Does any one else feel that the tea party is destroying US

[Bitchkitten]

I do hope the Tea Party keeps it's close ties with the Repuplican Party. It should sink them both before long.

[Nova Nacio]

I'm sorry if I'm going off the deep end here with my hatred of Conservatives and Republicans in general, buyt let's face it- we can't live another century with these racist, homophobic, relgious extremist, anti-intellectual scum screwing us good people over all to pander to their so-called rich and corporate masters who are ruining the world with their ilk, if not just America by itself.

Please tell me I'M NOT ALONE and that violent revolution/anarchy against them is becoming the only solution. Please!

[Nova Nacio]

I do hope the Tea Party keeps it's close ties with the Repuplican Party. It should sink them both before long.

The problem is people aren't educated enough around here. Otherwise, we'd have a violent revolution year after year by now if only to keep these bastards out of power. We'd be a mess, but at least we'd be free, financially successful, and above all else, a utopia with free education, housing, and healthcare.

And anyone who stands in our way can die and our guns/swords! Just like our true forefathers wanted!!!

[Farnhamia]

I'm sorry if I'm going off the deep end here with my hatred of Conservatives and Republicans in general, buyt let's face it- we can't live another century with these racist, homophobic, relgious extremist, anti-intellectual scum screwing us good people over all to pander to their so-called rich and corporate masters who are ruining the world with their ilk, if not just America by itself.

Please tell me I'M NOT ALONE and that violent revolution/anarchy against them is becoming the only solution. Please!

You're alone. In case you haven't noticed, we don't do violent revolution in the US any longer. And "anarchy" is simple foolishness, in all it's manifestations. Stop being so angry and get to work making sure none of them gets elected. That's the solution.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Your answer is incorrect.

There is a reason diagrams like that only happen in first year courses.

Whats the reason(s)?

It's just gone ahead and assumed a perfectly competitive labour market. So all labour is homogeneous, the real wage is a given, employers can hire as much labour as they want at the real wage, and the demand/supply curves are also the marginal product/cost curves (that's the most important one). It's a good tool for teaching demand/supply, but it gets more complicated once you deviate from that perfect world.

[ZombieRothbard]

Whats the reason(s)?

It's just gone ahead and assumed a perfectly competitive labour market. So all labour is homogeneous, the real wage is a given, employers can hire as much labour as they want at the real wage, and the demand/supply curves are also the marginal product/cost curves (that's the most important one). It's a good tool for teaching demand/supply, but it gets more complicated once you deviate from that perfect world.

Even in an imperfect world, isn't it basically a non-hypothetical truth that forcing employers to pay certain amounts for labor will take away their ability to pay less and hire more labor?

[Pauper Kings]

After reading all of this and realizeing that violent revolution and anarchy are our only salvation, seeing as no one will vote Independent or for a party thast will listen to us:

I just want America to die and just divide itself into multiple countries like Africa now.
You know, with different kinds of govt's. I'm sure they're doing great.

Either that, or everyone in the US secedes and adopts anarchy, because everyone's convinced "democracy" does not work anymore.

Sounds like a bunch of utopias, like Europe and Asia are, could be built under this brilliant final solution!

I wish someone would get off their ass and help me make it happen. The world will thank you and stop giving us Real Americans (We, The PEOPLE - the Middle/Working/Poor) shit!!!!!

[Greed and Death]

Ive been baiting them to do that for years, all they ever do is raid forum 7 and steal LG;s clown porn collect.

You must have been on holiday a month or so ago. We had a batch of cute little neo-nazis show up talking all aryan and master racey. They didn't last long.

During work 40 hours a week, class 9 hours a week, study for 12 more hours a week during the summer.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

It's just gone ahead and assumed a perfectly competitive labour market. So all labour is homogeneous, the real wage is a given, employers can hire as much labour as they want at the real wage, and the demand/supply curves are also the marginal product/cost curves (that's the most important one). It's a good tool for teaching demand/supply, but it gets more complicated once you deviate from that perfect world.

Even in an imperfect world, isn't it basically a non-hypothetical truth that forcing employers to pay certain amounts for labor will take away their ability to pay less and hire more labor?

Far from it. The available evidence is inconclusive at best. Back when the minimum was low there was evidence for the monopsonistic model, paper here if you can access NBER (or I guess you could find it somewhere else?), but i suspect that the current minimum wage is too high. But it's not a clear-cut non-hypothetical truth at all.

[ZombieRothbard]

Even in an imperfect world, isn't it basically a non-hypothetical truth that forcing employers to pay certain amounts for labor will take away their ability to pay less and hire more labor?

Far from it. The available evidence is inconclusive at best. Back when the minimum was low there was evidence for the monopsonistic model, paper here if you can access NBER (or I guess you could find it somewhere else?), but i suspect that the current minimum wage is too high. But it's not a clear-cut non-hypothetical truth at all.

I don't think it is true that the minimum wage always has this effect in every instance. For example, a minimum wage of $2 may not create unemployment at all. But a minimum wage of $20 or $100 dollars clearly would. So I think it is non-hypothetically true that minimum wage CAN have a negative impact on employment.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Far from it. The available evidence is inconclusive at best. Back when the minimum was low there was evidence for the monopsonistic model, paper here if you can access NBER (or I guess you could find it somewhere else?), but i suspect that the current minimum wage is too high. But it's not a clear-cut non-hypothetical truth at all.

I don't think it is true that the minimum wage always has this effect in every instance. For example, a minimum wage of $2 may not create unemployment at all. But a minimum wage of $20 or $100 dollars clearly would. So I think it is non-hypothetically true that minimum wage CAN have a negative impact on employment.

Sure. I even said I think that the current minimum wage (which is what... $7.50ish an hour?) is too high (causing unemployment), although that's just a guess. But the demand/supply diagram you gave is far too simplistic to allow for the fact that small minimum wages can actually increase employment.

[Ashmoria]

I don't think it is true that the minimum wage always has this effect in every instance. For example, a minimum wage of $2 may not create unemployment at all. But a minimum wage of $20 or $100 dollars clearly would. So I think it is non-hypothetically true that minimum wage CAN have a negative impact on employment.

Sure. I even said I think that the current minimum wage (which is what... $7.50ish an hour?) is too high (causing unemployment), although that's just a guess. But the demand/supply diagram you gave is far too simplistic to allow for the fact that small minimum wages can actually increase employment.

try living on $7.25 an hour.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Sure. I even said I think that the current minimum wage (which is what... $7.50ish an hour?) is too high (causing unemployment), although that's just a guess. But the demand/supply diagram you gave is far too simplistic to allow for the fact that small minimum wages can actually increase employment.

try living on $7.25 an hour.

Try living on $0.

[ZombieRothbard]

I don't think it is true that the minimum wage always has this effect in every instance. For example, a minimum wage of $2 may not create unemployment at all. But a minimum wage of $20 or $100 dollars clearly would. So I think it is non-hypothetically true that minimum wage CAN have a negative impact on employment.

Sure. I even said I think that the current minimum wage (which is what... $7.50ish an hour?) is too high (causing unemployment), although that's just a guess. But the demand/supply diagram you gave is far too simplistic to allow for the fact that small minimum wages can actually increase employment.

I agree, I was just using it as an example to dissuade my opposition from using the red herring of Bill Clintons presidency. And I look forward to reading that article if I can find it free online. I am taking Macro and Micro this semester (there is a lot of pressure on me now, because I got a 100% on the pre-test to the class, and the professor now calls on me to answer questions all the time, ugh). But I look forward to chatting with you about economics as I go through the class, if you are interested of course.

[Ashmoria]

try living on $7.25 an hour.

Try living on $0.

it makes no sense to mandate wages that are not at a livable level. $5 an hour isnt particularly better than $0 since you cant live on it.

[ZombieRothbard]

Try living on $0.

it makes no sense to mandate wages that are not at a livable level. $5 an hour isnt particularly better than $0 since you cant live on it.

You can live on it. You can room with other people making $5 an hour and pool your resources to pay for your utilities.

[Uawc]

The Tea Party movement is just an example of what happens in imperialist countries when the economies in said countries take a nosedive, which is a natural result of the capitalist-imperialist system moving production to the Third World and creating a domestic mall economy.

Historically, when economies in the rich imperialist countries fell, the people of those countries have turned to fascism, as fascism, unlike socialism, is nationalist instead of internationalist, and would continue to promote First World privilege at the expense of the Third World. To provide a parallel, most Germans were supporters of the Nazi regime during its time. This little piece of writing shows very clear examples of this.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Try living on $0.

it makes no sense to mandate wages that are not at a livable level. $5 an hour isnt particularly better than $0 since you cant live on it.

It makes no sense to mandate wages if the increase in wage a person gets is offset by one or more other people now having a no job. You can't mandate your way to prosperity. If you care about the welfare of poor people, you need to implement policy that increases their marginal product (give them access to cheap/free education and healthcare) and gives them a safety net (social security). If you're considering mandating wages at all, you should mandate a wage that maximises employment.

[ZombieRothbard]

The Tea Party movement is just an example of what happens in imperialist countries when the economies in said countries take a nosedive, which is a natural result of the capitalist-imperialist system moving production to the Third World and creating a domestic mall economy.

Historically, when economies in the rich imperialist countries fell, the people of those countries have turned to fascism, as fascism, unlike socialism, is nationalist instead of internationalist, and would continue to promote First World privilege at the expense of the Third World. To provide a parallel, most Germans were supporters of the Nazi regime during its time. This little piece of writing shows very clear examples of this.

I agree with you here. I am hoping that there is enough radical tradition in the United States so that we break the mold and revert back to classical liberalism instead of fascism. I would suspect that even though you are not a capitalist, you would prefer that change.

[Uawc]

The Tea Party movement is just an example of what happens in imperialist countries when the economies in said countries take a nosedive, which is a natural result of the capitalist-imperialist system moving production to the Third World and creating a domestic mall economy.

Historically, when economies in the rich imperialist countries fell, the people of those countries have turned to fascism, as fascism, unlike socialism, is nationalist instead of internationalist, and would continue to promote First World privilege at the expense of the Third World. To provide a parallel, most Germans were supporters of the Nazi regime during its time. This little piece of writing shows very clear examples of this.

I agree with you here. I am hoping that there is enough radical tradition in the United States so that we break the mold and revert back to classical liberalism instead of fascism. I would suspect that even though you are not a capitalist, you would prefer that change.

It wouldn't matter to me, because being an opponent of imperialism and a proponent of peace and equality, I support the dismantling of the First World in its entirety.

[ZombieRothbard]

I agree with you here. I am hoping that there is enough radical tradition in the United States so that we break the mold and revert back to classical liberalism instead of fascism. I would suspect that even though you are not a capitalist, you would prefer that change.

It wouldn't matter to me, because being an opponent of imperialism and a proponent of peace and equality, I support the dismantling of the First World in its entirety.

Well true classical liberalism would not be imperialistic by nature.

[Uawc]

It wouldn't matter to me, because being an opponent of imperialism and a proponent of peace and equality, I support the dismantling of the First World in its entirety.

Well true classical liberalism would not be imperialistic by nature.

"True classical liberalism" is by its definition subject to change. Are you implying that by a return to "classical liberalism", the First World would return to the Third World what it has wrongfully taken, return all production to the First World, stop crashing Third World economies with cheap imports, work to reverse the imposed development of underdevelopment in the Third World, and give First Nations peoples back their land?

[Revolutopia]

So, we've got one "not conservative" policy and "quite conservative" policy. I can't say I'm 100% convinced.

Whatever. The liberal media has no excuse for shutting out John Stossel while FOX has given him his own show.

That speaks volumes. And that is that FOX is far more open minded.

The Liberal Media of MSNBC has also given shows to both Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough both pretty conservative dudes if I remember correctly. In fact, Joe was a republican congressman for a while if I remember correctly, and Pat a presidential advisory to three Republican presidents and twice ran for the presidential candidacy of party.

CNN also gave old Pat Buchanan a show years back, and Glenn Beck got his start there so it seems they have no trouble finding conservative correspondents either.

So where is Fox News correspondent that was a Liberal Democratic congressman or Democratic candidate for President?

[ZombieRothbard]

Well true classical liberalism would not be imperialistic by nature.

"True classical liberalism" is by its definition subject to change. Are you implying that by a return to "classical liberalism", the First World would return to the Third World what it has wrongfully taken, return all production to the First World, stop crashing Third World economies with cheap imports, work to reverse the imposed development of underdevelopment in the Third World, and give First Nations peoples back their land?

No, but a return to true classical liberalism by my definition would be non-interventionist in foreign affairs, would have free and open trade with everybody (including Iran, Cuba and North Korea) and would eliminate tariffs and such that attempt to cartelize domestic industry and prevent foreign workers from being able to have work.

[Uawc]

"True classical liberalism" is by its definition subject to change. Are you implying that by a return to "classical liberalism", the First World would return to the Third World what it has wrongfully taken, return all production to the First World, stop crashing Third World economies with cheap imports, work to reverse the imposed development of underdevelopment in the Third World, and give First Nations peoples back their land?

No, but a return to true classical liberalism by my definition would be non-interventionist in foreign affairs, would have free and open trade with everybody (including Iran, Cuba and North Korea) and would eliminate tariffs and such that attempt to cartelize domestic industry and prevent foreign workers from being able to have work.

That isn't enough to reverse the effects of imperialism and re-develop Third World countries to bring them on equal footing with the First World countries.