Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I wish this was true.

No because governments and central banks are intertwined. Without credit extensions, any business that is bigger than a carpet shop would fail in a day.

Private credit can be extended by the people delivering the raw materials and creating finished products.

Banks are overrated, if not entirely unnecessary.

I wish this was true.

It is true. Sears, and GMAC are examples.

 

[Rshermr]

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

If you got a BA in economics I would ask for my money back, again fool 3% of workers make minimum wage almost 50% of workers make $15 bucks or less you think the $15 dollar worker will be getting a $7 dollar an hour raise? Of course not

You are not doing a Damn thing by raising the national minimum wage.

Trickle up poor, trickle up misery

no. Raising the minimum wage is the best way to clear the debt that individual Americans love to pile onto themselves daily. With every new student loan sold, and every new free credit balance transfer authorized, we need one penny increase on the minimum wage, to balance out that cash flow. In other words, when the government is your automated underwriter, then it also must be your automated money printer. otherwise you will repeat the 2009 credit crashes progressivelybigger, worse, and faster.

No way, it makes you think you have more wealth but it just another number for a 25 cent minimum wage

It inflates money so it clears unpayable debt. Nasty indeed, but there may not be anything else around today to balance the blind automatic federal underwriting machine.

So we got a major problems
Global problems like naffta and free trade

The enemy with in raising minimum wage with out a back lash of company's relying on automation and leaving

We have a back will have riots in the streets if a burger flipper snot nose kid makes as much as a cop on the streets

And we have a nut case clown posting stupid things on a blog post site. Jesus, we are all in big trouble.

 

[kroot]

. Completely wrong. Because we are talking about what happens to demand for MacD products when the price of those products increase

Reading comprehension appears to have failed you in your old age. I said nothing about price increases for McDonald's products, if I did demand would be relevant. All I said was they had a few options if their COSTS suddenly increased, which would in turn most likely increase prices. I didn't specify how much the price would increase otherwise I would have had to include demand. That's why I left it as a constant, to show that, if their costs increased dramatically, they would need to make changes. Is it that hard to understand that I was talking about cost of goods sold, and leaving everything constant? I mean come on, that is a simple accounting / economics problem: "If X cost rises and everything else remains constant, what options does the business have?"

1. You do not believe in Keynesian Economic Theory. I believe Austrian Economics is a better long term model but that Keynesian theory works in practice if you look at short term growth. I didn't say we were still in a recession, I simply implied we are in a weaker than normal recovery.
2. You believe the gov is lying to you about the inflation rate. They aren't lying, they simply tweak the numbers every so often but fail to leave out the largest inflationary asset expense that most people experience in their lifetimes: The cost of buying a house.
3. You do not think you need to account for elasticity of demand, though you seem to not know what it is. I've already clarified that I left out elasticity of demand because I was leaving demand and prices at a constant to prove that McDonald's would need to make changes. I didn't specify what changes EXACTLY they would need to make because that would be very hard for me to do without looking at the business with a magnifying glass, looking at prices, demand, cost to operate the businesses, cost of raw materials, ETC. It would be foolish to look at those nearly impossible to find facts without working for the business. Again, reading comprehension appears to have failed you in your old age.

Sorry, me boy. I am not stupid enough to suggest I know what will happen if you raise one variable.
If you can't provide an analysis for what happens when you raise just a single variable, I'm not sure you would have been fit to run a company. Come on you're telling me you won't provide any sort of analysis based on just a single variable? Sounds to me like a cop out personally.

 

[Rshermr]

Completely wrong. Because we are talking about what happens to demand for MacD products when the price of those products increase
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Reading comprehension appears to have failed you in your old age. I said nothing about price increases for McDonald's products, if I did demand would be relevant.
Uh oh. You just stepped in it, me boy:

"The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.
All I said was they had a few options if their COSTS suddenly increased, which would in turn most likely increase prices. I didn't specify how much the price would increase otherwise I would have had to include demand. That's why I left it as a constant, to show that, if their costs increased dramatically, they would need to make changes. Is it that hard to understand that I was talking about cost of goods sold, and leaving everything constant?
Your post 181 yesterday, Sunday.

Yes, you did. Perhaps it is your memory that is slipping. From your post of yesterday, in response to me. Post number 181 in this thread, me boy. Item 2, above. So yes, as always, those facing lower profits will look at raising prices. Try to remember that fact.

I mean come on, that is a simple accounting / economics problem: "If X cost rises and everything else remains constant, what options does the business have?"
A large number of options. Raise prices. Cut costs. Absorb the decrease in profit. Now, me boy, tell me what they will do. The options are many.

1. You do not believe in Keynesian Economic Theory. I believe Austrian Economics is a better long term model but that Keynesian theory works in practice if you look at short term growth. Great. So, are you a Libertarian at heart? Really. Short term growth only, me boy. Is that why reagan used the theory heavily? I didn't say we were still in a recession, I simply implied we are in a weaker than normal recovery. So, what kind of problem is that. It seems rational that politicians need to do something. But, they have chosen to do nothing for the past 6 years. Even though several bills have been brought forward, all have been voted down. And none brought forward by the republican controlled senate or house. Next.
2. You believe the gov is lying to you about the inflation rate. They aren't lying, they simply tweak the numbers every so often but fail to leave out the largest inflationary asset expense that most people experience in their lifetimes: The cost of buying a house. So, you think they are tweaking the inflation rate? You do know that is grounds for dismissal for anyone doing so, right? Do you have any evidence?? Are they lying about the value of homes increasing?? You say they leave it out. I say I have never missed seeing it. Do you have evidence they are leaving it out and cooking the books. Because that would be what they are doing if you are correct.
3. You do not think you need to account for elasticity of demand, though you seem to not know what it is. I've already clarified that I left out elasticity of demand because I was leaving demand and prices at a constant to prove that McDonald's would need to make changes. So, you expect that businesses will simply absorb the decrease in profits and not raise prices. Really? So, you just do not want to consider the reality of anything, just what you want the outcome to be. Very tacky. I didn't specify what changes EXACTLY they would need to make because that would be very hard for me to do without looking at the business with a magnifying glass, looking at prices, demand, cost to operate the businesses, cost of raw materials, ETC.

Uh, sorry. That does not pass the giggle test. You mentioned raising prices yesterday, but decided you did not now. Really, me boy. Any business would look at raising prices among the first couple options they would have. Nice try, but you simply proved you have no clue. It would be foolish to look at those nearly impossible to find facts without working for the business. Again, reading comprehension appears to have failed you in your old age. Not at all. You just proved you have insufficient knowledge to make the conclusion you made. You like all of us can not be sure what will happen. As I said from the beginning.

Sorry, me boy. I am not stupid enough to suggest I know what will happen if you raise one variable.
If you can't provide an analysis for what happens when you raise just a single variable, I'm not sure you would have been fit to run a company. Come on you're telling me you won't provide any sort of analysis based on just a single variable? Sounds to me like a cop out personally. Apparently, you do not have the mental capacity for this exercise. Truth is ...OOPS, maybe you should look up the word truth before I continue to try to educate you. ........Got it yet? In the real world, which we are theoretically talking about, MacD has a number of options. You seem to have admitted that, and said you had not admitted that, had it proven to you that you did admit it. So, we should both now know the obvious, from the start, about this little problem. MacD has several options including raising prices, cutting one or more of many costs, absorbing the extra costs, and so on. So, which variable do you think you can raise, and have that action tell you anything of meaning. The answer is obvious to any thinking person. No single option will predict any outcome. Because the other options have unknown outcomes.
Here is the thing, me boy. The reason no economic group cares to deal with this problem is obvious to all impartial and honest economist or group of economists and researchers. To you, there is no real chance of your prediction being any better than a crap shoot.
Next?

 

[kroot]

Any business would look at raising prices among the first couple options they would have. Nice try, but you simply proved you have no clue

So... we're in agreement? Thanks for proving my point that they would most likely pass the costs onto the consumer in some fashion.

You just proved you have insufficient knowledge to make the conclusion you made.

It's fairly easy to draw a conclusion even if you don't have all the facts. Just because I don't give an algorithm stating how much each $ of additional wage will raise prices or affect McDonald's otherwise doesn't make my conclusion wrong. In fact, you have yet to prove my conclusion is wrong. You just keep stating I don't have all the facts, but go on, prove your point which I surmise you have none. If you had a point to make you would have proven it with facts by now, but you won't even attempt to because you know it'll lead to the same conclusion I've come to. That McDonald's will have to change their operating procedures in some form or another.

You go completely against any form of scientific debating, if you have a point to prove, please do so with some factual evidence rather than trying to chop up my argument and calling names.

So, you expect that businesses will simply absorb the decrease in profits and not raise prices. Really? So, you just do not want to consider the reality of anything, just what you want the outcome to be. Very tacky.

That is exactly what I've been saying won't happen... Thanks for proving my point?

Sensitivity analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
]Any business would look at raising prices among the first couple options they would have. Nice try, but you simply proved you have no clue

So... we're in agreement? Thanks for proving my point that they would most likely pass the costs onto the consumer in some fashion.

You just proved you have insufficient knowledge to make the conclusion you made.

It's fairly easy to draw a conclusion even if you don't have all the facts. Only if you want your conclusion to be of no value. Just because I don't give an algorithm stating how much each $ of additional wage will raise prices or affect McDonald's otherwise doesn't make my conclusion wrong.No, it makes your conclusion of no value. In fact, you have yet to prove my conclusion is wrong.Only time will tell us. Your conclusion is of no value, because it is not based on sufficient fact. You just keep stating I don't have all the facts, but go on, prove your point which I surmise you have none. Make a sentence that makes some sense and I will respond. If you had a point to make you would have proven it with facts by now, but you won't even attempt to because you know it'll lead to the same conclusion I've come to. That McDonald's will have to change their operating procedures in some form or another. Is that it? You just made a completely irrelevant and totally non profound statement.
Let me summarize:
1. You know wages for some are going to raise.
2. You do not know for how many employees.
3. You think it will have an impact on MacD/s operations.
5. You do not know what the impact will be.
6. You do not know what macd will do.
7. You really know absolutely nothing, but THINK it will be a bad result.
8. Though you think it will be a bad result, you do not know how bad, for how long, and for whom.

So, based on 1 through 8, why do you think any one would care?????????

So, here is a summary of what I have stated and believe:
1. lowest paid employees have watched their real wages increase for decades.
2. Those employees need a raise to keep pace with the working employees and management of the companies for whom they work.
3. A raise proposed to $15 per hour will take them to where they have been in real wages plus a few dollars?

4. That extra pay will be good for them.
5. That extra pay will help stimulate our economy and be good for the rest of us.
6. The effect on employers will be somewhere between on difference and painful, depending on their pay scale, their ability to shift the costs to customers and suppliers.
7. In the past we can show no record of bad results from minimum wage increases.
8. This raise in minimum wage is greater than past raises, so the question of what will happen will show up as a result of what occurs in the future.

You go completely against any form of scientific debating,Debating is a logical activity based on truth, proof, logic. And I do indeed base debate on those precepts. if you have a point to prove, please do so with some factual evidence rather than trying to chop up my argument and calling names.
Ah. So you think no one should debate what you say. Sorry. I will always debate anyone who uses bad logic and lack of proof in their arguments.

So, you expect that businesses will simply absorb the decrease in profits and not raise prices. Really? So, you just do not want to consider the reality of anything, just what you want the outcome to be. Very tacky.

That is exactly what I've been saying won't happen... Thanks for proving my point?
So, this is your quote, me boy:
Reading comprehension appears to have failed you in your old age. I said nothing about price increases for McDonald's products, if I did demand would be relevant.
So you said nothing about raising prices, and you said that they would raise prices. Must be nice to have it both ways, me boy.

 

[Rshermr]

Any business would look at raising prices among the first couple options they would have. Nice try, but you simply proved you have no clue

So... we're in agreement? Thanks for proving my point that they would most likely pass the costs onto the consumer in some fashion.

You just proved you have insufficient knowledge to make the conclusion you made.

It's fairly easy to draw a conclusion even if you don't have all the facts. Just because I don't give an algorithm stating how much each $ of additional wage will raise prices or affect McDonald's otherwise doesn't make my conclusion wrong. In fact, you have yet to prove my conclusion is wrong. You just keep stating I don't have all the facts, but go on, prove your point which I surmise you have none. If you had a point to make you would have proven it with facts by now, but you won't even attempt to because you know it'll lead to the same conclusion I've come to. That McDonald's will have to change their operating procedures in some form or another.

You go completely against any form of scientific debating, if you have a point to prove, please do so with some factual evidence rather than trying to chop up my argument and calling names.

So, you expect that businesses will simply absorb the decrease in profits and not raise prices. Really? So, you just do not want to consider the reality of anything, just what you want the outcome to be. Very tacky.

That is exactly what I've been saying won't happen... Thanks for proving my point?

So, I asked if you are a libertarian. Are you stumped at that question?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.

so why not tell us what the evidence is?????????????????????????????????????????

Irving Fisher's debt deflation hypothesis and Minsky's Financial inestability hypothesis.

I did not ask for a libturds hypothesis about debt I asked for evidence that capitalism is unstable as you claimed ?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Irving Fisher's debt deflation hypothesis and Minsky's Financial inestability hypothesis.

also, it stuns me how dumb you are. A theory about debt is not a theory about capitalism. You can have debt in any type of economy

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I think any successful economy needs a healthy balance between "socialism" and "capitalism."

of course that's one part lazy, one part stupid, and one part liberal. Why not say how socialism can mean success???

 

[ChrisL]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I think any successful economy needs a healthy balance between "socialism" and "capitalism."

of course that's one part lazy, one part stupid, and one part liberal. Why not say how socialism can mean success???

What's stupid about it? It doesn't have to be all one or all the other. Only narrow minded people think that is the case.

 

[Rshermr]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I think any successful economy needs a healthy balance between "socialism" and "capitalism."

of course that's one part lazy, one part stupid, and one part liberal. Why not say how socialism can mean success???

You are a congenital idiot. Congenital. So yeah, three parts are correct. But you should not be so hard on yourself. It is truly just bad luck.

 

[ChrisL]

I think Australia is a pretty good example of a combination of socialism and capitalism working together. It's really the smartest way to do things, IMO. Why do we have to choose? Why not both?

 

[Rshermr]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I think any successful economy needs a healthy balance between "socialism" and "capitalism."

of course that's one part lazy, one part stupid, and one part liberal. Why not say how socialism can mean success???

What's stupid about it? It doesn't have to be all one or all the other. Only narrow minded people think that is the case.
Yup. But ed's mind is so narrow that it does not cast a shadow.

 

[Rshermr]

I think Australia is a pretty good example of a combination of socialism and capitalism working together. It's really the smartest way to do things, IMO. Why do we have to choose? Why not both?

Right. There are really no, as in zero, entirely capitalist nations. They would be known as Libertarian countries, which have never existed in the real world.
The us is furthest leaning toward capitalism, but still has a good deal of socialism here. Clowns like ed like to suggest that only libertarianism, or laissez faire capitalism is desirable. But can not answer why, if that is the case, there are none and never have been any such nations that got beyond infancy. Like communism, the people do not like the pure capitalist economic system. Never have, never will.

 

[ChrisL]

I think Australia is a pretty good example of a combination of socialism and capitalism working together. It's really the smartest way to do things, IMO. Why do we have to choose? Why not both?

Right. There are really no, as in zero, entirely capitalist nations. They would be known as Libertarian countries, which have never existed in the real world.
The us is furthest leaning toward capitalism, but still has a good deal of socialism here. Clowns like ed like to suggest that only libertarianism, or laissez faire capitalism is desirable. But can not answer why, if that is the case, there are none and never have been any such nations that got beyond infancy. Like communism, the people do not like the pure capitalist economic system. Never have, never will.

It seems like a whole lot of conservatives are completely against any tax monies going to help the poor. That is so disappointing. I think it's a very important part of a successful economy/country to make sure your poor people are fed and clothed. I can only imagine how horrible things could be here in the US if some conservatives had their way.

 

[Rshermr]

I think Australia is a pretty good example of a combination of socialism and capitalism working together. It's really the smartest way to do things, IMO. Why do we have to choose? Why not both?

Right. There are really no, as in zero, entirely capitalist nations. They would be known as Libertarian countries, which have never existed in the real world.
The us is furthest leaning toward capitalism, but still has a good deal of socialism here. Clowns like ed like to suggest that only libertarianism, or laissez faire capitalism is desirable. But can not answer why, if that is the case, there are none and never have been any such nations that got beyond infancy. Like communism, the people do not like the pure capitalist economic system. Never have, never will.

It seems like a whole lot of conservatives are completely against any tax monies going to help the poor. That is so disappointing. I think it's a very important part of a successful economy/country to make sure your poor people are fed and clothed. I can only imagine how horrible things could be here in the US if some conservatives had their way.

I have never seen a conservative support tax plans of any kind. Just lowering them. What drives them nuts is that their hero raised taxes several times after his great 1982 tax cut and resultant killing of government programs drove the unemployment rate to 10.8%. Then, after finding himself in heavy trouble with voters, Reagan raised taxes, and spent more than all presidents before him combined. Tripled the national debt.
But today, nearly all republican congressmen have signed a promise to never increase taxes under any circumstance. They never, ever vote for anything that increases taxes.
Nearly all the GOP candidates bow down to Grover Norquist

Also, I have never heard a republican have a problem when the poor suffer. From the start of the great recession of 2008, republicans blocked every single attempt to pass bills to help the situation. And with unanimous support by all republican congressmen. And they put forward exactly zero bills to help. Zero. So, they are the party of the 1%. And to hell with the working class.
[/QUOTE]

 

[anotherlife]

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

If you got a BA in economics I would ask for my money back, again fool 3% of workers make minimum wage almost 50% of workers make $15 bucks or less you think the $15 dollar worker will be getting a $7 dollar an hour raise? Of course not

You are not doing a Damn thing by raising the national minimum wage.

Trickle up poor, trickle up misery

no. Raising the minimum wage is the best way to clear the debt that individual Americans love to pile onto themselves daily. With every new student loan sold, and every new free credit balance transfer authorized, we need one penny increase on the minimum wage, to balance out that cash flow. In other words, when the government is your automated underwriter, then it also must be your automated money printer. otherwise you will repeat the 2009 credit crashes progressivelybigger, worse, and faster.

No way, it makes you think you have more wealth but it just another number for a 25 cent minimum wage

It inflates money so it clears unpayable debt. Nasty indeed, but there may not be anything else around today to balance the blind automatic federal underwriting machine.

So we got a major problems
Global problems like naffta and free trade

The enemy with in raising minimum wage with out a back lash of company's relying on automation and leaving

We have a back will have riots in the streets if a burger flipper snot nose kid makes as much as a cop on the streets

Garbage collectors already make higher union wages than policemen. And shutting down global trade, which has never been free, will not change a thing, because any buyer can go to any other country to replace you. I think the key is currency valuation. And reserve currencies are always valued higher than their productivities, so isolationism works always against the workers in the reserve currency countries, such as the "basket of five".

 

[anotherlife]

I wish this was true.

No because governments and central banks are intertwined. Without credit extensions, any business that is bigger than a carpet shop would fail in a day.

Private credit can be extended by the people delivering the raw materials and creating finished products.

Banks are overrated, if not entirely unnecessary.

I wish this was true.

It is true. Sears, and GMAC are examples.

Are you saying that something vital such as national defense could do this? On paper maybe, but in practice I doubt it. Complexity of supply chains seems to work against it, and if done, the end result would be a turning of one of them into a bank. Even as little as a company pension deal has turned the three US car makers into investment banks.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Are you saying that something vital such as national defense could do this? On paper maybe, but in practice I doubt it. Complexity of supply chains seems to work against it, and if done, the end result would be a turning of one of them into a bank. Even as little as a company pension deal has turned the three US car makers into investment banks.

It's possible.

Besides, Murica was never supposed to have the immense standing military it has today. It was supposed to be defended mostly by the state militias, who would be called into regular Army service if an invasion warranted it. So the supply chain argument is kind of moot.

What does any of this have to do with private credit, anyways?