This will become more common

Look, Damoan has the econ board dialed in. There's another angle to this. The city has illegalized certain labor negotiations between two consenting parties.

MikeDamone said:

creepycoug said:

But does anybody who isn't stoopid actually think minimum wages increase jobs and stimulate the economy? Does even a left-wing hippie with a basic education in economics really believe that it does those things as opposed to what it really does - serve as yet another means of redistribution?

I mean, I get it. Minimum wage means, among other things, that shit (defined loosely as goods and services) will cost more.

Is it honestly anyone's view here that there are a lot of people who don't understand this basic truth? It's not a point of view. It's a factual reality given the system we have today. Maybe Marx was right and someday in the future we will reach a point of evolution where we have moved on from free market principles to a better system ("better" being defined however it's defined at that time). But until then, this is the one we have, and it works the way it works.

I guess I'm saying, there's nothing to discover here.

Sounds like some basic Kane Hall freshman shit. And, yes, some people don't understand the basic truth, and when given the facts and data to read for themselves, won't take the time to understand it (Hi OBK!!!)

It's much easier to argue with Ad hominem attacks and build false realities (I.e. A CEO making $6 million a year while paying $10 an hour to 300 workers).

There is still no other system than the free market that lifts more people out of grinding poverty consistently and for the long term. So I'm not sure what the evolution would be to.

That hasn't been happening in America lately.

We'll reach economic nirvana when we get here:



Until then we're stuck with primitive economic theories and realities.

MikeDamone said:

creepycoug said:

MikeDamone said:

creepycoug said:

But does anybody who isn't stoopid actually think minimum wages increase jobs and stimulate the economy? Does even a left-wing hippie with a basic education in economics really believe that it does those things as opposed to what it really does - serve as yet another means of redistribution?

I mean, I get it. Minimum wage means, among other things, that shit (defined loosely as goods and services) will cost more.

Is it honestly anyone's view here that there are a lot of people who don't understand this basic truth? It's not a point of view. It's a factual reality given the system we have today. Maybe Marx was right and someday in the future we will reach a point of evolution where we have moved on from free market principles to a better system ("better" being defined however it's defined at that time). But until then, this is the one we have, and it works the way it works.

I guess I'm saying, there's nothing to discover here.

Sounds like some basic Kane Hall freshman shit. And, yes, some people don't understand the basic truth, and when given the facts and data to read for themselves, won't take the time to understand it (Hi OBK!!!)

It's much easier to argue with Ad hominem attacks and build false realities (I.e. A CEO making $6 million a year while paying $10 an hour to 300 workers).

There is still no other system than the free market that lifts more people out of grinding poverty consistently.

1. Correct. But better to say, "some Heyne in Kane" shit. It rhymes.
2. Ok. I believe you.
3. There is nothing wrong with ad hominem rhetoric you pedantic little twat pimple. I would tell you to try it sometime, but you just called me a cunt somewhere else, so I think you are well familiar with the technique.
4. I don't agree that it's easier to build false realities than it is to learn this shit in econ 201. In fact, I think building a good strawman is actually harder - it takes creativity, whereas word vomiting Paul Heyne's lectures just takes a decent memory and a mental pulse.
5. You got that right pimpy. Even Marx said pretty much the same thing in both Das Kapital and The German Ideology. Hey, I'm not making this shit up. You can get those books on Amazon.

1. Heyne in Kane. Got it.
2. Duh
3. Is that what MSNBC told you to say? Cunt. But what you said in point 3 (above ) is not an ad hominem attack. And I know you thought it was.
4. Disagree. Building a starwman means your not able to debate the issue so you make shit up. 5 year olds do that when they are caught in a tough situation
5. I have both books and have read both books. I also refer my well worn copy of the Marx-Engles Reader fairly often when debating socialist Fucktards in real life.

6. Are we arguing or agreeing? Seems like we're on the same page here.
7. ?
8. profit

re #6, of course. but that's like saying we agree that it's Monday. who cares whether we agree or not. it is fucking Monday. and likewise minimum wage laws create shortages in the demand market for labor in our system. there are 1.5 million problems that occur at the legislative level in the cuntry, and that one is like #987. it's so overwhelming that my pea brain cannot assimilate it.

re #3, I don't know why you give me that question. who is this MSNBC you speak of? does he poast here?

re #3, look, I am a trained, professional philosophizer who hails from the hallowed grounds of Savory Hall, so don't fuck with me on the latin rhetorical device references, cuz I'll take you down, all the way down to China town. let's just say, sure, not exactly ad hominem, and let's just say, sure, my comments on your gripping thoughts about companion dogs wasn't really either. it's close enough for me. if you feel the need to be more precise, then go fuck yourself with it. twat lips.

re#5, good for you. tell the socialist fucktards I said, "hello". and I should correct myself - Marx didn't say precisely that capitalism pulls people out of poverty. what he said was that it is the best system we've come up with, to date, to eliminate scarcity. I suppose those are one in the same, but an argument can be made that they're not. maybe that's why he went off the reservation, partially abandoned his earlier theory of historical materialism and wrote the manifesto. or maybe he was bored.

re #8, what is this profit thing you speak of?

MikeDamone said:

creepycoug said:

MikeDamone said:

creepycoug said:

MikeDamone said:

creepycoug said:

But does anybody who isn't stoopid actually think minimum wages increase jobs and stimulate the economy? Does even a left-wing hippie with a basic education in economics really believe that it does those things as opposed to what it really does - serve as yet another means of redistribution?

I mean, I get it. Minimum wage means, among other things, that shit (defined loosely as goods and services) will cost more.

Is it honestly anyone's view here that there are a lot of people who don't understand this basic truth? It's not a point of view. It's a factual reality given the system we have today. Maybe Marx was right and someday in the future we will reach a point of evolution where we have moved on from free market principles to a better system ("better" being defined however it's defined at that time). But until then, this is the one we have, and it works the way it works.

I guess I'm saying, there's nothing to discover here.

Sounds like some basic Kane Hall freshman shit. And, yes, some people don't understand the basic truth, and when given the facts and data to read for themselves, won't take the time to understand it (Hi OBK!!!)

It's much easier to argue with Ad hominem attacks and build false realities (I.e. A CEO making $6 million a year while paying $10 an hour to 300 workers).

There is still no other system than the free market that lifts more people out of grinding poverty consistently.

1. Correct. But better to say, "some Heyne in Kane" shit. It rhymes.
2. Ok. I believe you.
3. There is nothing wrong with ad hominem rhetoric you pedantic little twat pimple. I would tell you to try it sometime, but you just called me a cunt somewhere else, so I think you are well familiar with the technique.
4. I don't agree that it's easier to build false realities than it is to learn this shit in econ 201. In fact, I think building a good strawman is actually harder - it takes creativity, whereas word vomiting Paul Heyne's lectures just takes a decent memory and a mental pulse.
5. You got that right pimpy. Even Marx said pretty much the same thing in both Das Kapital and The German Ideology. Hey, I'm not making this shit up. You can get those books on Amazon.

1. Heyne in Kane. Got it.
2. Duh
3. Is that what MSNBC told you to say? Cunt. But what you said in point 3 (above ) is not an ad hominem attack. And I know you thought it was.
4. Disagree. Building a starwman means your not able to debate the issue so you make shit up. 5 year olds do that when they are caught in a tough situation
5. I have both books and have read both books. I also refer my well worn copy of the Marx-Engles Reader fairly often when debating socialist Fucktards in real life.

6. Are we arguing or agreeing? Seems like we're on the same page here.
7. ?
8. profit

re #6, of course. but that's like saying we agree that it's Monday. who cares whether we agree or not. it is fucking Monday. and likewise minimum wage laws create shortages in the demand market for labor in our system. there are 1.5 million problems that occur at the legislative level in the cuntry, and that one is like #987. it's so overwhelming that my pea brain cannot assimilate it.

re #3, I don't know why you give me that question. who is this MSNBC you speak of? does he poast here?

re #3, look, I am a trained, professional philosophizer who hails from the hallowed grounds of Savory Hall, so don't fuck with me on the latin rhetorical device references, cuz I'll take you down, all the way down to China town. let's just say, sure, not exactly ad hominem, and let's just say, sure, my comments on your gripping thoughts about companion dogs wasn't really either. it's close enough for me. if you feel the need to be more precise, then go fuck yourself with it. twat lips.

re#5, good for you. tell the socialist fucktards I said, "hello". and I should correct myself - Marx didn't say precisely that capitalism pulls people out of poverty. what he said was that it is the best system we've come up with, to date, to eliminate scarcity. I suppose those are one in the same, but an argument can be made that they're not. maybe that's why he went off the reservation, partially abandoned his earlier theory of historical materialism and wrote the manifesto. or maybe he was bored.

re #8, what is this profit thing you speak of?

Pressing

I see your blood sugar is low this afternoon.

What, no more material from freshman year to shove down our throats?

Have a drink and relax. Fuck face.