Bitcoin Forum

Our current unregulated free markets are not fair. Prices fluctuate all the time. Free markets will create too much wealth for people. And when everybody is free, it becomes unregulated, and bad things can happen. This can't be. It's not fair for poor people. What we need is fair markets. In fair markets, a government body is established to determine a fair price for every good. Any reseller wanting to jack up prices is revoked from his license to sell things. In fair markets, the government is able to care for everyone, and able to squeeze productivity from everybody who can, without anyone becoming too rich. Life should be fair.

If you haven't heard of soviet russia... you should read up.

and also: NO!.

We need fair markets for basic/vital goods and free markets for expendable goods.

I don't buy into economic theories, I want economy to work for the people and not the opposite. If people need food and houses to live in, they need those things to be cheap enough (controlled market). If people want Ipods, well, that's not a primary necessity and you can let it's price float in a free market.

Free markets are a chimera because of PRIVATE monopolies, not because of the government. Therefore we can't afford to have free markets(=private monopolies) for 1st necessity goods. This is economics 101.

Life isn't fair.  Get over it.  The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can actually do something with your life, instead of bitching about the rich man keeping you down.

The question is, who decides what is fair?

A transaction doesn't take place unless both sides benefit, you don't buy a gallon of milk for $5,000, that's too expensive. But if you buy a gallon of milk for $4, you are saying that the price is acceptable, otherwise you would not buy it.

Same goes for every other good.

Since what you want is a 'fair market', and the free market is described as the voluntary exchange of goods between individuals, you're going to have to answer who decides what's fair, because it doesn't appear that you want it to be the individuals actually engaging in the transaction.


The actual result of this is, people will have their license to sell things revoked by their competitiors who lobby the governmental body, causing prices to go up due to lower supply. Licensing is one of the reasons why stuff is expensive in the first place as makes it difficult for supply to meet demand, and those currently engaged in that market do not want new people to enter their market as that would bring prices down.

And what if someone wants to sell below the 'fair' price, which is better for the consumer?

As usual, your attempts to help people will just make things even worse.

I suspect that this person is a troll, by the way.

Sovereign chance your name to socialist please

Social-democrat is a better definition. I am social-democrat and enjoy one of the best socialized/universal healthcares of the world (inexpensive and high quality). Yes, I'm from Spain.

Can we have it the other way around? If we are going to have expensive prices, bad quality and even shortages I would preffer that it would ben on expendable goods and not on basic/vital goods.


Yes, so do most of the rest. That is why they study economic theory. Someone (Keynes) said: "


Its the other way around. When government regulates it allows companies to avoid competition and introduces a lot of innecesary overhead. This produces more expensive and of less quality products. If you want food to be available for everyone, deregulate. If you want it expensive and bad quality regulate.


If you have to regulate something, please regulate the iPods, not the food, otherwise you hurt people.


Monopolies can only happen because of government intervention. Please, check the origin of the word monopolly and when it changed of meaning. You will be surprised.

1. you presume the cost of regulation compares to the entry costs.  establishing a rental properly is non-cheap, even if you toss out all regulations down to building codes.

2. what do you consider" government intervention"?  does allowing limited liability qualify?

No, I dont.


yes

Take a guess as to why Spain (and much of Europe) is currently suffering economic woes.

A fair market is a free market.

Wealth is never limited to a pie unless there is a pie tin provided in the first place. Get rid of the tin I say and let every man create his own clobber.

@ OP

What exactly isn't fair about a true free market ? I can list a tonne of things that isn't fair about a regulated rigged market, show me your list.

yes you do.  the effect of regulation on the people entering the market is proportional to their cost WRT existing costs of entry.  if they're not on the same order, the regulation's effect on the number of people entering the market is negligible.


that depends on what you mean by a "true free market".

my definition would be a market free from monopoly power, business fraud, insider dealing and special privileges for established interests.

this has the result of everyone entering the market competes on even ("fair") terms.

i do not think this situation will produce itself in a free-from-regulation market.

This model of the effect of regulations is too simplistic and completely unreal. I dont asume those premises.

heres a newsflash. your country is broke and the rest of the eu has to pay for it.

The assertion that free markets lead to monopoly is wildly incorrect. If the market is allowed to work freely over time, an apparent monopolist soon discovers that it indeed has competition. A company operating in a market economy looks like a monopoly only under myopically static analysis. A broader definition of any industry will show that there is plenty of competition, just as a narrow enough definition will show that any brand name product has some monopoly characteristics, such as a popular brand of ice cream.

The airline industry is an example. There are now two manufacturers of large passenger jets: Boeing and Airbus. Punditry has expressed inevitable fears over monopoly profits and passenger safety. However, Boeing's actions in the last three years--most notably, attempts to cut costs by modernizing the entire production process --suggest that Boeing believes it has competition.

Boeing is right, and the competition is not just from Airbus. Suppose Airbus closes its doors, and only Boeing remains. Suppose also that Boeing faces no government regulation. Can Boeing raise prices at will? If it does, in the short term, people who have to travel will find alternatives to air flight in increasing numbers. Airlines would use smaller planes as much as possible. In the long term, companies such as Beechcraft and Cessna, seeing higher than normal profits available to an interloper, might build larger jets.

Consider too the electricity business: As reported by The Economist (August 2000), deregulation in many places around the world is bringing about huge changes in the industry, including movement toward smaller local producers. Most countries and communities value a pristine environment, and smaller power plants can be "greener" than large ones. And sending power over smaller distances means that local plants, with higher at-source costs, are competitive with giant, distant plants because they save the costs imposed by distance. Thus, smaller local plants may be competitive with large producers very soon.

Automobile manufacturing provides another good example. In the early, less-regulated years of the 20th century, there were dozens of small automakers, from Deusenberg to Rambler. Now, with the purchase of Chrysler by Daimler Benz, it would appear the United States is down to two. Worldwide, Ford, General Motors, Daimler Benz, BMW, and others (even Fiat!) are buying out such storied makers as Rolls Royce, Land Rover, Jaguar, and Lamborghini.

These acquisitions seem superficially to suggest that monopolies are forming. Looking more closely, we see that the four acquired companies mentioned above were all suffering financial difficulties when purchased by others, and notably, the acquired represent marques many automobile enthusiasts consider worth saving. They were purchased because they weren't making money, yet offered appealing products that should be profitable. That someone was losing money building popular cars suggests not that the industry tends toward monopoly, but that there were management shortcomings.

The automobile business continues to be stiffly competitive. Startups such as Hyundai and quasi-independent marques such as Saturn and Geo show that the high cost of entry into this capital-intensive industry is not enough to dissuade newcomers. Further, new trends such as the SUV and specialty vehicles such as the popular retro-kitsch Chrysler PT Cruiser show that even established automakers still must innovate to survive.

These three industries--planes, automobiles, and electricity--are three of the most capital intensive, and all show that when the market is free, there is no monopoly. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that your electric company decides to triple its rates. What would happen? In the short term, people would use candles for light, turn down their thermostats, and find other ways to use less power. In the longer term, we would find alternatives to our current provider, and the freer the market, the less time this would take. Economic profits attract entrepreneurs from under rocks, and some of these new competitors will offer truly good deals.

If your electric company, or Boeing, decided to raise prices arbitrarily, and customers were forced to find long-term alternatives, would there be inconvenience? Certainly. But any inconvenience would signal entrepreneurs that profits were available, and they would act. Over time, this natural market process would have us enjoying more choices, and more affordable ones. Contra Marx and Galbraith, free competition does not generate monopolies, but rather stymies them.

(Mises.org author: Brad Edmonds) http://mises.org/daily/621

I know way better than you why Spain is suffering economic problems. It has nothing to do with universal healthcare. These are the main reasons:
1) We lived in a real state bubble for too long. People assumed very high risks buying houses and taking 30+ years of mortgages. Banks assumed very high risks granting those mortgages because they do not care about risks: if there's any problem the central bank and the government will bail them out. This is socialism FOR THE RICH. Hey, I'm for bitcoin, I'm social-democract, I don't like the way banks rule.
2) We built our industry around... tourism and real state. That's no industry, that's just smoke.

That's why we have 20+% disemployment. It's not related to the socialized/universal healthcare, because we actually pay less dollars per person than you, and less percentage of our GDP per person and less percentage per sallary than you. And still, we get a better healthcare. For everyone. So don't just mix unrelated things up.

Yeah, if I happen to get cancer I'll pay nothing more than what I'm paying right now. And the costs of getting such a nice universal/socialized healthcare are less than what you pay right now, in every fracking aspect (total, percentage of GDP, and percentage of our sallary). It's WAY more efficient than your privatized system.


No, it isn't, actually, that's Greece, Ireland and Portugal. We have a disemployment problem, not a state debt problem.

And if it was, I say we should then get out of the euro and don't pay our debts: economists have studied those situations and the result is that it only affects the country for 1-2 years (markets have a short memory), while the "bail out" affects the country for decades.


Free markets don't always lead to monopoly, but they CAN lead to monopoly. That's a fact.


[Wikipedia]  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μoνoς (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Yeah, under that definition monopolies can actually happen without government intervention. And they do happen.

Let me give you an example: Microsoft. Yeah, Microsoft. Almost everyone uses windows, so hardware designers and computer distributors want their products to be windows compatible. Microsoft had the monopoly so they forced sellers to sell their computers with windows installed if they wanted windows to work on their machines. That is the "a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." part. Until that moment there was no government intervention. Fortunately, governments did intervene.

You are kidding me right? Microsoft biggest clients are government administrations. What regulations did the government pass that went against MS except some of the EU with no real impact?

Im not using MS. How is that a monpolly?

Monopollies, that is situation that harm the consumer, can only happen with government intervention.

Troll alert...  ::)

I can give more examples of monopoly in the "free market". For example, there are many cases in which corporations cooperate instead of competing with each other, establishing a cartel, an oligopoly, a defacto monopoly.

But let's stick with the Microsoft example: there are more windows licenses bought by non-government people than for governments. I'm talking about windows licenses, not for the whole Microsoft product range.

Microsoft copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Intellectual property is not possible without government coercion on other's physical property.

In the case of natural monopolies, they are beneficial because they were consented to that position with good reason.

Standard Oil (before it was disbanded) gave us the lowest oil prices we ever had. They mainly formed in the first place because they avoided state-restrictions on interstate trade. So even Standard Oil's monopoly is due to some government restriction.

Yeah but your position is very radical. I cannot give you any example in which there's no "government coercion on other's physical property" because every country has a government and for example every business has to pay taxes and that's coercion for you.

For the sake of the argument, you must accept that if the coercion is the same for all business, the example is valid. For example, all businesses have to pay 18% VAT. For example, everyone can create copyrighted software. Patents are not valid because they stop you from using ideas, that's a big difference with copyright and that's why I can use Microsoft as an example of monopoly "without" government intervention.


You should read Adam Smith. He was scared to death of monopolies, NOT ONLY of government monopolies.

lolwut?  Where you living with an unregulated free-market?


And yet it is not (regardless of whether or not it "should" be).  For example, I was born with a genetic disposition to a chronic neurological disorder and have to walk with those support canes (with the arm-braces for stability...protip: chicks dig it when you cyber-punk out your disability accouterments).  Saying it's "not fair" or "should have been otherwise" is like saying the sky should be red because I have such an aversion to the color blue (even if the majority of people shared this aversion).  It does not compute

OP is sarcastic.

dammit, people need to use the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags...

This must be a joke.  What unregulated free markets?

The fluctuation of prices are the language of the market.  Flattening prices would be like eliminating pleasure or pain on your nervous system.  You wouldn´t survive very long.

I tried make it sound as stupid as possible, so it would be obvious.




The sad thing is, as hard as I tried to be too stupid, it wasn't enough because this is what the average person actual thought process looks like.

Yeah, I haven't been here that long, but this seems about par for some folks here.

I'd recommend either using the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags or just try posting intelligent stuff, there's enough stoopid in the world

No. I want to bait these idiots and show them how silly and simplistic their world view is.

So you want to eliminate government, taxes, minimum wage, police, public prisons, judges, universal/socialized healthcare, public education, unemplyment compensations, obliged vacations, retirement benefits, maximum number of hours per week, obliged security standards, minimum age for working and at the same time state that anyone that doesn't want to eliminate that is an idiot and simplistic.

Just summarizing.

No, he does not want to eliminate police, judges, healthcare, education, compensation for valid losses, low working hours nor the ability for people to save for the future.

He actually wants such things actually existing beyond the substandard monopolies on services we have today.

Those things exist because people protested and government then enforced it as law, they won't happen in any real way without government intervention. Example: we get those things here in europe because government enforces them, people in china don't get those things because government doesn't enforce it there.

No, that is not why people in poorer countries don't get those things. It's only because they have less capital relative to their population. Capital concentration is the only determinant of standard of living, and while Europe has a lot now relative to the rest of the world, the ideology of social democracy has resulted in several decades of stagnation.

It's been neoliberalism that has caused this crisis.


We got those benefits here in Europe when the standard of living and productivity was way lower than now. Therefore, all your theory goes to the trash bin.

You can maybe blame free trade, but there's no way you can blame liberalism in general. Europe has become extremely socialist. In fact, the Western world in general has embraced ever greater levels of government redistribution of earnings, which has led to economic stagnation.

Gov. spending as a % of GDP is the primary determinant of economic growth, and it is at 50% in Europe. Even in countries where it's slightly lower, like in Spain, gov. regulations are so extensive as to give the government significant control over the rest of the economy that is not directly controlled by government. Take Spain's labor market as one instance. It's obstructed by a ridiculous amount of regulation that prevents people from freely hiring/firing staff and offering them wages/benefits.


There was no universal health care in Europe 100 years ago. What state provided health care there was was extremely primitive compared to what the governments offer now. On the upside, economic output wasn't confiscated by the government, which allowed Europe's industrial base to expand.

Standard Oil never had a monopoly by any definition of the word. Even the Supreme Court was unable to prove any monopoly. There's a good chapter on this in a book titled "How Capitalism Saved America".

Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Unfair systems that only benefit the rich are impossible in a free market. Wide-scale long-term poverty is impossible in a free market.

Fair will always be a matter of opinion. If any group of people try to impose a law or regulation on a market, in a manner they think is fair, there will be those that the law does not suit.

The word regulate only means control, or to channel down a particular path. It's very naive to think that the beings in control can think of every future failing, or of every way that their regulation isn't fair. Humans aren't naturally unfair because they are evil, they're unfair because they are stupid.

Some markets need to be regulated. We need a good enough minimum wage, for example.

Wrong. Nearly every economist from almost every spectrum of the economic field, be it Keynesian or Austrian, agree that the minimum wage increases unemployment, increases poverty (particularly for minorities), kills many small businesses, and many other serious issues. The minimum wage hurts the poor and never helps them. The minimum wage has zero real benefits. This is true of every regulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DS0XXFdyfI - Walter Williams on the minimum wage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMMN3UIQmEk

IMHO, the only way to have fair and also free markets is to have no governments at all.

As long as there is one player in the economic field of activity that uses force on large numbers of people it will either directly or indirectly cause distortions in the markets, giving advantages to a select few.

Without governments there will be so much more wealth and wealth opportunities for everybody that differences will not matter anymore because there will be plenty for everybody anyway.

I can't really follow absolute anarchism. I'm a major fan of Frédéric Bastiat and "The Law" summed up every purpose of government. I see government as an essential and necessary force to some degree. But obviously the less government, the better. I think a human has a right to his/her life, liberty, and property and that there should be a justice system to help protect these rights. Outside of those basics, government has no legitimate purpose in my mind.

I agree with bustaballs. The ideal role of government is very limited, but it is an essential role. Besides the fact that you need a government to standardize laws, in order to avoid constant conflict, you need government to force people to contribute funding to public goods like law enforcement, that otherwise would be un-produced in society.

That's false. Minimum wage only increases poverty when it's too big. If it's medium sized (let's say half of the sallary of the 70% poorest population wage), it just redistributes wealth. Yeah, some people will get unemployed because they cannot get a $1/day job, but as business'll still need workers, they'll be paying at least $40/day to workers.

So what happens to the people whose labor is not worth the minimum wage? Do we just cut the bottom rungs off the ladder of success?

The minimum wage doesn't redistribute anything. It simply ensures that a person whose labor is not worth the minimum wage will not be employed. It cannot compel an employer to pay someone more than their labor is worth, nor would any rational employer do so.

Think about it rationally -- would it be easier to sell a computer if the government set a minimum prices of $800? I mean, that would ensure you made at least $800, right? All it would mean is that computers worth less than $800 would never sell, ever. Computers worth more than $800 already sell for more than $800. So forcing a high price doesn't help you at all.

Small government does not work because governments have an innate tendency to grow bigger.

Also, if people find out what governments have really been doing they will be so disgusted that they won't want anything more to do with governments anymore.

Well, in the opinion of anarchists and neoliberal people, NOTHING (except free market) redistributes and at the same time creates, wealth.

If your labor is not worth the minimum wage, but the employer needs it to be done, IT WILL BE DONE. It will be done and the person who is employed for doing it WILL get the minimum wage. If the labor is not worth the minimum wage but gets done anyways, there's a wealth redistribution. This is a fact.

The point isn't whether minimum wages redistribute wealth or not. The point is whether this wealth redistribution is, overall, a good thing for the economy or not: does the minimum wage not only redistribute wealth but create more wealth?

Many people (neoliberals and ancaps) will say it doesn't, because you are just giving some of the rich's wealth to the poor, in a inefficient way.

But perhaps Keynes would rather say that the poor would use it in a more efficient way than the rich: the rich would perhaps use it for speculation, while the poor would spend it in real thing like food and gasoil.

Life is not fair.

Get over it

It seems improbable in the extreme that those who have successfully made money in the past would generally tend to use money less efficiently than those who have not. As a general rule, the wealthier you are, the smaller the percentage of your money that goes into consumption.

But I think that's a pretty bizarre argument anyway. I'm sure I could appreciate a million dollars much more than Bill Gates would miss a single million. But I think most civilized people agree that if I take a million dollars from Bill Gates against his wishes, I'm a scoundrel not a champion of an efficient economy.

Yeah but I'm talking about wealth, not about money.


And if you are rich and you speculate, then you are creating money not wealth (it's more money for you, but not more wealth for the whole economy).


I disagree. Taxes are a good thing, as (for example) they pay the very efficient universal/socialized spanish healthcare system.

I understand the distinction between wealth and money, but I don't see how it's relevant here. You can substitute "wealth" for "money" in the post you are responding to and the reasoning stays precisely the same.

The minimum wage is not a tax. It's simply a law that prohibits some mutually-beneficial employment arrangements.

You can make money without creating wealth. That's a fact. So no, you cannot substitute "wealth" for "money" in your post without changing the reasoning.


Minimum wage's not a tax, but in the way you wrote your text, I could think you were talking about taxes.

You act like Big Boss Bill only has two options: hire Dan the Drunk for an inflated wage to cut the peppers for his pizza, or go without having peppers on his pizza. You seem to be refusing to take the perspective of the employer, and actually stop and think about what else might be done.

1) Bill can tell Overworked Oliver that, in addition to making the pizzas, he now has to also cut the peppers

2) Bill can buy an automatic pepper-cutter

3) Bill can pay more to buy pre-cut peppers

4) Bill can hire Efficient Ernie instead, who can cut peppers, olives, tomatoes and pepperoni, to get more bang for his buck

5) Bill can cut the peppers himself

6) Bill can hire an intern, spin some tale about how pepper-cutting is the key to the pizza business, and get it done for free (until the intern wises up)

7) Bill can hire an illegal immigrant for less than minimum wage, and pay him off the books

And yeah... he can also just decide to do without peppers on his pizzas from now on.

In each of those cases, Dan was not made wealthier. He's still poor, and now he won't even be employed. You have an unrealistic view of things if you think employers just eat losses because some law tells them to, rather than doing whatever they can to avoid it.

So (in any legal way), if the job really needs to be done, the worker gets paid at least the minimum wage per hour.


This is the way we got all our workers' rights and it has worked very well so far. Do I have to enumerate again all the workers' rights we've got right now that we earned back when vacuum tubes didn't exist? History shows I'm right.

Some jobs are optional, and only get done if the price is right. A shop owner could decide to hire three extra staff and keep his shop open longer every day, or he could just stay with the hours he has. If the cost of labor makes keeping the shop open later unprofitable, he won't do it.

There is no benefit in prohibiting any mutually agreed upon transaction, particularly one where both parties are obviously acting in their self interest (in contrast to something like a narcotics purchase, which I still prefer to be legal).

Yes, there's benefit in prohibiting some mutually agreed upon transaction. Because there are needs like food, water and a house to live in that everyone need to cover and employers use that fact against workers. Minimum wage and other government interventions balances out that power.

And I repeat, it has worked quite well so far.

How can you even make that statement?

In example #1, no one got paid more. Instead, one worker is made to work harder with no increase in pay.

In example #2, A MACHINE does the job.

In example #3, we have no idea if someone somehow gets a pay raise. For all we know, the pre-cut peppers could be produced by child labor in a third-world country.

In none of those examples do we see Dan the Drunk, who isn't worth minimum wage, suddenly start making it. Please note that THAT is the point I'm trying to make.

Of course all the legal workers still left employed make minimum wage. No one argued otherwise--it's a strawman. But to say that poor people are all suddenly made better off through the decree of a minimum wage is nonsense. See examples 1-7.



Enumerate all you like. It still doesn't change the fact that forcing a minimum wage on a society does NOT magically cause all otherwise-employable people to suddenly start earning that wage. There are simply too many ways around a minimum wage, in most cases, for it to do anything. (And even if it did--congratulations! You just caused every employer to raise prices to compensate! Now those "wealthier" employees can spend their newfound wealth on more expensive goods and services. Winners all around!)


Actually, history shows minimum wage is, at best, a joke, and at worst, an impediment to workers, and to the economy at large.

It hasn't worked well at all. It has reduced employment, and led to people without marketable skills not having a way to acquire them with an entry level job. That the Western world is relatively wealthy doesn't change the fact that the net effect of minimum wage laws have been negative. Luckily the minimum wage has been quite low relative to the average wage, so its negative effect has been small, but it's still there.


If people are so desperate to meet their basic needs that they will take a low paying job, then prohibiting those low paying jobs is the opposite of what you want to do. And it doesn't matter how much power the employer has, the only thing he is able to do in a free market is offer people a wage in exchange for a service. If they are not happy with the worker, they can end that employer-employee relationship, which leaves the worker no worse off than he was before.

If the job needs to be done, it will get done even if it requires low skills. In that case, you won't be killing jobs, jsut redistributing wealth.


If a worker is working more hours than what the contract and the law says, it's illegal and I don't count it because it shouldn't happen and the worker should sue the employer for cheating the legal system. If he stops doing "important stuff" in order to do the cheap stuff, others will do the "important stuff".


So we just increased productivity, and increased efficiency. BTW, who created and designed that machine? Maybe someone got the minimum wage, we created the machine and therefore wealth and at the same time increased productivity.


If the pre-cut peppers are produced by child labor in a third-world, I say we should ban them from selling their child labor products here. Until we ban that kind of thing, there's a loop in the system we have to fix. This system is far from perfect, we have to get better laws.


That's because you just ignored the fact that the employer could simply hire Dan the Drunk for the minimum wage.


If the employer raises prices because he has to pay minimum wage, there's a wealth redistribution between higher paid jobs and lower paid jobs.


History shows minimum wage works very well when it's not an excesive number.

Yes, because that's the point: Bill doesn't WANT to hire him because he's not worth minimum wage! He comes to work drunk, causes trouble and does a sloppy job. Bill might be willing to hire him for $5 an hour, but not for the minimum wage of $10 an hour. And Bill won't pay him that if there's any way around it, because it's a bad deal for Bill.

Your minimum wage cost Dan a potential job. At this point, probably NO ONE will hire him, because his labor is only worth $5/hr.


Yeah, that makes him better off.  ::)



Tell that to all the Dans out there. You have a strange definition of "works."

If he's drunk at work, he shouldn't work at all.

If minimum wage is so great, Let's set it $100/hr, so everyone can be rich!

I already said that minimum wage only works to a certain point. For example, setting minimum wage at half or a third of the median  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median)income is a good enough minimum wage.

Economics are not linear, minimum wage are a good instrument but you have to know how to use it.

Oh, I see... So, just a few rungs off the bottom, then. OK. In that case, You don't need all your toes, just the big ones. Mind if I chop off the other 8? It won't affect you much.

I agree. I think that it's unfair some people are smarter than others. Let's give them brain damage! Also, what about people that are better looking? Acid to the face! Lots of hair? Scalp removal! Taller than me? Chop off their feet! Skinny? Force-fed donuts!

The sooner we all sink to the same level, the sooner I can stop feeling sorry for my own personal shortcomings.

Minimum wage is always arbitrary. The actual value is chosen after studying many factors, as a compromise between those factors (like expected unemployment raise after raising minimum wage). In the end you'll choose a value that isn't either too high (for example higher than the average sallary, or, as I prefer, the median sallary) or too low (zero).

You can joke all you want about it, but economics are not linear.

Linear?  No. But predictable, within range? Yes. minimum wage = unemployment. You want less unemployment, lower the minimum wage. You want 0 unemployment, lower it to 0.

There was a short story with this concept. Beautiful people had to wear masks and such. What was it called?

Sure, unemployment is linked with minimum wage, I have already stated that like, I don't know, infinite times in this thread already. BTW, no, that's not true, you won't get 0% unemployment just eliminating minimum wage (some people just don't work, others won't work for less than X etc, I guess it depends on how you measure unemployment).

I'm not trying to minimize unemployment rate with minimum wage, that would be absurd.

So, what economic harm are you trying to minimize?

Employers have too much power upon the poorest paid workers when workers get to "negotiate" the contract. Minimum wage sets a minimum standard of living, so if you get the job you get that minimum standard of living, there's no negotiation/bargain between employers and workers around that minimum standard. Some workers might not get the job because of that, yeah, that's why you have to get to a compromise between the minimum standard of living and the unemployment it creates.

Overall, minimum wages have a net effect of wealth redistribution and a raise of the standard of living, without creating much unemployment rises if well used.

That is much better handled by collective bargaining.

Hold on for the ride.  You shall live to see your high quality socialized healthcare system utterly collapse.  You will not understand why, and your countrymen will blame government corruption or whatever else, but will also not understand it.  I understand it, and it was predictable a decade ago, probably more.  I'm not making a prediction, for a prediction would imply a possibility of error.  This is inevitable, and Spain is already long past the point of reform, even if that were politically possible.  You will watch as Greece & Ireland proceed your nation, but your turn shall come.

Minimum wage laws may not apply to every situation depending on the jurisdiction. If you're working for piecework you can easily make less than minimum wage if you don't perform well. You can either stick it out until you're making more or you can quit.

There is also at least one song:

Rush - The Trees:

You're really ignoring my point in your response. The job will be done at a price, and will not be done at a price higher than that. That means that minimum wage mandates can eliminate jobs that would otherwise exist, leading to higher unemployment.

You can give the unemployed welfare, but that's worse for the economy, since they don't get the training they would get working a job, and they don't produce any thing.

Absent minimum wage laws, the employee has the option to say "yes" or "no". Minimum wage laws simply force him to say "no". This only has any effect at all if he'd rather say "yes". To claim that taking a choice away from him helps him somehow strikes me as absurd.

That is your opinion. Funny how you're so eager to have guns pointed at people to force your opinion on them.



...

Can you please explain how deliberately causing unemployment (how noble!) redistributes wealth? Who loses wealth, and who gains it? (And just to preempt you, please keep in mind that by not having a job, it is NOT Dan who is on the receiving end of any supposed wealth redistribution.)

I shall repeat that the reasons for our high unemployment rate (debt is not our problem) have nothing to do with things like universal healthcare. We pay way less (net) than you per citizen for healthcare. We also pay a smaller percentage of our sallary for healthcare.  We also pay a smaller percentage of our GDP per capita for healthcare. And still, our healthcare system gives in return a better service. So that's not the problem, our universal healthcare is more economically efficient, cheaper, and gives in return a better service.


Either employers, some of the better paid workers or the whole society will lose wealth. Those who get to do the worst paid jobs will gain wealth.

Banning slavery also causes unemployment. But you should agree that nowadays people with the worst paid jobs are in a better situation (inflation adjusted).

No. just no. Those who would be doing the worst paid jobs get nothing, and the other workers will have to pick up the slack. I have been one of those who had to pick up the slack, so kindly stop spouting your socialist fallacies.

If the job really needs to be done, it will be done. And if it's done in a legal way, they'll give those who get the job at least the minimum wage. If it doesn't really need to be done, then I don't care.

Let me explain. If you don't get it with this, I'll draw pictures.

Tom and Bob both work for Joe. They get paid $5.25 an hour.

Minimum wage goes up. to $7.25. Joe can't afford to pay them both that rate, so he cuts back. Bob gets laid off.

Now Tom has to do his job, AND the job Bob did, for $7.25 an hour.

Bob gets to go to Unemployment, and receive money stolen from both Joe and Tom. Oh, and everyone else.

If Tom gets to do both jobs at the same time, it looks like a productivity increase to me (we are charging per hour, and we are assuming the employer is a law abiding citizen). In your scenario, minimum wage just increased economy's efficiency over the "free market" scenario. This is getting funny.

I don't think Findeton deserves to be called an idiot.

Exactly. If Joe could hire just Tom for $7.25 an hour and get him to do both Tom and Bob's job, he would already be doing that. If somehow he couldn't do that before and now he can, then raising the minimum wage did magic. Tom gets a higher salary. Tom is a more valuable employee. Joe gets the same work done for less money. And Bob is free to work someplace where he can be employed efficiently rather than dragging both Joe and Tom down.

It's you that proposed that scenario, which Atlas (btw, thanks Atlas!) for example might not agree with. If your only arguments to my reasoning are insults, then I might abstain to answering you.

Suuuuure... Employer gets more profit, only remaining employee gets to do twice as much work for a third more pay, and the other worker gets to live off other people's work. That's 'efficient'.

And that's assuming Tom can actually manage to get his and Bob's job done.

Of course not, but his economic illiteracy is frustrating.

This. Right there. Laws do not make magic. You can not wave your pen and make Tom more efficient.

Slaves weren't employed anymore than cows were employed. They were considered human cattle. The kind of employment we're talking about is voluntary, where people want to work for a price that is offered to them. Forced unemployment is definitely not a good thing for the people being unemployed. The fact they chose a job vs. anything else tells us that they preferred having the job. Forcing them to not work is putting them in a less preferential situation i.e. they are worse off.

Of course you can't. But in your scenario you said that "Tom has to do his job, AND the job Bob did, for $7.25 an hour. ". Well, if he achieves that, there's a productivity increase. If he doesn't achieve that, well, he might have to work more hours but supposing the employer respects the law, there's also a maximum for working hours/week.

No, if he fails to do that, he'll get fired. Oh, look.. two people living off other people's work, and a Job that's hard to fill, because now it requires a more productive worker which, of course, is rarer.

Yes, the employer needs a more productive worker. But perhaps all workers with an efficiency of $7.25 an hour are already working. And if they are not working, then there's again a productivity increase because someone who was unemployed gets to do the job in a more efficient way.

I'll give you a hint I shouldn't give you because I'm supposedly an idiot.
-One way I see minimum wages actually hurting economy is when because of the minimum wage increase, the work gets totally unprofitable and the job just doesn't get done.
-Another way I see minimum wages actually "hurting" economy is when, because of the minimum wage increase, the employer rises the price of the service to his clients so inflation rises. This anyways represents a wealth redistribution mechanism and, if the minimum wage is not very high, it's not a big problem to me.

If all workers capable of working at $7.25 are already working, raising the minimum wage did nothing except get people not worth $7.25 an hour fired. Jobs don't get done, or get externalized (Ex: Self-checkout lane in the supermarket, or only one cashier at McDonalds with a line that fills the lobby).

If there were surplus workers with $7.25 an hour skills, you've still managed to get more workers fired than hired. Worse, those workers are now on unemployment, getting paid out of stolen funds to do nothing. Either way, you've damaged the economy, and not helped the people you were hoping (ostensibly) to help, the lowest paid workers.

As I said before, the Employer having more bargaining power than the employee is better solved with collective bargaining, not a minimum wage.

That's the first scenario I described in my last post where minimum wages harm economy. Therefore I agree with that. I must say that under that scenario, perhaps Joe and Tom should study to get more efficient.


If there were surplus workers with $7.25 an hour skills, then there was a market ineficciency that got resolved. In fact, under that scenario that ineficciency should've been resolved without rising minimum wage as I don't see why the employer would hire two workers for $5.25 an hour instead of one worker with $7.25 an hour if the latter can do both jobs at the same time.  If the worker with  $7.25 an hour skills cannot do the job twice as fast as the ones being paid $5.25 an hour, then what will theoretically happen is that it will take longer to get the job done (it gets externalized you migh say).

OK, so... It's harmful, or unnecessary, by your own admission. Why, then, do you force it upon people?

A true monopoly cannot exist without help from the government in the form of regulations masquerading as consumer "protections."

Microsoft: Was never a true monopoly. Government laws did not give them special treatment.

AT&T and other Telecom providers: Perfect example of a true monopoly. The government uses force to prevent other people from using the radio wave spectrum the way they want.

Cable TV: True monopoly. State and municipal regulations allow only one company to provide the "last mile." (same for telephone land lines).

Oil refineries: Cartel. Government tightly controls when new refineries can be built.

You don't understand what I'm saying there. I'm just saying that if a worker can get the job done for $7.25 an hour, the employer should never hire Joe and Tom for $5.25 an hour and that fact has nothing to do with minimum wage. I'm just saying that in that case your scenario is absurd if your objective is to evaluate the costs of rising the minimum wage.

In other words, you have supposed that here was an agent (the employer) in the economy who was acting in a stupid way. Of course that a rise of the minimum wage can make the market more efficient under that circunstance. But that is related to stupidity, not to minimum wage.

Then evaluate the benefits for me. Paint me a scenary.

I already did, somewhere inside this thread. Find it, I'm sure you are intelligent enough to find it.

Nope. You've responded to others', but not presented your own. So, feel free to do so now, or prove me a fool by quoting the one you posted earlier.

Of course, if the employer doesn't rise the price of his products because of the minimum wage increase, that also helps economy. In any case where the job is not eliminated because of the minimum wage increase, I'd say that there's a benefit to society (because of wealth redistribution), if minimum wages are not excesive. My objective is not to have the wealthiest society, just a wealthy enough society with a good enough income distribution. I'm social democrat, which means I do not want an absolutely free market, nor an absolutely intervened/planned economy, but a mix of both worlds.

How does this illustrate the benefits of a minimum wage?


Or this, for that matter. The employer will increase the price of his products, I've watched it done. (hell, I helped change the signs) Jobs will be eliminated, I've seen it done.

The scariest thing is right here: "My objective is not to have the wealthiest society, just a wealthy enough society with a good enough income distribution. I'm social democrat, which means I do not want an absolutely free market, nor an absolutely intervened/planned economy, but a mix of both worlds."

You know intervention damages the economy, and you're OK with it.

Please give me an example of a minimum wage increasing prosperity.

I know it might cause some inflation or unemployment rise, but it will redistribute wealth too. You just take into account total wealth of society, whilst I consider total wealth of society AND wealth distribution. You are trying to maximize one variable, I'm trying to maximize two variables.

Define "maximum wealth distribution" for me.

Minimum Gini coefficient.

Exactly. So you only give music lessons to the people with the least musical talent.

The Gini coefficient is defined. What represents your minimum is not defined. You are dodging myrkul question.


Hahahaha. Actually it would be to almost everybody, but the joke is still valid.

You can use the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution. So lets say I want to minimize the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution and at the same time maximize the total wealth of the nation.

Ok. Lets say that, go on.

I defined "maximize wealth distribution", not "maximum wealth distribution".

To "maximize wealth distribution" is, for me, to minimize the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution.

Therefore, under that definition, you could say that the "maximum wealth distribution" happens when the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution is zero.

PD: Yeah, I know wealth and income are not the same.

It's good enough for me.



So, what you want, is the most wealth, in as many hands as possible, yes?

OK. So, just for S&G, let's redistribute all the wealth from everyone, to everyone. Start conditions= Gini coefficient 0.

What happens when people make bad decisions? Invest poorly, lose money, etc?

And what happens when people make good decisions? Pick the right investments, trade their labor for money, etc?

Suddenly that coefficient starts creeping up... Those who made good decisions now have more money than those who made bad ones. What do you do to 'fix' that?

You give them enough free market so that the most intelligent ones get more money and create more wealth and you give them enough government intervention so that the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution is not that high.

So, to be clear, you think that good decisions leading to wealth and bad decisions leading to poverty is a problem that needs to be solved. Is that correct?

'K. But remember that every intervention punishes those who have made good decisions, and rewards those who have made bad decisions.

People will see this, and act accordingly. Incentives matter, after all. How long do you think it will take before you've set a ceiling and a floor, so nobody tries too hard, and nobody worries too hard about failure? How long before those two meet?

Just because taxes exist and just because the tax system is progressive doesn't mean the richest won't want to earn more money. So we'll reach no ceiling. The same for the "floor theory". I don't like extremes, I'm not defending communism nor neoliberalism.

Apart from what myrkul is saying, here you are supposing governments are a force towards equality, you are supposing that politicians actually take from the rich to give to the poor (in simple terms). What we see in reality is the opposite. Governtments are a force that creates more inequality by favoring the corporate budies of the politicians at the expense of the middle and poor classes, that are left with no oportunities, expensive prices and some defective government minimum services so they dont die and can keep working.

Some government actions are a force against equality, other government  actions are a force towards equality. That's because we are heading towards a plutocracy/oligarchy instead of enhacing our democracy.

So I would say that government actions CAN be a force towards equality.

Howcome all democracies do the same (with different excuses)? I know, its not a real democracy... Arent you drinking the kool aid?

Not all actions of any given government are against/towards  equality. For example minimum wages rise equality and are enforced by the government.

Minimum wages decrease equality by taking the people whose labor is worth the least and making it worth nothing at all.

Suppose the minimum wage is $6/hour. A person whose labor is worth $7/hour in the absence of the minimum wage will find they can fetch near $7/hour in the market even with the minimum wage. Now suppose the minimum wage is raised to $8/hour. Now, the person whose labor was worth $7/hour will find that their labor is worth nothing at all. Those whose labor is worth more than the minimum wage are unaffected. They'll get jobs either way.

Minimum wage laws simply ensure that those whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage cannot get a job even if they would prefer to have it (if for no other reason than to gain experience, to keep their skills current, to have a reference for their next job, to make a little bit of extra cash, just to have something to do, and so on). To claim that overriding people's rational decisions somehow benefits them is absurd.

So, this is what myrkul asks for:






Emphasis added.

And this is what Findeton responds with:




It seems as if Findeton simply will never answer the request to illustrate how a minimum wage actuallly increases prosperity (or wealth, or whatever he wants to call it.) I wonder if it's because, really, he knows he can't.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pissing%20Kool-Aid

Hey it's OBVIOUS:

Imagine that you are paid the minimum wage. Suddenly, there's a minimum wage increase. Therefore, if you don't get fired, you are now paid more therefore your income has increased. As wealth hasn't increased, someone has to pay for your income rise, therefore there's been a wealth redistribution under that scenario.

(Man, kids these days don't see the obvious)

You can argue that you don't like this particular scenario. It's basically what we've been discussing all the way down this thread: whether and under what circunstances this scenario will happen.

But if you don't, someone will. You're not redistributing wealth down, you're redistributing it up. You're increasing the Gini Coefficient, by adding more people whose wealth is zero, and giving their wealth to the people on the next rung up. It is obvious, and that's why we're so amazed you can't see it.

You've asked for a scenario in which the Gini coeficient is lowered, and I presented it. Maybe you think it's not very likely to happen, but it's theoretically possible.

It's theoretically possible that no one gets fired if, for example, the employer just rises prices, which in turn rises inflation. So in this scenario, no one gets fired, the Gini coeficient is lowered and inflation is increased.

Also, it's theoretically possible that no one gets fired if, for example, the employer or some other employees just get their income lowered. In this case the Gini coeficient is lowered with zero inflation.

It's clear you don't understand inflation, either... but that's OK, too.

So you've presented two possibilities: 1, Prices go up (they do, As I said, I've helped change the signs), or 2, the employer or some other employees get a pay cut.

Most businesses who pay minimum wage are very low margin businesses, such as fast food. There's no room in the budget for increased wages. Even raising the prices, people still have to be cut, either in hours, or fired completely.

It's theoretically possible that Steven Hawking might spontaneously regenerate his nerve damage and start marathon running. Doesn't mean it's logically likely.

I don't know very well US economy, but here in Spain, cashiers and shop assistants for example get the minimum wage, even though executives of those businesses are paid millions.

In fact, I do know something about US economy: executives get paid more than 1000 times the sallary of the worst paid worker (this also happens in Europe, but somehow not just so often as you can see with the Gini coefficient). So yeah, there's PLENTY of room for pay cuts. Which is normal when you have a 45 as Gini coefficient on income distribution (according to CIA, in 2007).

McDonalds Corporate (For instance) has nothing to do with the individual franchises. They get their fees, they make sure the place isn't a cesspool, and they let the franchises run their own businesses.

Also, If you're comparing the duties and responsibilities of a CEO to a cashier, we're done here. Logic is out the window.

I'm not defending the big corporations. I'm saying that the reason the executives make the big bucks is: 1, They worked their way up there. With a few (notable, and short-lived) exceptions, Nobody was born into a CEO or other executive position. 2, Not only did they earn that salary, they continue to. CEOs put in 60+ hours a week, rarely see their families, and, except when government regulation gets in the way, bear the responsibility for the entire company. Cashier fucks up, a customer gets short-changed. CEO fucks up, Company goes out of business.

Yeah but some 50 years ago the difference between CEOs and lowest level workers was 50x, not 1000x. I say we go back to the 50x rate. You might not like my scenario but it's a possible scenario. Yes there's plenty of room for pay cuts on those fat CEOs checks. (1000-50)*100/1000 % = 95% of the CEOs check is just waiting to be cut back to improve minimum wage.

So:


I just answered that. Get over it.

US Minimum wage in 1961 (50 years ago) was $1.15.

That would be $8.69 an hour of 2011 dollars (inflation adjusted (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)). For 40h/week that's $1390/month of 2011 dollars.

Not bad at all If you ask me for a minimum wage.

There's a misconception between what you get paid and what you are really worth. As Carl Marx would say, you are worth the value you generate, not what you get paid. The difference is the surplus value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value).

Let me give you an example that comes from my own experience. If I haven't got a degree yet, although I've got more than 90% of collegue done, I get paid about $700/month. When I get the degree I'll magically get paid at least $2400/month. Have I just increased my efficiency 3.5 times in the second I get the title that says I've finnished college? Hell no. So I know that while I'm being paid $700/month my real value is MORE than $2400. So when we rise the minimum wage what normally happens is NOT that the job is killed, but that the surplus value is lowered, creating a wealth redistribution.

I just don't accept the theory that you are worth what you get paid. You are worth the value you generate, not the value you are paid, and the surplus value's been rising for decades so there's plenty of room now to get minimum wages rised in many countries.

Well, Now that you've brought in inflation, let's talk about that, shall we?

Let's say that minimum wage worker sets back some money from his meager check. The government puts out more money, reducing the value of his money, both in the check, and in the bank account. Minimum wage never keeps pace with inflation, so the poor get poorer. (even assuming that minimum wage helps people)

That's fine. If someone "generates" less than the minimum wage, there's no way they can get a job by even people who'd be willing to take a huge financial by hiring that person. In order to hire someone, they would have to generate enough money for the company to cover their wages, the bills, and have enough left over in profit to help grow the company. This means they'd have to earn far less than what they generate under any circumstance. What someone is worth is completely opinion based.

Minimum wage, like ALL price floors AND price ceilings are logically flawed and do absolutely NO good for the economy or society.

Also, you can refer to Karl Marx all day but that's just going to make you look like a literal communist. As we saw in the 20th century, socialism doesn't work. It destroys entire economies and leads to the worst kinds of human suffering imaginable. I just can't believe how after over a hundred million people died due to this flawed idea, so many people still support it. It's like these people don't want to understand basic facts. They are "flat-worlders".

ok, let's try quoting a different author then.

"Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds make up far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part is of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged. "

"The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition, that they are going fast backwards."

Right, this is exactly right for the 1% of people with the $700/month job that are 90% of the way to their college degree. However, for the other 99% of the people with that job who aren't being underpaid because of an unusual quirk in how employers judge value, ...

Finally. Thank you. Now we have a nail to hammer at:

In any reasonably-sized society (100,000+ people), what percent of employees do you think will fall into the above scenario, versus the percent who get fired, have their hours cut, etc.? (It would help too if you explain how you came to estimate that percent.)

It is good thing that bitcoin is on a free market based on offer and demand, a market that can be manipulated is not good since history has shown it usually helps those who are in control of the money supply.

The only reason the bitcoin market can be manipulated to some degree is because it is a very young and small market, once the bitcoin acceptance grows, the market for bitcoins grows, and bitcoin will be a very stable currency by then.

What is needed is good press, and to support vendors that accept bitcoins, for example is not the same for the bitcoin economy to trade dollars  and spends the dollars on a restaurant, than go to a restaurant that takes bitcoins, the more bitcoins are used the stronger the bitcoin economy will get. I predict that if people that have bitcoins start using them as currency in 5 years, the bitcoin economy will be very strong. No need to speed all your bitcoins since savings are good for a solid economy also, just need to get more movement in bitcoins so if vendors see their sales increase more vendors will follow therefore increasing the demand for bitcoins.

I would imagine the early adopters of Bitcoin can also manipulate the market as they have a disproportionate portion of the money supply.  Even in the Bitcoin world, there are the elite that can pull strings.

Yes, welcome to a small economy. I purchased 20 shares of a stock on GLBSE today and raised the price 33%.

Well, I couldn't care less about what other people might think. Also, I don't see why people are scared of communists, I think most of them are good people. Well, I do know why, because of USA USA USA USA USA propaganda.

I don't buy into the "let's plan all the economy altogether" thing. But the analysis Karl Marx does of Capitalism is VERY interesting and just because I don't like the solution he gives I won't stop reading Das Kapital.

It looks to me like KARL MARX and COMMUNISM are taboos for many americans. Well, they are no taboo for me and I cannot cease to be amused every time I mention them in front of an american. ("Hey, he said SEX, he must be a pervert!", "Hey, he said MARX, he must be a communist!").


- The surplus value is a theory that analyzes Capitalism, not a theory that analyzes communism.
- He didn't invent the surplus value theory, he just made it famous.
- USSR actually worked somehow between 1917 and 1991. of course it was a monstrous thing, but it worked somehow and it actually turned a peasant rural country into a technological superpower.
- Millions of people die because of famines every year under capitalism's rule. It's a valid comparison: most of the people that died under communism died because of famines.


Adam Smith.

Most are fine people.  They are just ignorant.  And terminally so.

Name a capitalist country that had a famine with a million deaths in the past year.  Name one in 2000, 1990 or 1980.  Show me a million deaths in any year, since WWII, within a predominately capitalist society that wasn't at war at the time.  You can't because it hasn't happened since 1933, and even then it's questionable.

I really wish you kids would study History.

Holy crap, you were being serious?  I thought that your OP was sarcasm. Dude, you gotta take the red pill. You're still in The Matrix.

Free markets ARE fair markets to me. Doesn't my opinion count as much as yours?

1. It worked because the politburo had access the the Sears Catalog.  Without it, they would have no idea where to set prices.  see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem)

2. It worked because Stalin backed off his land reforms in time to keep the famines from killing everybody.

3. It worked because the black market was tolerated.

4. it became a technological superpoer because the technology/military complex was the only industry group that faced competition (with the West). Competition is good. It makes you stronger.

5. it worked because of Western aid- to fight Hitler, expatriates in Western countries sending remittances home to family members, humanitarian and technological exchanges, etc.

6. Ultimately, it didn't work.

There are 35 million deaths caused by famine every year under capitalism. 17 million people every year die because of obesity. There are 850 million people suffering severy hunger, there are more than 1000 million obeses.

There are 35 trillion dollars spent on twinkies every week.

See? I can make up statistics, too. Links, please, to those statistics.

Links or it didn't happen.

Do you not have an estimate? Don't even want to hazard a guess?

If you're actually interested in level headed analysis you should check out the unabomber manifesto.  of course it mostly isn't anything *new*, but it is put together in an fairly efficient way.

I wouldn't call anything that led to the conclusion: "Therefore I will mail you explosives" 'level-headed'

prepare to be surprised.

http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

Well, After a quick skim, I saw nothing that leapt out and screamed 'WACKADOO', and he does seem to have outlined the insanity of what he calls 'Leftism'. So, color me surprised. How he thought explosives could fix things, though...

The Unabomber wasn't trying to fix anything, in reality.  He was enacting vengence towards people he belived had done him wrong.  The manifesto was a distraction and cover.

This is not an answer. I did not say that all actions of a government go in that direction. I said that the net result of a social-democratic government is to benefit the elites at the expense of the middle classes and the poor.


Nice way of switching the topic of the conversation.

Youve been dodging issues all the time, instead of answering them. Why wont you admit that social-democracy is corporatocracy when you have it in front of you?

Regarding the folly of central planners see:

A Way To Be Free - by Robert LeFevre

http://centerforselfrule.org/a-way-to-be-free/

There are no true capitalist countries. Every country is screwed up to some degree by central planners who think they know what is best for the rest of us. Who are these angels that are "all wise" and "all knowing"? They don't exist. They are simply humans like the rest of us except they are protected from accountability by armies and ignorant people who believe in the myth of external authority.