why the right-wing is against Unions here in the US. If the US unions were more like the pro-business, pro-corporate, pro-profitable Japanese, and German Union, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact is, they are not. They ruin themselves, their companies, and the economy. That's just what they do here in the US. Which filed for bankruptcy... Toyota and Honda? Or GM and Chrysler?
gnarlylove
Senior Member
Androw, you have been known to be wrong and despite being proven wrong, continue to make the same claims.
There's literally no use in discussing this with you because you refuse to be wrong. I don't doubt you can mis-interpret like higher living standards for humans as impinging on corporate profits but you start out from the premise of profit maximization and the corporate sector which highly benefits from reducing labor costs. Your aim is to increase profits and this runs directly counter to humanity and increasing living standards among the working class.
You are dead wrong on this premise but I suspect this premise is your whole life; and while most of the media agree with this flawed premise, everyone knows profit maximization is anti-human. Just think about it instead of trying to prove you are right for once. Stop and think critically, don't just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" and then post a bunch of irrelelvant links pretending that supports your entirely flawed conception of the world. It's typical of an Ohioian to never concede flaws, they don't like to be wrong. No body does. But here's the problem you refuse to acknowledge:
Wage labor is founded on the idea that a worker will produce more than their pay. Say they are paid $10/hr. They must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr otherwise the employer is making no profit. So fundamental to the system of wage labor is humans producing beyond their own need for the sake of some parasite, the employer, to benefit from this surplus with little effort.
Thus, an internal conflict is inherent in wage labor. So the lower the minimum wage, the more profit the parasite/employer receives. Thus, it's a no-brainer to keep wage labor low and indeed, the one's arguing to remove minimum wage altogether are asking for Americans to compete with 20 cents/hour in Bangladesh factories. Do you think American's would work for anything less than 3 or even 5 dollars an hour? No they won't. But who cares? Even if every working class American no longer had jobs because they were outsourced to cheaper wages it wouldn't bother the business community. The whole point is to maximize profit for the top. They do not give a damn about creating a society where workers can flourish from their labor.
You realize your arguing against civil society doing better? I think you do and that's why you refuse to acknowledge the inherent worth and dignity in every human being. You operates on these exploitative principles and parasitic functions. If you were in abject poverty and suffering, you're whole life would be turned upside down because you'd become the exploited piece of trash that no one cares about while people like yourself decried your existence as completely useless. Sounds reasonable? It doesn't because you are far too narrow minded to care about the humanity of those who need decent wages.
There's literally no use in discussing this with you because you refuse to be wrong. I don't doubt you can mis-interpret like higher living standards for humans as impinging on corporate profits but you start out from the premise of profit maximization and the corporate sector which highly benefits from reducing labor costs. Your aim is to increase profits and this runs directly counter to humanity and increasing living standards among the working class.
You are dead wrong on this premise but I suspect this premise is your whole life; and while most of the media agree with this flawed premise, everyone knows profit maximization is anti-human. Just think about it instead of trying to prove you are right for once. Stop and think critically, don't just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" and then post a bunch of irrelelvant links pretending that supports your entirely flawed conception of the world. It's typical of an Ohioian to never concede flaws, they don't like to be wrong. No body does. But here's the problem you refuse to acknowledge:
Wage labor is founded on the idea that a worker will produce more than their pay. Say they are paid $10/hr. They must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr otherwise the employer is making no profit. So fundamental to the system of wage labor is humans producing beyond their own need for the sake of some parasite, the employer, to benefit from this surplus with little effort.
Thus, an internal conflict is inherent in wage labor. So the lower the minimum wage, the more profit the parasite/employer receives. Thus, it's a no-brainer to keep wage labor low and indeed, the one's arguing to remove minimum wage altogether are asking for Americans to compete with 20 cents/hour in Bangladesh factories. Do you think American's would work for anything less than 3 or even 5 dollars an hour? No they won't. But who cares? Even if every working class American no longer had jobs because they were outsourced to cheaper wages it wouldn't bother the business community. The whole point is to maximize profit for the top. They do not give a damn about creating a society where workers can flourish from their labor.
You realize your arguing against civil society doing better? I think you do and that's why you refuse to acknowledge the inherent worth and dignity in every human being. You operates on these exploitative principles and parasitic functions. If you were in abject poverty and suffering, you're whole life would be turned upside down because you'd become the exploited piece of trash that no one cares about while people like yourself decried your existence as completely useless. Sounds reasonable? It doesn't because you are far too narrow minded to care about the humanity of those who need decent wages.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #91
Of course it's arbitrary, but anyone who asks "why not $50 or $100 an hour" isnt worth responding to further.
A $10 minimum wage will have little to no effect on the economy. Some marginal workers will lose their jobs, some businesses will raise prices, and still other business will eat the additional costs. However,there are offsets. Higher wages will push some families out of poverty reducing dependence on government support. Also, higher wages will increase demand for consumer goods.
A $15 minimum wage is too much and would cause problems in the economy.
Last edited:
The data is gathered by BLS from the National Compensation Survey. Since it's a statistical sampling, it represents all wage earners.
National Compensation Survey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...ve-been-told-about-the-minimum-wage-is-false/
Last edited:
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Seven insults.
Six hearsay, stawman arguments, and just plain unsupportable claims.
Out of that entire post, the ONLY section that even attempted to discuss the topic, was this:
And even that finished with an opinion, not a fact. You call them parasites. That's opinion, not a fact.
The very fact that you spent the vast majority of that post, spewing insults and hearsay, is proof you couldn't really argue anything I said. You could only claim that my links were irrelevant, even though my links directly supported every assertion that I made. Proving also that you couldn't argue my points, or the links and evidence for my points.
So let's get to the tiny amount of debate you actually made.
You said this....
"They must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr otherwise the employer is making no profit."
Is that true? Yes it is. Of course. That's the whole reason we on the right are against raising the minimum wage. If you raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, and the employee is still only producing enough benefit to pay $10/hr...... that means the employer is not making a profit.
If the employer is not making a profit, what does he do?
Twinkies maker Hostess to go out of business, lay off 18,500 - Los Angeles Times
"Hostess lays off 18,500 workers."
McDonald's hires 7,000 touch-screen cashiers | Crave - CNET
"McDonald's replaces 7,000 cashiers with kiosks"
The employer will eliminate the employees. Either by laying them off and closing up shop, or by replacing them with something cheaper, either robots, or outsourcing.
See, this part of the equation, you have correct. Your system, the system of boasting wages, boasting the cost of labor, results in people unemployed... for exactly the reason you gave.... the employer has to make a profit, or he won't employ people.
See, you would grasp this, if you were the one doing it.
If you were mowing people's lawns, and you had more work than you could possibly handle, you might consider hiring someone to help you mow people's lawns.
But, doing so would require you to buy mowers, buy a truck and trailer, buy more gas, require you to buy additional insurance, and then after all that money you invested, you would have to pay the person to do the mowing.
Would you do all that, and invest all that money, and pay to upkeep the truck and mowers, and pay for all the fuel........ if you made zero profit from hiring that employee?
Would you? Really? You'd pay out the nose thousands on thousands of dollars, to buy all the equipment, pay for all the maintenance, and pay for all the fuel.... so that you could earn zero?
If you say yes, then you are lying. No one would. Why would you, or anyone, pay out tons of money to earn nothing?
The only reason why you would do any of this, is if you could earn a profit from hiring an employee. Short of that, you wouldn't.
No one else would either. And counter to being a parasite, these people, are the people who provide all the jobs, produce all the wealth, and create most of the economy.
gnarlylove
Senior Member
You reject all new memes. This is conservatism for ya. Anything that challenges you morally, you consider it an insult. The fact is you don't support workers rights, therefore you do not support their right to exist. I've read your other BS and I know you don't give a damn. If you do, tell me what you do to support under-privileged classes.
Your actions betray any empathetic concern you have in your head (that causes you to type duplicitous statements), and if you didn't betray your empathetic concerns, you wouldn't be as well off as you are. I do not think being well off is inherently wrong and am not criticizing your wealth. You even admit that the Welfare state/Socialist America helps the corporations far more than the public need resulting from poverty. Tell me why the elite deserve more in subsidies and government welfare then the populations who are struggling with hunger insecurity? This is moral, not an insult.
But let's define parasite for ya so you know what we're dealing with:
The owners of the means of production is an organism that spends a significant portion of its life on the wage labor of the masses, i.e. society, which causes harm to the society without immediately killing it.
The point is our financial institutions now account for 70% of the economy, whereas in the past they were a fraction and the productive economy was 90%. I hope you don't lack the economic prowess to distinguish from the real economy and financial speculation. Regardless, this way of thinking pays your livelihood. So you dare not challenge your own livelihood for the sake of morals and other human beings.
Parasites are destroying the economy from the inside out. The most respected conservative analysis of finance in the English speaking world, Martin Wolf, said
Banks: vampire squid or spider wasp?
These institutions are making their livelhood on the backs of the masses, on the back of society. They are destroying society from within, just like a parasite. Some economists have written about this, you might want to check Benjamin Friedman who just published a book on the effects of this giant parasite looming over society. So has Nobel laureate Robert Solo, How to Save American Finance from Itself | New Republic
So I stand by my "opinion" as genuine fact. You're whole reply was nothing but nonsensical tautologies. I could address them, but since you would never change your belief about the thing that pays your livelihood, I would be wasting my time. That's why I didn't "argue" your trivial tautological examples. I am well trained in critical thinking and just because I didn't spend my time responding to each little remark you make has no bearing on whether my statements are true or not. You need a logic check up if you think your arguments about me not responding hold any weight. They don't.
Your case against minimum wage assumes the perspective of the owner. You forget that other people need benefits too, like a livable wage. To think those who own the means of production are somehow always deserving more and more is evidence you are infected with the parasite of only seeking individual greed and forgetting that without society, there is no place for this greed to exist. Come down from the clouds and we can talk.
Your actions betray any empathetic concern you have in your head (that causes you to type duplicitous statements), and if you didn't betray your empathetic concerns, you wouldn't be as well off as you are. I do not think being well off is inherently wrong and am not criticizing your wealth. You even admit that the Welfare state/Socialist America helps the corporations far more than the public need resulting from poverty. Tell me why the elite deserve more in subsidies and government welfare then the populations who are struggling with hunger insecurity? This is moral, not an insult.
But let's define parasite for ya so you know what we're dealing with:
Parasitism
The owners of the means of production is an organism that spends a significant portion of its life on the wage labor of the masses, i.e. society, which causes harm to the society without immediately killing it.
The point is our financial institutions now account for 70% of the economy, whereas in the past they were a fraction and the productive economy was 90%. I hope you don't lack the economic prowess to distinguish from the real economy and financial speculation. Regardless, this way of thinking pays your livelihood. So you dare not challenge your own livelihood for the sake of morals and other human beings.
Parasites are destroying the economy from the inside out. The most respected conservative analysis of finance in the English speaking world, Martin Wolf, said
By "the market economy" he means the productive economy.
Banks: vampire squid or spider wasp?
These institutions are making their livelhood on the backs of the masses, on the back of society. They are destroying society from within, just like a parasite. Some economists have written about this, you might want to check Benjamin Friedman who just published a book on the effects of this giant parasite looming over society. So has Nobel laureate Robert Solo, How to Save American Finance from Itself | New Republic
So I stand by my "opinion" as genuine fact. You're whole reply was nothing but nonsensical tautologies. I could address them, but since you would never change your belief about the thing that pays your livelihood, I would be wasting my time. That's why I didn't "argue" your trivial tautological examples. I am well trained in critical thinking and just because I didn't spend my time responding to each little remark you make has no bearing on whether my statements are true or not. You need a logic check up if you think your arguments about me not responding hold any weight. They don't.
Your case against minimum wage assumes the perspective of the owner. You forget that other people need benefits too, like a livable wage. To think those who own the means of production are somehow always deserving more and more is evidence you are infected with the parasite of only seeking individual greed and forgetting that without society, there is no place for this greed to exist. Come down from the clouds and we can talk.
Last edited:
Andylusion
Platinum Member
I have determined that I am simply not going to reply to your empty hearsay, your unsupportable accusations, your insults under the veil of arrogance and snobbery, and your endless prejudices. Thus I have deleted all the endless babble of insults and prejudice you have spewed, from your post.
Your posts, both this, and the one before have shown how ignorant you are.
First off, we don't have a hunger problem in this country. In fact obesity rates among the poorest citizens is *HIGHER* than the rest of the country, and my opinion is that this is because they are not working for their food.
Second, I have never in the past, or in the present, nor at any point in the future, do I support subsidies, or welfare, for *ANYONE*. That would include business and corporations. I have said this numerous times. The fact you don't know this, is more a reflection on you, than me.
Third, as I said before, you claiming owners are parasites, is merely your opinion. Not a fact. If you can't figure out the difference between fact, and opinion, that reflects more on you, than me.
Forth, if your *opinion* that owners are parasites were true, then logically getting rid of owners would benefit the country. Name for me a country that has driven out owners, that has benefitted?
Let me help you out: Brazil has one of the most CEO freindly policies in Latin America, and thousands of companies have setup business in Brazil. Equally, Venezuela has one of the most hostile economic policies in Latin America, and over one million people have left Venezuela in the last 10 years.
Which is doing better?
China was a communist country, that prohibited private means of production, for about 40 years. Since 1978, China has moved towards capitalism, and has had the fastest growing number of multi-millionaires of any 1st world country.
Tell me... how wealthy was China comparatively, under the pre-1978 system, to the post 1978 system with tons of owners? How was the standard of living for even the poorest Chinese under the pre-78 system, to the post-78 system?
North and South Korea. North has very very few owners, and few CEOs. South has tons of owners and CEOs. Which one is doing better? Which one has the better standard of living for the lowest class of people?
Lastly, and finaly..... you repeat over and over, that "I could address them" and "That's why I didn't argue"....
No no... let me help you out. You *CAN'T* argue my points, that's why you have to make up a bunch of crap as to why you are not going to try. Nice attempt to save face, but you just told everyone that you lost the argument.
You should move on. You lost.
and FYI, you proved you don't know what I do for a living, but that didn't stop you from prejudging from what you assume I do.
Last edited:
gnarlylove
Senior Member
Unsupported accusations?
I quote Martin Wolf, financial times journalist. World renowned.
Benjamin Friedman, Harvard Economist, who says financial institutions have a negative effect on society. He has published a book on it just last year and has written several articles on it.
Nobel laureate Robert Solo who also says financial institutions have a negative effect on society.
I am not challenging you and your personhood. I am challenging your conception of your profession, I don't think you intend to be doing wrong and I don't think you are but when you step back and look at what financial institutions are doing to society at large. It's uncontroversially a parasite, a drain on society, productive economy. I understand you must protect your idea of yourself but I would hope you also have the dignity to question your profession as we all should, and must.
I quote Martin Wolf, financial times journalist. World renowned.
Benjamin Friedman, Harvard Economist, who says financial institutions have a negative effect on society. He has published a book on it just last year and has written several articles on it.
Nobel laureate Robert Solo who also says financial institutions have a negative effect on society.
I am not challenging you and your personhood. I am challenging your conception of your profession, I don't think you intend to be doing wrong and I don't think you are but when you step back and look at what financial institutions are doing to society at large. It's uncontroversially a parasite, a drain on society, productive economy. I understand you must protect your idea of yourself but I would hope you also have the dignity to question your profession as we all should, and must.
Last edited:
Andylusion
Platinum Member
You accused me of several things, none of which are supportable.
You don't even know what my profession is. Which that in itself is an unsupported accusation.
Further, you have never once bothered to answer any of the dozens of examples I listed. Because you can't.
Can you explain why Venezuela driving out CEOs had ruined their economy? Or would you suggest that Venezuela's economy is fine?
Can you explain how Brazil attracting CEOs from all over the world has resulted in them having the leading economy in all of Latin America? Or would you suggest they are not doing as well as their relative GDP suggests?
Or how about all the other examples from all over the world? Jamaica in the 1970s, drove out tons of business, much of which has still to this day not recovered. Why?
Over and over, there is no support for that position, in economic reality. You show me a country that drives out the "owners of production", and I'll show you a country falling into impoverishment.
You are showing me that you would rather live in an echo chamber, where you just find someone somewhere that says what you already believe, and to hell with facts, figures, statistics, and economic reality.
Well sorry.... you are right about me on that one point. I need something more than "so-and-so said". If that's good enough for you, that reflects more on you, than me.
Last edited:
gnarlylove
Senior Member
The only accusation of mine that matters is that financial institutions are parasites. If you were referring to that as being unsupported, you are simply ignoring facts. I refer you back to the post with links for serious scholarly work on these subjects, not you or I rambling on about them.
Can you explain that the US controls many of the global institutions, including the IMF which helps set the agenda for countries. The point of life is not to do business and create more opportunities for business like your assuming with your Jamaica and Ven. example. Its about civil society living without oppression and suffering. Creating more business does not mean civil society does better. And in fact the more greed and financial speculation that goes on in a country, the less stable civil society is, usually because they are being oppressed by a US backed dictatorship which allows massive exploitation (the fundamental assumption of wage labor).
Can you explain that the US controls many of the global institutions, including the IMF which helps set the agenda for countries. The point of life is not to do business and create more opportunities for business like your assuming with your Jamaica and Ven. example. Its about civil society living without oppression and suffering. Creating more business does not mean civil society does better. And in fact the more greed and financial speculation that goes on in a country, the less stable civil society is, usually because they are being oppressed by a US backed dictatorship which allows massive exploitation (the fundamental assumption of wage labor).
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Oh, so now it's "financial institutions are parasites", when before it was "owners of production are parasites".
That alone is progress. At least you have accepted your error there.
The IMF is horrible and should never have existed, and needs to be eliminated.
People following your belief system have created oppression and suffering in both Jamaica and Venezuela. Being able to build business, is a fundamental freedom, that when removed make life miserable for everyone, both employer and employee. Less so with the employer, who generally has the means to escape the oppression, unlike the poor and impoverished, now with no jobs, stuck in a impoverished economy with little hope for a future.
Greed is universal in humanity. There is no country, whether capitalist, or socialist, in which greed is not a primary factor. Even in Communist Soviet Russia, the primary reason a person agrees to build a factory for the Communist government, is primarily for his own personal enrichment.
The only difference between the Communist system, and the Capitalist system, is that in a Communist system only advances those who support, and are favored by the Communist party, which typically involves being born into the party.
In a Capitalist system, a poor drunk guy can whittle duck callers on his back porch, and selling them end up with a multi-million dollar company, and his own TV show on A&E.
In pre-78 Communist China, if you were born to an impoverished farm, you lived an impoverished farmer, and died an impoverished farmer, and you had no say, no option, no choice in the matter.
Lastly, if you want to talk about banks, fine. Banks provide services I like, and enjoy, and value. My checks, are a valued service to me. My online banking is a valued service to me. My auto deposit, and auto billing, are valuable service to me. My ability to purchase investments, is a valuable service to me.
Most people find that bank accounts, and services, have a value.
Most people value being able to have a debit card, or a credit card, and those services have a value to them. (I don't borrow money, so no credit for me).
My previous employer had a credit line, which I'm sure had value to them.
Parasites are not valued by their hosts. Banks are.
Does that mean that all bank actions have value? Obviously not. The government caused sub-prime bubble, is a perfect example.
But to paint with a broad brush, every bank in the world, because of the actions of a few, is intellectual dishonesty. I've looked up the context of the quote by Martin Wolf. That quote was not meant as a universal attack on all banks, nor is it a scholarly work. It's an opinion, by a intelligent and learned journalist. There is a difference.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
How did that Van Hollen Guy Get Elected? His Questioning of Kristi Noem Makes him Look Incredibly Weak- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
